what is Desmond Ford's problem and Why is He Wrong?

[Adventist Dissident]

Daniel 7 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)



Daniel 7

1In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters.
2Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.
3And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
4The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
5And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
6After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
7After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
12As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
15I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.
16I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.
17These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.
18But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.
19Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
20And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
21I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
23Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
28Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Actual wording of the interlinear hebrew bible says. " verse 9 " Towards the four winds of the heavens And out of one of them came a horn a little horn and be came great very." The inclination is that the little horn came from the winds and not the other four horns because of gender assignments to the nouns at work here. I can give you the actual words and the concordance numbers if you want them.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Actual wording of the interlinear hebrew bible says. " verse 9 " Towards the four winds of the heavens And out of one of them came a horn a little horn and be came great very." The inclination is that the little horn came from the winds and not the other four horns because of gender assignments to the nouns at work here. I can give you the actual words and the concordance numbers if you want them.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jim I know greek and I don't by what you are saying.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Sure we can, let's examine why I say this.

#1. The book of Daniel flows from one prophecy to another i.e. from the time of Babylon to the time Christ comes back , is this agreed upon ? This section of Daniel is the second mention of the little horn power in the book of Daniel. In one the time for it too rule is given ( times , times and dividing of times 1260 days ) and in the second a time line for the cleansing of the sanctuary this power helped to defile is given. You can't interpret the meaning of one without considering the other and what the Bible says about it.

#2. If you take just this one section alone as you seem to want to insist on consider this. The little horn could not, nor did he cast down stars from heaven or the host of heaven as it says Dan 8:10. So this text is talking of another time and place/event that is completely separted from the little horn power yet its there in context. This to me tells me that this is multifacited in interpretive symbology.


Again, you insist on being short sighted. Please explain how this power could be seen to cast down the heavenly host then.



You need to buy you a hebrew and greek interlinear Bible. The original language says that this horn arose from one of the four winds of the earth and not from one of the four horns of greece.

If the day for a year principle is bogus then why does the messianic prophecy work out perfectly? Even in the adjusted views the messiah was baptized within 6 months of what the SDA's interpret Him to be. Also the time, times and dividing of times, the 42 months and the 1260 days is repeated seven times in some form or fashion in Daniel and Revelation. The time for the beast power to rule came to an end in 1798 right on time as the prophecy said. Do you have an alternative explanation for that?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

i never said the day for a year is bougs, but in daniel 9 you can also use it as refering to jubliee years. "weeks of years" is a reference to the Jubliee cycle and in the context it does work.

Day for a year may work in daniel 8 but there is no way to applie to any one other then the little horn. NO Way. That is the biggest problem you are going to have.

It could be rome it could be antiocus, but either way the 2300 days does not start in 457. bc


You have not proven that you ASSUME that. Daniel 9 never says that the 70 weeks & 2300 days are connected.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Its not greek, it's hebrew, and the gender considerations are the words for "them" which is 'hem" in hebrew is masculine. This indicates the antecedent for "them" is winds and not horns. Horns in hebrew is feminine. But on the other hand the same thing can be concluded in the Greek from the LXX. I think what we need to remember here is this little horn closely parallels the little horn of Dan 7 in as much as both of them follow the power of Greece. We know from history which power that waxed exceedingly strong after Greece and that was Rome. Daniel's vision covers this little horn power to the end of time when Jesus comes and destroys him out of hand.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

i never said the day for a year is bougs, but in daniel 9 you can also use it as refering to jubliee years. "weeks of years" is a reference to the Jubliee cycle and in the context it does work.

Day for a year may work in daniel 8 but there is no way to applie to any one other then the little horn. NO Way. That is the biggest problem you are going to have.

The wording for weeks of years comes from the word Shabua and is used to denote a period of seven years. So the day for a year can be used easily here. There is no contextual reason to apply a jubilee usage here and it doesn't even work then. No my friend the day for a year principle is more iron clad in the messianic prophecy than in the 2300 days for sure.

It could be rome it could be antiocus, but either way the 2300 days does not start in 457. bc

Your only other alternative is to take a literal interpretation which is less sensical than accepting the messianic time or decree in Ezra.

You have not proven that you ASSUME that. Daniel 9 never says that the 70 weeks & 2300 days are connected.

Not in exact words no, but if you take the over-all narrative and Daniels response to the 2300 days and not knowing what it meant it becomes pretty obvious that they are connected. The 2300 days and the messianic time elements go hand in hand because Gabriel was specifically sent to give Daniel knowledge and skill on the mareh or 2300 days. Then he gave the starting time for the messianic prophecy. It's all we have and it works fine. There is no other logical choice available that makes sense.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The wording for weeks of years comes from the word Shabua and is used to denote a period of seven years. So the day for a year can be used easily here. T

There is no contextual reason to apply a jubilee usage here and it doesn't even work then.

the context does favor a jubliee rendering. the 70 years in babylon were 1 year for every jubliee year that was missed so the land could rest. daniel refers to the passage in Jeramiah 70 years of rest = 490 years of activity.

Then it says you are going to get another 490 years. to fullfill the convenant. The context does,include and indeed favor a jubliee interpation.


No my friend the day for a year principle is more iron clad in the messianic prophecy than in the 2300 days for sure.

If by "iron clad" refering to the "titanic" then yes you are on a sinking ship.

Care to tell me what event
started the 1260? show me from history and the scripture.

show me in the text that the 2300 day starts in 457. b.c.

I'll give you this. it is possible that the 2300 days is refering to Rome. and it starts in 70 ad with the trampling of the temple.

Your only other alternative is to take a literal interpretation which is less sensical than accepting the messianic time or decree in Ezra.

not really you just don't like it.
the same critera you use to apply to Rome also apply to antiocus.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Jim

I want to say Thank-you for a good discussion. I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this, but you at least talk issues instead of people. This has been one of the better discussions I have had.

Thank-you

Ice Dragon

 

[Sophia7]

The point I was trying to make is..... Most people who believe the 2300 day understand why you would challange the assumption made by Adventist . They are "right" it does not make anysense to them, But when some one points out what the text says and then goes after the assumptions it makes more sense.

I am speeking from personal experiance. I wish someone would have presented it like that.

Point to what the text says then point to the flaws. then I have a basis of comparison. It makes the most sense to me. That's all I was saying

Well, we can go through some of these assumptions point by point if you want, with the relevant Bible passages. You have already been refuting some of these assumptions in your posts, though. Ford's list points out the same problems with the Adventist interpretations of these texts that you have been discovering recently.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Well, we can go through some of these assumptions point by point if you want, with the relevant Bible passages. You have already been refuting some of these assumptions in your posts, though. Ford's list points out the same problems with the Adventist interpretations of these texts that you have been discovering recently.

I understand the issues. you and Tall have done a great job of making it easier for me to understand the issues. I was talking about others who don't know the issues. who are reading. I was thinking how to simplify and make it easier to understand

 

[Sophia7]

I understand the issues. you and Tall have done a great job of making it easier for me to understand the issues. I was talking about others who don't know the issues. who are reading. I was thinking how to simplify and make it easier to understand

If anyone else wants to understand the issues better, I would suggest that they go to Tall's thread in Denomination-specific Theology:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5313191-adventist-pastor-reviews-his-faith-sanctuary.html

The discussion so far has addressed the sacrifices as described in the book of Leviticus and whether sins were transferred to the sanctuary by blood, the evidence from the book of Hebrews about whether Jesus entered the MHP at His ascension, and the question of whether Daniel 8:14 teaches an IJ that started in 1844. This last topic is just starting. If anyone would like to participate in the discussion, please read the whole thread first because he is trying to keep it focused and not get off on a bunch of peripheral subjects.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Jim

I want to say Thank-you for a good discussion. I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this, but you at least talk issues instead of people. This has been one of the better discussions I have had.

Thank-you

Ice Dragon

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this most important issue with you too my friend. Coming from a non-adventist background I can tell you that even though the IJ is foudational to adventism it is for the most part not a critical issue for salvation. Unless of course you take a very tangential position that the little horn is not papal rome. At that point you may then doubt the truth of the beast power and the mark of the beast eventually.

I honestly believe that in these last days our focus needs to stay on Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins. It's the gospel that will save not the IJ.

God Bless you brother
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this most important issue with you too my friend. Coming from a non-adventist background I can tell you that even though the IJ is foudational to adventism it is for the most part not a critical issue for salvation. Unless of course you take a very tangential position that the little horn is not papal rome. At that point you may then doubt the truth of the beast power and the mark of the beast eventually.

I honestly believe that in these last days our focus needs to stay on Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins. It's the gospel that will save not the IJ.

I already do douht the interpation of the mark of the beast. I don't think it is sunday. it never says that. That is something that Joseph Bates made up