Twilight II Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 They will often present it as "denial of the light". But what it really is is something much more subtle. When you reject someones position, some will subconsciously act as though you are rejecting them. Pride will rise up, mixed with insecurity and the flaming brand is applied to the person tied to the stake... Because their identity is tied to their beliefs, an attack on their beliefs is an attack on their identity. We don't like others to play with "our toys" in "our sandpit"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Common phrases we can use when doing this: "You are rejecting God. God agrees with me." "Ellen White agrees with me. Rejecting my understanding is rejecting her." "Ellen White agreed and sanctioned this person, rejecting them is rejecting her." "You cannot receive the straight testimony." Etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I have come across this myself. When I disagreed with various different brethren about the Nature of Christ, I was charged with the Alpha and Omega of apostasy as my very own possesion. When people resort to this type of argument, they are really looking for their own views to be accepted by all and anything short of that results in the Spanish Inquisition... Usually it is accompanied with a "fanatical" spirit that is incapable of listening to another and consider their arguments. The only thing that matters is being "right". It is of the flesh and of satan and Ellen White spoke out against this type of behaviour many times. It is usually "neo-conservatives" that adopt this type of denunciation I have noticed. Hmmmmm! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 They will often present it as "denial of the light". But what it really is is something much more subtle. When you reject someones position, some will subconsciously act as though you are rejecting them. Pride will rise up, mixed with insecurity and the flaming brand is applied to the person tied to the stake... Because their identity is tied to their beliefs, an attack on their beliefs is an attack on their identity. We don't like others to play with "our toys" in "our sandpit"... Hmmmm! You might have something there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Common phrases we can use when doing this: "You are rejecting God. God agrees with me." "Ellen White agrees with me. Rejecting my understanding is rejecting her." "Ellen White agreed and sanctioned this person, rejecting them is rejecting her." "You cannot receive the straight testimony." Etc... Haven't we all done that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 29, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 29, 2011 ...Daniels perspective is the one that should be adopted and the "daily" as Satans work, wouldn't have any meaning for him. Daniel would not have had that understanding and would not have written it that way... For Daniel, the ministration of the daily sacrifice and all it entailed was deeply culturally important to him. That was why he was so upset with the vision. OK, but remember that Daniel didn't understand the vision, and therefore we can't really interpret the vision according to what Daniel thought it meant. He didn't know what everything meant. In fact, Daniel was upset because he didn't understand it. He thought that the 2300 days was a reference to the earthly sanctuary, and of course that would have meant the earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem was going to be desolate for 2,300 years. Naturally Daniel was utterly horrified. That is why in the next chapter, we see Daniel studying Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70 years of exile and praying that God He will keep His promise to allow Israel to return to Jerusalem. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 29, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 29, 2011 The word sacrafice was not in the original text, it was added by men under the assumption that it was referring to sacrafice. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. What do you mean? There is no doubt that the word "sacrifice" does not occur in the original language. This is true of Daniel 8: 11, 12, & 13. What I'm saying is that the word "sacrifice" does not occur in any of the Hebrew manuscripts of those verses. "Sacrifice" is added by the translators. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 Clearly sacrafice was added by men and is NOT in the original text. I'm just surmising that perhaps "man" added it under the ASSUMPTION thats what Daniel was talking about. Leaving room for "maybe" that's what he was talking about, maybe not, for those who want to believe one way or the other. Which brings us full circle, if it wasn't a daily "sacrafice" (and I suspect it WASN'T) then what DOES daily mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Haven't we all done that! Yes. :-) But God can deliver us from it. We must seperate "ourselves" from the discussions and discuss the "issues" rather than "personalities. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II ...Daniels perspective is the one that should be adopted and the "daily" as Satans work, wouldn't have any meaning for him. Daniel would not have had that understanding and would not have written it that way... For Daniel, the ministration of the daily sacrifice and all it entailed was deeply culturally important to him. That was why he was so upset with the vision. OK, but remember that Daniel didn't understand the vision, and therefore we can't really interpret the vision according to what Daniel thought it meant. He didn't know what everything meant. In fact, Daniel was upset because he didn't understand it. He thought that the 2300 days was a reference to the earthly sanctuary, and of course that would have meant the earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem was going to be desolate for 2,300 years. Naturally Daniel was utterly horrified. That is why in the next chapter, we see Daniel studying Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70 years of exile and praying that God He will keep His promise to allow Israel to return to Jerusalem. Indeed, but there appears no equivocation about the "daily". Daniel understand what that was, it was not an issue for him. It is only "us" later that have argued about what it meant. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Originally Posted By: ClubV12 The word sacrafice was not in the original text, it was added by men under the assumption that it was referring to sacrafice. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. What do you mean? There is no doubt that the word "sacrifice" does not occur in the original language. This is true of Daniel 8: 11, 12, & 13. What I'm saying is that the word "sacrifice" does not occur in any of the Hebrew manuscripts of those verses. "Sacrifice" is added by the translators. The translators added it for a reason however... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 Haven't we all done that! Yes. :-) But God can deliver us from it. We must seperate "ourselves" from the discussions and discuss the "issues" rather than "personalities. :-) I agree. I am working on this very thing. Thank you Twilight II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 29, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 29, 2011 This is true of Daniel 8: 11, 12, & 13. What I'm saying is that the word "sacrifice" does not occur in any of the Hebrew manuscripts of those verses. "Sacrifice" is added by the translators. Originally Posted By: Twilight The translators added it for a reason however... Sure, they always have a reason for adding words; but 1) When the word "sacrifice" is added, it causes the sentence to mean something the original doesn't mean. It is not talking about taking away the daily sacrifices of animals, etc. 2) The fact that "sacrifice" is added by the translator gave Uriah Smith et al reason to believe it isn't referring to the sacrifices. And in that sense, Smith was right. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Originally Posted By: John3:17 This is true of Daniel 8: 11, 12, & 13. What I'm saying is that the word "sacrifice" does not occur in any of the Hebrew manuscripts of those verses. "Sacrifice" is added by the translators. Originally Posted By: Twilight The translators added it for a reason however... Sure, they always have a reason for adding words; but 1) When the word "sacrifice" is added, it causes the sentence to mean something the original doesn't mean. It is not talking about taking away the daily sacrifices of animals, etc. 2) The fact that "sacrifice" is added by the translator gave Uriah Smith et al reason to believe it isn't referring to the sacrifices. And in that sense, Smith was right. I do not follow that logic John317. What else would Daniel have been referring to, from his perspective? Surely it is the daily ministry in the sanctuary which revolved around the sacrifice. That was the "daily" occurance from his perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 My mentor has reason to believe the daily refers to a weekly event, Sunday worship. Perhaps exploration of the word "daily" in it's various meanings would be helpful. Like "daily" and "continual" could be interchangable. "Continual" opens up a whole new realm of possibilities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 My mentor has reason to believe the daily refers to a weekly event, Sunday worship. Perhaps exploration of the word "daily" in it's various meanings would be helpful. Like "daily" and "continual" could be interchangable. "Continual" opens up a whole new realm of possibilities! Totally out of the context of the verse. This is how we go off on tangents. Why would Daniel use the word "continual"? What would that mean to him? I see no reason whatsoever to think Daniel was worried about Sunday worship being taken away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 Daniel did not understand the vision, he simply wrote what he saw or was told. He was "dismissed" when asked the meaning of it all, seal up the book and go thy way. Of course he would have no concept of Sunday worship and/or many other aspects of the vision. Like John said, he was "sick" because he didn't understand it, not because he did! His mind must have been racing with possibilities of what it could mean, and he was unable to comprehend it. "daily" Original Word, dymt from an unused root meaning to stretch Tamiyd Definition Continuity, perpetuity, to stretch continually, continuously (as adverb) continuity (subst). One could reason, SOMETHING, that had always been, continually, was taken away and replaced with an abomination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 29, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 29, 2011 Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justified70X7 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Desmond Ford was the last chance the Church had to come full circle with the Gospel. Anyone who still holds to the untenable readings of the OT and NT by the SDA church hasn't looked at the evidence. The church is ripe for a new FORD movement. It's time to return to the Bible and the Bible only to prove our doctrines. When we stop using EGW to prop up incorrect exegesis, some of our teachings won't stand the test. 1844 is just the start... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 Sister White does not take a position on the daily, we are looking at the bible and the bible alone on this issue. Do you have something to add to the topic, from the bible and the bible alone, justified70X7? Perhaps a position statement on the subject, and please, no Sister White quotes, we already know what her position is. She doesn't have one, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 29, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 29, 2011 Welcome to the AdventistForum, justified70X7. I'm glad you've made the decision to join us. I don't agree with what you have said about Desmond Ford. He was not leading the SDA church in the way it should go. I used to admire him and agree with him, but that was back in the 1980s. I prefer Ford's book on Daniel to his document on the Investigative Judgment. I believe in the Investigative Judgment and in Ellen White as God's prophet. However, we want to keep the discussion on topic and not get sidetracked into other subjects. There are separate threads where those things can be discussed. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miz3 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Desmond Ford was the last chance the Church had to come full circle with the Gospel. Anyone who still holds to the untenable readings of the OT and NT by the SDA church hasn't looked at the evidence. The church is ripe for a new FORD movement. It's time to return to the Bible and the Bible only to prove our doctrines. When we stop using EGW to prop up incorrect exegesis, some of our teachings won't stand the test. 1844 is just the start... There is some truth here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Written in 1903, Letter 161, EGW "Let us read and study the twelfth chapter of Daniel. It is a warning we shall all need to understand before the end of time." Note this counsel was in 1903, well after 1844 and the end of the 2,300 year prophecy, which was already well understood and universally accepted. Was the letter a call to understand even more deeply the significance of the 2,300 year prophecy or a call to understand yet another aspect of Daniel 12? I will look for additional context on what this letter of 1903 may refer to. NOTE: If you have a problem with the day/year principle or the fundamental view of Seventh-day Adventists regarding the 2,300 year prophecy, start your own thread. This thread is complicated enough without having to deal with unbelievers on top of everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted August 30, 2011 Members Share Posted August 30, 2011 I regret to say that every time I see the topic subject, "SDA position on the Daily," I keep wondering where Lois Lane and Jimmy are...How would Clark Kent handle this topic? **ponders** Well, he *does* have a big "S" on the chest of his suit; I suppose it could be an abbreviation for "SDA"... Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. Just a guess, but doesn't that sound like it's talking to US? The very last generation(s) on earth? The very end of the close of time? Today, right now, at this time in history? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.