Leaderboard

Could not find Goldstein's comments. As to the debate there are important parts being ignored by both groups. The biggest one is that they are using the same mindset for the interpretation as the dispensationalists are using for their theories. A very cut and dry God describing something happening far off in the future. However what we find in the Bible is always a local application, something going on at that time and how it either was literally fulfilled at that time or soon thereafter, but whether fulfilled or not was still the living word of God and the principles could be fulfilled over history, an analogy. As Daniel was sitting besides the waters of Babylon he was not interested in Antiochus, the Flavians (who sound amazingly like Daniel 7's little horn), nor the Pope, nor some long in the future antichrist. He was interested in if Deuteronomy 4 was going to be fulfilled and the exile be the last days and the Messiah come to bring them home. He was also interested in the house of David prophecy, when will God's people be out from under the rule of the four kings (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus) and back under the rule of a son of David. He saw that the conditions of Deuteronomy 4 were not being fulfilled (the Jews telling about their unfaithfulness and their God's faithfulness, and thus sharing the gospel with those in exile from other countries so they can bring it home to their country when the exile ended). The vision of Daniel 8 was given in the third year of Belshazzar. 2300 literal days later came the year that included Medio-Persia approaching Babylon, Belshazzar's feast, and the early days of the rule of Medio-Persia. Our first level of Bible Study (exegesis) needs to have this in mind. Then in the spirit of "Type/Antitype" or more accurately the principle of analogy we can start to look for fulfillments farther on. Daniel appears to have been a failed prophecy and was probably disregarded until Antiochus arose in which case they saw a close enough analogy to reopen the book of Daniel, and yes scribes made notes applying Daniel to Antiochus that eventually became part of the text of Daniel. But Antiochus ends up being a pretty weak analogy . We have a bit of a stronger analogy with Rome as in one of the arguments against Goldstein points out: " Well, Daniel 8:9 reads "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Antiochus did not wax exceedingly great, but his travels were towards the south and towards the west to the pleasant land. While the rise of Rome did have her wax exceedingly great and traveled towards the south and towards the east to come to the beautiful land. We need to restudy Daniel 8 in the context of the last 2300 days of Babylon. Then we can make proper analogies. However if we have the same mindset of the dispensationalists that has Daniel focused on things way in the future, then we can spend eternity arguing over which of those things he had in mind.

As a person who has formerly lived in the Rocky Mountain Conference, I have some knowledge of what the RMC congregations are doing. Currently church congregations in the area of the RMC, both SDA and non-SDA, are housing homeless people during the Winter that do not meet the requirements (in several areas) of the Red Cross as stated in the article that I cited. If homeless people can be housed under less strict conditions, why introduce stricter requirements at a time when the need for housing will be greater? I also find the requirement that people who are so served will not be allowed to eat anything that contains a pork product. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that we should so restrict others who may be in a critical situation.

the SDA church sounds to me that it would fall primarily into the Episcopal mode.... not surprising, as (if I'm not mistaken), the SDA church evolved out of the Methodist Episcopalian mindset of Ellen White and others..

Not really. The preterist/historisist view requires one to accept that the "day for a year" interpretation in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4: 5-6 for all apocalyptic prophecy. This is a false assumption. For example, if the "day for year" interpretation applies to the 1260 days, time, times and half a time, and 42 months, does it also apply to the 5th trumpet in Rev. 9 where the demons from the abyss are allowed to torture humans for 5 months? That's 150 years in "day for month" prophetic time. Does it pertain to the millennium? That's 360,000 years in "day for year" prophecy. If not, where are we advised in Revelation to change from "day for year" interpretation to "real-time" interpretation? I choose the "real time", futurist interpretation. It just makes more sense to me, given the current "signs of the times".

It obviously did not start in 1844, or none of us would be alive today. When the hour of His judgement arrives, there will be no doubt that the hour of His judgement has come. There are many explicit overt signs given in scripture that point to the imminent return of Jesus (e.g., a counterfeit peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Jews, a new temple for the antichrist to desecrate, a war that seems to end the existence of Israel, setting up of a one-world religion/government, unprecedented natural and human-caused catastrophes, mark of the beast). Most of those things have not yet happened. The Second Coming is at least a rolling 7 years away, in my opinion. But hey - that's just my opinion, not a salvational doctrine point.

Greetings Sauliga, I am not sure from your statement whether you have individually made up your mind on this subject. Many in the era of the formation of the SDAs partook in the spirit of the times, where they examined the traditional teachings of the RCC and others. For example SDAS do not believe in the immortality of the soul. For my part, and I am not a SDA, I believe that there is one God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. One of my brethren who has had extensive contact with SDAs, especially around Coorangbong, encountered some professing SDAs that did not accept the Trinity, especially older SDAs. For my part the Trinity seems impossible, not Scriptural and developed by many that were influenced by Greek philosophy. Kind regards Trevor