The aftermath

[John317]

John317, lets stay with one of the key verses until one of us either gasps his last, screams "uncle", or says something unacceptable in polite society, whether it be Adventist, Baptist, or whatever.

OK, that's a deal. But I won't ever say anything unacceptable in polite society. I stopped doing that a while back. lol

But let me tell you a kind of funny story about that. A friend of mine and I went to some evangelistic meetings with my parents shortly after he and I were baptized and became members of the church. Only a few years before this, I had been in the army and learned how to use lots of foul language. So on this occasion when I was with my parents, I dropped my plate of food on the ground and said some very embarrassing words. I couldn't believe what came out of my mouth. I knew then that my "old man" wasn't quite dead but was just playing possim in his casket.

Quote:

This has been quite a workout for my e-Sword program, not to mention me. Ah ain't seen any this stuff since thuh early days o' muh first marriage, to some Adventist chick Ah foun' in Disgusta, Jawja. (Muh fuhst wife was quite supportive of me throughout medical school.)

Have you ever encountered or used e-Sword? It became indispensable for me in my Bible study years ago.

I've heard about e-Sword but have never used it. By the way I've heard others talk, it's apparent that I oughta, tho'.

Sounds like your first wife is no longer supportive of you. Hope your current wife is improved that way. :-)

[Gerr]

S: But He waves them back. Not yet; He cannot now receive the coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into the presence of His Father.

G: Are you saying no one could/would have been forgiven/justified/atoned for between His death on the Cross and His ascension? And the saints who were already in heaven like Elijah, Enoch, and Moses had not yet been atoned for?

[John317]

...Let's look at 2 verses, Daniel 8 and 9, and see what we can agree on as far as meaning.

And be merciful to an ole coot.

OK, this is will be from one ole coot to another. lol

Quote:

Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

In accordance with the interpretation given later in Chapter 8, this symbolizes Alexander's empire. At the height of his power, he tried to drown out an infection by drinking from the Herculian Cup several times. Without such shenanigans, he might have survived. Oh, well. he was probably feeling no pain. Four notable ones horns came up in the place of that busted big horn.

The goat represents the Greek Empire, and the great horn represents the first king, which was Alexander the Great. Then in Alexander's place, 4 kingdom arose, including the Seleucidae. (Antiochus IV was king during the middle part of the Seleucid kingdom.)

Is this agreeable to you?

[Gail]

Old coots are a lot better than some other things men can become!

Have at 'er!!

[John317]

Dan 8:9 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.

The subject of this verse is still the horns of the Macedonian Empire. A little horn came forth from one of the horns. That little horn waxed exceeding great toward the south, east, and the Pleasant Land, code for Judea, Israel, or "Palestine".

I agree that the Pleasant Land is code for Palestine.

But let me ask you: What does "out of one of them" refer to?

What is this verse saying the little horn comes out of? Is the antecedent "four notable ones" or "the four winds of heaven"?

In other words, does the little horn come out of the horns or out of the winds?

Linguistically, it looks like it must be saying the little horn comes out of one of the four winds of heaven.

In the Hebrew for Daniel 8: 8, 9, "horns" is feminine, and "winds" is either masculine or feminine. In the phrase "out of one of them," the pronoun "them" is masculine. This means that the antecedent noun for "them" cannot be "horns" but must be "winds."

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Let's compare a few other translations of verses 8 and 9:

....ASV:

Dan 8:8 And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven.

Dan 8:9 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 glorious land.

I can get no other reasonable sense from each and all of these translations but that the little horn arose from the thugs vying for Alexander's position, or at least for a piece of Alexander's conquests.

Notice that the little horn "waxed exceeding great". The previous powers were "great" and "very great." This power is said to be greater than the two previous powers, Medo-Persia and Greece.

Question: is this true of Antiochus IV Epiphanes?

[skyblue888]

S: But He waves them back. Not yet; He cannot now receive the coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into the presence of His Father.

G: Are you saying no one could/would have been forgiven/justified/atoned for between His death on the Cross and His ascension? And the saints who were already in heaven like Elijah, Enoch, and Moses had not yet been atoned for?

No Gerry, I am not and have not been saying anything of the sort. I have only been quoting.

sky

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

S: But He waves them back. Not yet; He cannot now receive the coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into the presence of His Father.

G: Are you saying no one could/would have been forgiven/justified/atoned for between His death on the Cross and His ascension? And the saints who were already in heaven like Elijah, Enoch, and Moses had not yet been atoned for?

No Gerry, I am not and have not been saying anything of the sort. I have only been quoting.

sky

G: You are not saying anything? Yet you have been saying atonement did not begin until Christ's sacrifice was accepted and inaugurated as our High Priest?

[phkrause]

Notice that the little horn "waxed exceeding great". The previous powers were "great" and "very great." This power is said to be greater than the two previous powers, Medo-Persia and Greece.

Question: is this true of Antiochus IV Epiphanes?

Here is a link to the online Jewish Bible with commentary by Rabbi Rashi. See what he says about verse's 8&9

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16491/showrashi/true

[John317]

.... Reading the entire chapter through reveals the subject clearly to refer to the sanctuary in Jerusalem, desecrated and literally made filthy by our good ole established guy, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

All I ask at this stage in the exchange is that you keep an open mind to the evidence. I will do the same. I read both sides of this issue, as I do on most issues.

Would you be interested in what Sir Isaac Newton said about the question of the identity of the little horn of Daniel 8, whether it was Antiochus IV or not?

As you may know, Newton was also a close student of the prophecies, besides being one of the most brilliant scientists and minds the world has ever seen. He gives about 5 different reasons Antiochus IV could not be the fulfillment of the prophecy. I could quote his entire comment and give the source for you to study for yourself if you'd like to. If you can show Isaac Newton's objections to be invalid, I will glady accept Antiochus IV as the little horn.

[John317]

...Reading the entire chapter through reveals the subject clearly to refer to the sanctuary in Jerusalem, desecrated and literally made filthy by our good ole established guy, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

But if Antiochus IV was the fulfillment of the prophecy, why does Jesus speak in Matt. 24: 14 of "the abomination of desolation" as being in the future?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

...Reading the entire chapter through reveals the subject clearly to refer to the sanctuary in Jerusalem, desecrated and literally made filthy by our good ole established guy, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

But if Antiochus IV was the fulfillment of the prophecy, why does Jesus say in Matt. 24: 14 speak of "the abomination of desolation" as being in the future?

G: Jawge, I'd like to see your response to this one.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Let's compare a few other translations of verses 8 and 9:

....ASV:

Dan 8:8 And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven.

Dan 8:9 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 glorious land.

I can get no other reasonable sense from each and all of these translations but that the little horn arose from the thugs vying for Alexander's position, or at least for a piece of Alexander's conquests.

Notice that the little horn "waxed exceeding great". The previous powers were "great" and "very great." This power is said to be greater than the two previous powers, Medo-Persia and Greece.

Question: is this true of Antiochus IV Epiphanes?

In a word, yes. Jewish writers describe Antiochus IV from their perspective, and compared to the other beasts or kingdoms, his effects on Jews of "The Beautiful Land" was far more. You can get a feeling for this in the 4 books of the Maccabees, especially 1 and 2.

Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

Dan 8:9 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.

Verse 8 is tells about four notable horns "coming up towards the four winds of heaven" toward the four winds. There is nothing in verse 8 about a little horn coming forth from one of the four directional winds taken by Alexanders generals. "Toward" is a preposition referring to the original four horns; "toward" tells of the four original horns various directions of spread. To be consistent, horns arise from horns, not from a direction. Only by torturing the English language can one get any sense of progeny by those four winds.

You can get a better sense of the meaning of chapter eight, verses 8 and 9 in The New English Bible.

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: John317

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

...Reading the entire chapter through reveals the subject clearly to refer to the sanctuary in Jerusalem, desecrated and literally made filthy by our good ole established guy, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

But if Antiochus IV was the fulfillment of the prophecy, why does Jesus say in Matt. 24: 14 speak of "the abomination of desolation" as being in the future?

G: Jawge, I'd like to see your response to this one.

Sorry for the delayed response, J. I lost my privileges to reply several days ago when my initial subscription lapsed. I had thought renewal was automatic. Thanks to Gail and Stan, the matter has been resolved.

Jesus was speaking of a future event, the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. He was comparing the devastation he was prophesying with the "abomination of desolation" wrought by Antiochus IV, spoken of in the Book of Daniel. He knew his audience well: his disciples were all Jews. They were quite familiar with the Book of Daniel, even though they were uncertain about the place of that book in the Jewish Canon. "Abomination of desolation" was an established phrase in Jewry by the time of Jesus. The saga of the Jews' overthrowing Antiochus' unspeakable acts of tyranny is a beautiful historical fact. Dear God, how I do love your chosen people, the Jews! In my personal experience, they have been princes and princesses.

Jawge

[Gerr]

Jawge, too many things in the description of the little horn "which grew exceedingly great" and who "shall even rise up against the Prince of princes" don't fit Antiochus who had been derogatorily called "Epimanes". How could Jesus be talking of a future fulfillment of the "abomination of desolation" if it had already been fulfilled? Antiochus did some unspeakable acts, yes, but nothing like the desolation that the Romans inflicted in 70 A.D., and his power was nothing compared to the "exceedingly great" power of Rome.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Gerry posted:

"Jawge, too many things in the description of the little horn "which grew exceedingly great" and who "shall even rise up against the Prince of princes" don't fit Antiochus who had been derogatorily called "Epimanes". How could Jesus be talking of a future fulfillment of the "abomination of desolation" if it had already been fulfilled? Antiochus did some unspeakable acts, yes, but nothing like the desolation that the Romans inflicted in 70 A.D., and his power was nothing compared to the "exceedingly great" power of Rome."

Gerry, of course Jesus was speaking of a future event, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But He was saying in effect that when you see a future event that reminds you of the "abomination of desolation" spoken of in Daniel, act quickly to save yourselves.

By the time of Jesus, "abomination of Desolation" had become a common Jewish expression.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Gerry

___________________________

This statement is not saying that this was the atonement itself. Otherwise, it would mean that the atonement was finished and completed on the cross which is what the evangelicals believe and teach.

The great work of redemption includes His spotless life and then His death upon the cross. But this is the condition for the atonement not the atonement itself. Christ did not make atonement until He ascended up on High.

sky

G: If the "great work of redemption HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED" when He died on the Cross, LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, HOW CAN REDEMPTION BE AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT WITHOUT SOME ATONEMENT TAKING PLACE?

Gerry, Gail, and others, my sincerest apologies. The gremlins of procedure took over, and denied me access to replies for two days. It was a classic example of Murphy's law. However, Gail and Steve straightened the tangles out.

Gerry, I am a simple man of uncomplicated thinking. Whenever doctrine or explanations become complicated, I immediately become uncomfortable.

The Gospel as understood by Jawge from Jawja:

1. I am a sinner. (Ain't no way I can deny that. I am the meanest, evilest, hardheadedest, most bullying, negative thinking, judgmental, profane, guy I know of. Only difference between me and Hitler is that he actually carried out his evil intentions.

2. God, being all loving, recognizes that this is the human condition, and offered a remedy for forgiveness of my sins and sinful nature. Call that forgiveness atonement, remission, substitutionary sacrifice, reconciliation, absolution, amnesty, remission, remittance, pardon,acquittal, exculpation, exoneration, vindication; condonation; exemption, immunity, impunity, indemnity; commutation, commuting, reprieve; clemency, leniency, mercy, or whatever, is all the same. God forgives me my sin and sinful nature because of Jesus' sacrificial death. It's so simple, and I've already made it too complex. Any doctrine that attempts to explain God's forgiveness or God's mercy complicates a beautifully simple process. Point 3 below is the essence of the Gospel.

3. I am a sinner. The sentence for being a sinner is death. Jesus' mortal death is a substitute for my eternal death. Being a Bible-believing Baptist, I (me, my spirit) am immortal.

4. Thank you, Jesus.

Thanks be to God,

Jawge from Jawja,

George Collier King

[JawgeFromJawja]

Guys, yer making a simple thing complicated. I can't speak for you, but for my hide-bound Baptist self I can speak.

First, Mrs. White, being extra-Scriptural, has no more meaning for me than a newspaper blurb. I have read her since age ten, and I find nothing of spiritual value in her writings that cannot be gleaned from a Spirit led reading of The Bible. I do find much in her writings that contradicts Holy Scripture. Now let me preemptively say that I will not initiate a discussion of Mrs. White's writings. If you direct a question to me for my thinking of her writing on a specific point, I will reply with a Scripturally supported, Baptist flavored, weirdo colored, heretic slanted, experience oriented answer. After all, we are all biased, just as we are all foul-mouthed, cheating,promise breaking, lying, stealing, hating, ongoing sinners.

Second, The Gospel is so simple. It is as simple and pure and clean as we are complicated, lying, dirty, nasty filthy sinners.

A) I am an ongoing sinner. As a Christian, I don't mean

to sin, but my sinful nature wins out.

The price for my sin is death.

C) Christ died in my place.

God offers His Son's death Gracefully in my place. Reams of paper have been sacrificed in argument against God's Grace, calling it "cheap grace". There is nothing cheap about Jesus' sacrificial death. And there is nothing harder to understand.

Now for a point by point comment on this posting:

Gerry, I am not saying anything. I am only quoting what Mrs. White said the Lord told her about Crozier's article.

You do not believe what the Lord told her?

Crozier did not say that no atonement took place before the cleansing of the sanctuary but that no atonement took place at the cross and he explains this by looking at the type and then the Lord said to Mrs. White that Crozier stated the truth. Read the six points he made again.

To me, Jawge, Scripture only. Jesus died for my sins. His sacrificial death was completed at Calvary.

"But again, they say that the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

G: I don't have the whole article, but your quote IN NO WAY implies to me that NO ATONEMENT took place at the Cross. What he doesn't believe in is the "atonement was made and finished on Calvary", meaning there was nothing more to be done. If you look at the typical services, as I said before, it appears to me that atonement was done in stages. I believe the same is true in the antityical realities. In the typical, a sinner brings the lamb at the entrance. He confesses his sins, presents the animal as his substitute, slays it, and is atoned for and forgiven. In the antitypical, the sinner repents, confesses his sins, accepts Christ as his Savior and is justified. That's just the beginning of the journey in our walk with God. Each day in the sanctification process, the life of the sinner becomes more and more AT-ONE with the character of the divine.

The Atonement done in stages? What could be more simple than the simple statement, "Jesus died for my sins."

S: 1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

G: Who made atonement for Abel? Enoch? Noah? For all the saints BEFORE the Levitical system was instituted? How about Melchizedek officiating at Calvary?

Sky: 2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

The atonement --- by whom was it made? This gets the atonement confused with the one doing the ceremony about the atonement. In the Old Covenant, God accepted the sacrifice of an animal as atonement for sin. The ceremony of the priest was not the atonement. God provided the atonement in accepting the sacrificial death of the animal. The priest had nothing to do with the atonement other than to help the sinner celebrate the process.

G: Atonement for the sin of Saul against the Gibeonites was made when 7 of his kin were hanged. (2 Sam 21). When Isaiah saw God's glory in vision He said, "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips..." An angel took coals from the altar and touched his lips and then said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”(Isa 6) " ‘Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it." Nu 35:33 NIV.

The slaying of a person or sacrificial animal is the same as shedding blood.

S: 3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

G: Are you saying that the pre-levitical saints did not receive atonement? Like Abel? Enoch? Noah? Remember that Enoch was translated before the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. So did Elijah, and a host of resurrected saints when Jesus died and went up with Him after the resurrection.

This is all so needlessly complicated. Old Covenant or New Covenant, we are redeemed, sanctified, through faith in the Grace of God.

S: 4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

Not so. The atonement was a gift of God, symbolized by the sacrifice, and celebrated in the Sanctuary. Jesus' sacrificial death occurred at Calvary.

G: No sanctuary for the saints I mentioned above either.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

Jesus didmake the atoning sacrifice while on earth.

You are confusing the role of the one making the sacrifice with the one officiating the atonement of the sacrifice.

Paul, in Hebrews, (? the author of Hebrews - to me that authorship hardly matters) is relating the sacrificial death of Jesus to Hebrews, to Jews, in term they can relate to.

G: See my comments about the pre-levitical saints above. Besides, there was also Melchizedek, whose priesthood was also "forever."

S: 6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier, Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, pages 40,41.

G: Are you saying there was no forgiveness between His death and ascension?

This, then is the "true light", which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval, and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint. Only as we downgrade Sister White can we reject this testimony of hers.

Whatever Sr. White said notwithstanding, Jesus died for our sins. It seems so simple to me. There is no need to get Jesus atoning death mixed up with Jewish ceremony and ritual. To do so has no scriptural basis.

In the light of the above, we have no choice but to aknowledge that what Crozier said is truth, light proceeding from the throne of God. sky

G: I believe that Crozier is correct in saying that atonement was not made and FINISHED at the Cross. That is far from saying that NO atonement took place at all. Our Lord is still making atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. And the END of the atonement process will NOT take place until the WHOLE universe is truly AT-ONE-MENT once again. This is very eloquently expressed in the last paragraph of the Great Controversy:

"The great controversy is ended. Sin and sinners are no more. The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love." {GC88 678.3}

Gerry

________________________

Crozier stated that there was no atonement made at the cross. Period. He explained this in six points and Mrs. White said that the Lord showed her that it was the true light.

If you choose not to believe this, fine. It's up to you Gerry.

It matters not what multiple authors said or say about salvation. Jesus died for our sins - it's no more simple and no more complicated than that.

One more time:

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made?

The atonement was made by Jesus, with his sacrificial death.

And, Jesus is my priest, my mediator, with God.

The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

The making of the atonement was Jesus, in his sacrificial death. The atonement was celebrated by a priest. Jesus Himself officiates for us, that is, He is the priest who celebrates His atoning death with us.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

No, the priest did not make the atonement. The animal was the sin offering made to God. God made the atonement. The priest officiated, helped celebrate, the atonement.

3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

You are here confusing Jesus' two offices, that of the sacrificial atonement for our sins, and that of being our high priest. His function as high priest was used in Hebrews as an analogy that Jews could relate to.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

The Sanctuary was the site of sacrifice in the Old Testament. And Calvary WAS the site of Jesus' sacrificial death.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

Just one question here - did Jesus die for our sins while on earth? Almost certainly you must answer yes. Jesus made that atoning sacrifice at the end of his life on earth. His acting as our priest is only a symbolic statement.

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier, Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, pages 40,41.

I disagree, but it does not matter to God whether you agree that the atoning death (sacrifice) was made when Jesus was on earth or not. All that matters for your salvation is your trust, your faith in the Grace of God to accept His atonement as provided by God.

[John317]

(quoting): Dan 8:9 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 glorious land.

I can get no other reasonable sense from each and all of these translations but that the little horn arose from the thugs vying for Alexander's position, or at least for a piece of Alexander's conquests.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Notice that the little horn "waxed exceeding great". The previous powers were "great" and "very great." This power is said to be greater than the two previous powers, Medo-Persia and Greece.

Question: is this true of Antiochus IV Epiphanes?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

In a word, yes. Jewish writers describe Antiochus IV from their perspective, and compared to the other beasts or kingdoms, his effects on Jews of "The Beautiful Land" was far more.

OK, you believe that Jewish writers are describing Antiochus IV, but that is the very point that needs to be shown to be true. But here you are assuming it to be true without showing from history that it is Antiochus IV who fulfilled the prophecy.

You say that Antiochus IV was greater than Medo-Persia and Greece in the sense that he affected the Jews far more than they were affected by the two previous kingdoms.

But how do you know that Daniel's description was from the viewpoint of the way those kingdoms affected Palestine?

When Daniel 7 speaks of various powers being "great," "exceedingly strong," and "dreadful," etc., are these terms primarily referring to the way those powers affected Palestine?

Did Greece affect Palestine more adversely than did Medo-Persia?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

You can get a feeling for this in the 4 books of the Maccabees, especially 1 and 2.

Yes, there's no question that Antiochus IV persectuted the Jews of that period and desecrated the sanctuary in Jerusalem for 3 years.

But it is also well known that the books of Maccabees are not always accurate, particularly 2 Maccabees. Even the CAtholic Church concedes this, as is evident in the introductions to these books in the Catholic Bibles.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

Dan 8:9 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.

Verse 8 is tells about four notable horns "coming up towards the four winds of heaven" toward the four winds. There is nothing in verse 8 about a little horn coming forth from one of the four directional winds taken by Alexanders generals. "Toward" is a preposition referring to the original four horns; "toward" tells of the four original horns various directions of spread.

Verses 8, 9 read, "... and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn..." (NASB)

It seems to me that in English, "one of the them" can be understood to refer either to "four horns" or "four winds."

In any case-- leaving aside for the time being the issue of whether the last phrase refers to horns or winds-- I take this to mean that in the place of Alexander the Great, there came up the four powers that divided up his empire. These powers were led by Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. Antiochus IV Epiphanes reigned over one of these four horns, that is, over the Seleucid dynasty of the Hellenistic kingdom that came to be known as Syria. His father was known as Antiochus III the Great, who eventually lost much of his territory-- all of Asia Minor-- to the Romans. My point here is that Antiochus IV was a part of the four horns. He was the eighth king (175-164 B.C.) in the Seleucid dynasty, or about in the middle of that power, or "horn." (The Seleucid dynasty ran from 312/311 to 65 B.C.) Notice that this means Antiochus IV did not rule at "the latter end" of the Seleucid kingdom, and he was an individual king ruling over one of the four horns.

I would like to know if you are in agreement with this.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

You can get a better sense of the meaning of chapter eight, verses 8 and 9 in The New English Bible.

The New English is good for reading, but since it's a dynamic translation and not literal, it can be misleading when you study it for a more precise meaning of the original language.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Hello, John317 and all interested. This post will be a diversion. John, you had earlier noted my comment about e-Sword. I can't say enough positive things about e-Sword as a program. The home site of the program was established some ten years ago by Rick Meyers, who at that time apparently worked full time as a computer programmer. He is a devout Christian whose interest in Bible study led to his development of a Bible search and study program to be distributed online. His commitment to that work rapidly came to demand his full time work.

Over the years, e-Sword has improved rapidly and constantly. It was a phenomenal program even when I first downloaded it shortly after the site was established.

First of all, it is a powerful search tool. Searches can be done on any and all of your downloaded Bibles simultaneously. Searches can also be done on any of the research treatises he makes available. These include Naves's Topical Bible, Darby's Synopsis, Matthew Henry's Commentary, John Wesley's Commentaries, other commentaries, and dictionaries of Greek and Hebrew. Writings of Josephus, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, Fox's Book of Martyrs, and a huge compendium of writings of the anti-Nicene Church Fathers. Commercial treatises are also available on the same program, but all of the above is available on the free download.

There is also an internal word processor, art work, maps and charts, and a prayer list. Bible passages can be highlighted or copied.

There is a lot more. For instance, single Bible verses in all of your downloaded Bibles can be simultaneously compared. Strong's Numbers dictionary for Greek and Hebrew is a separately downloaded freebie.

The basic program includes the KJV Bible, the search engine, and most of the study features. Most of the common Bible translations can be downloaded separately for free. A few of the more recent translations require a fee. My 32 e-Sword translations include The Septuagint, KJV with Apocrypha, Martin Luther's Translation (in German), Spanish translations, and Hebrew Old Testament (written in Hebrew with the Hebrew alphabet), The Geneva Bible (quaint!), The Bishops' Bible (also quaint!), and other Greek translations (my Adventist brother in law and I can laboriously pick through Greek, for entertainment. He's a Loma Linda Dental School graduate.)

e-Sword is super fast, loaded with features, and fun and joy to use. I have been known to give it as a Christmas gift, a graduation gift, and on other occasions. Rick Meyers allows unlimited copying if not for commercial purposes. For a donation of fifteen dollars or more, he will even send s DVD with the most current version, also to be copied freely and distributed at no charge.

I think anyone serious about Bible study can benefit from e-Sword. Take a look at http://www.e-sword.net/

Should you download and need any help, just e-Mail me through Club Adventist, or agking43@windstream.net.

Agape,

George

[John317]

Outstanding! Sounds like something I should definitely get. I have most of those sources as real books, but it would be fantastic to be able to do research in them on the computer. Thank you for that info.

[skyblue888]

brother JFJ, at the bottom of your post 414036 it says "edited by skyblue888",,, that could be confusing especially that you now have the same avatar as I have. (I thought it was impossible to use another user's avatar. First time I noticed that)

No offense, but generally speaking, a baptist would not know the first thing about the sanctuary teaching. The doctrine of the Investigative judgment prior to the cleansing of the sanctuary above, hence a final atonement before the close of probation, cannot be more biblically sound. It bears the signet of Heaven. It is based on clear passages of Scriptures both from the Old and the New Testaments.

You add: "First, Mrs. White, being extra-Scriptural, has no more meaning for me than a newspaper blurb. I have read her since age ten, and I find nothing of spiritual value in her writings that cannot be gleaned from a Spirit led reading of The Bible. I do find much in her writings that contradicts Holy."

This is your personal opinion to which you are perfectly entitled. My personal experience with her writings is of a totally different order. I hold her writings as filled with spiritual insights that only the Author of the Bible could reveal. Many years ago, before I began reading her writings, in my search for the truth, I had read, in one year, close to one hundred books from different evangelical authors. These books had helped me somewhat but it was not until shortly after that that I was introduced to her writings and that the Bible began to really mean anything to me. Her writings became the turning point in my spiritual quest for the truth and to this day they continue to have a powerful impact upon my Christian experience. For someone who has had the opportunity to study her writings and to have come to the conclusion that they mean nothing more than a "newspaper blurb," that says a whole lot. "Each one's work will become manifest." 1 Cor.2:13.

You affirm that the Gospel is simple. I agree. It is very simple, "just as simple as ABC," to borrow Mrs. White's own words, "But" she adds, "We don't understand it." When it is studied in the light of the sanctuary it becomes very clear what that simple Gospel is. "Thy way, O Lord, is in the sanctuary." Psalm 77:13.

What has Jesus been doing since He entered the holy place of the sanctuary above at His ascension? He has been pleading the merits of His shed blood on behalf of sinners. In other words he has been making atonement which simply means that whenever a sin is sincerely confessed and asked to be forgiven through the merits of Christ's shed blood, that sin is sent beforehand to judgment and "pardon" is written beside that sin or any other sin that has been confessed and sent beforehand to judgment. The sin is forgiven but not yet cancelled. It can only be cancelled at the time of the final atonement unless the investigative judgment reveals unconfessed sins that had been revealed or sins that had been confessed and sent beforehand to judgment but not overcome.

This is the teaching of the sanctuary made simple. But it is safe to say that not one in one hundred understands it for himself. Therefore, before the end, the Lord will make bare His holy arm, that is, He will roll up His sleeves, if you will, and through instruments of His own choosing, He will make this glorious Gospel plain to all but especially to those who are groping for Him that they might find Him. There are many today who are hungering and thirsting for this knowledge.

sky

[John317]

...First, Mrs. White, being extra-Scriptural, has no more meaning for me than a newspaper blurb. I have read her since age ten, and I find nothing of spiritual value in her writings that cannot be gleaned from a Spirit led reading of The Bible.

Given that you are not SDA and don't believe in her prophetic ministry, I wouldn't quote Ellen White to you as an authority, and in fact, unless you quote her first, I wouldn't even talk to you about her.

But now you mention having read her since you were ten, I would be interested in knowing the titles of her books that you've read and why you read them.

Of course the mere fact of having read something doesn't mean one has a good understanding of what it says. I'm sure you'd agree with that. I'm not saying you don't understand it-- I have no idea if you do or not-- but am merely making the observation that reading something and understanding it are two different things. Understanding has much to do with a reader's attitude and desire and how much work a person is willing to do put into it. The same basic principle applies to the Bible or to any other topic.

[JawgeFromJawja]

The New English is good for reading, but since it's a dynamic translation and not literal, it can be misleading when you study it for a more precise meaning of the original language.

J, I am obviously not a Biblical scholar, despite my extensive studying of the Bible. In the search for Truth, if data becomes so finely dissected that the resulting opinion does not matter to any average Christian, I am going to say, "so what? Does it really matter to YHVH whether our source of Scriptural inspiration is "dynamic" or "literal"? My immediate thought would be 'Of course not'! God wants us to understand meaning, not to dissect the various sources of understanding until our eyeball spin. Ask yourself, if you are searching for such a "precise" meaning, does that meaning really matter?

I search for the meaning of The Gospel. I believe I found it years and years ago. That meaning is simple:

1. Even as a Christian, I sin.

2. All my sins, past and ongoing, are forgiven by Christ's

sacrificial death on the cross at Calvary. I have nothing

to do with that forgiveness except to confess my ongoing

sin.

Now, John, don't come at me with that protest that this simple Gospel is a license to sin. It is not. St. Paul makes that quite clear. It is a license to grow spiritually under the direction Of The Holy Spirit.

Shalom, shalom,

JawgeFromJawja

[John317]

The New English is good for reading, but since it's a dynamic translation and not literal, it can be misleading when you study it for a more precise meaning of the original language.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

I am obviously not a Biblical scholar, despite my extensive studying of the Bible. In the search for Truth, if data becomes so finely dissected that the resulting opinion does not matter to any average Christian, I am going to say, "so what? Does it really matter to YHVH whether our source of Scriptural inspiration is "dynamic" or "literal"?

By "dynamic," I mean translations that are more like commentary than true translation. That can be good at times, but if you want to know what the original writer actually said, a "dynamic" translation can sometimes be a problem. It's the same with a paraphrase. For instance, it's a good thing to know that Daniel 8: 14 actually says "2300 evening [and]morning" and not "1150 days." But what if all I had was a dynamic translation such as New Century Version or the first edition of Today's English Version?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

My immediate thought would be 'Of course not'! God wants us to understand meaning, not to dissect the various sources of understanding until our eyeball spin.

I understand what you're saying, but if the translation is not accurate, but gives false information, the understanding you draw from the text may also be false.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Ask yourself, if you are searching for such a "precise" meaning, does that meaning really matter?

There are times in the study of the Scriptures, particularly prophecy, when it does matter. Many examples of this could be given. For instance, it makes a difference how one translates John 8: 58. Did Jesus say, "I am" or "I have been" or "I was"?

Another example is how John 1: 1 is translated-- whether "and the Word was a god" or "and God was the Word," or "and the Word was God."

[John317]

In Daniel 2, what kingdoms do you believe are represented by the statue?