The aftermath

[skyblue888]

Very well put John.

sky :)

[John317]

Would you like me to post what Andreason said about it? It's not too long and it is very interesting.

Yes, I sure would. I am always interestsed in what Andreason had to say.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The statements that we might want to double check are those that came from the appendix of B.C.7A since they come from the book Questions on Doctrine which was published shortly after the compromises. But the only way to be sure would be to see those statements in her handwriting.

Do you have suspicions about any particular quote?

I think the main problem with the EGW quotes in QOD was that the appendix omitted some important statements; not that words in the quotes were altered.

If you have information that shows otherwise, I'd very much like to see it.

[John317]

Based on Scripture and history, and (Shriek!!!!!) teachings of Desmond Ford, it is impossible for me to see Daniel 8 as referring to any man or entity other than Antiochus IV Epi.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Have you read Desmond Ford's commentary on the book of Daniel?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

I'm not sure I have read Ford's commentary.

But you said that Ford's teachings lead you to believe Daniel 8 refers only to Antiochus IV. How can that be if you have not read what Ford wrote about it?

What Ford wrote in his commentary on the identity of the little horn is critical to this issue. It is interesting that Ford changed his views only a couple of years after writing that very excellent commentary on Daniel. His arguments there that Antiochus IV could not be the little horn totally defeat his later arguments that Antiochus IV fulfilled the prophecies.

[John317]

Yay for Squanto!!

Yes, I agree completely. Without Squanto, I probably wouldn't exist since one of the people whose lives he helped save was Richard Warren, a direct descendant of my grandmother. I think I read that almost half the pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower died during the first winter. I'll have to double check to see the exact number who died at that time.

[JawgeFromJawja]

A mouth speaking great things suggests boasting of its power.But there is evidence in the book of Daniel that the little horn power was both a political and a religious power, so that its speaking great things is likely a reference to blasphemies and speaking against the truth found in God's word.

Are you speaking of Epiphanes' claim to be Zeus manifest? Otherwise, what evidence from Daniel that the little horn was both a political and a religious power?

jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

But you said that Ford's teachings lead you to believe Daniel 8 refers only to Antiochus IV. How can that be if you have not read what Ford wrote about it?

Did I say that in so many words? Probably not. For me, Desmond Ford's writings and teachings, as well as his relationship with the GC, on the whole, reveal how much of a divisive issue The Investigative Judgment is for Adventism.

My position that the little horn was Antiochus IV is based on study of The Bible and history.

CA has become a beloved and respected forum for me. With regrets, my forays into CA will be short and limited for the next two weeks. My publisher is putting a little pressure on me to finish a kiddie book I'm writing.

Jawge

[Gail]

CA has become a beloved and respected forum for me. With regrets, my forays into CA will be short and limited for the next two weeks. My publisher is putting a little pressure on me to finish a kiddie book I'm writing.

Jawge

All the best to you on the book! And do come as often as you are able. We enjoy the fellowship

If we do not hear much from you at all before Christmas, I would like to wish you and your family also a very happy holiday season and blessings for the New Year.

[JawgeFromJawja]

This identifying mark states that the little horn power of Daniel 7 and 8 will be a great persecuting power. It will destroy many of God's people.

While it is true that Antiochus IV persecuted the Jews of of that period, his persectution can't be said to have "worn out the saints." This language indicates that the work of the persecuting power not only results in the death of saints but that it continues killing them for a significant period of time.

Antiochus IV only ruled from 175 to 164 BC, that is, only about 11 years.

Don't tell any of your Jewish friends that the saints of Daniel are not the devout Jews of circa 150 BC and later.

Jawge

[John317]

My publisher is putting a little pressure on me to finish a kiddie book I'm writing.

And when you do finish it, let us know so we all can rush out and buy it.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Why?

Do you believe it is the Holy Spirit who is revealing to you that it is no more than water favor to study what Revelation teaches us?

The books of Daniel and Revelation are both prophecies of God dealing with many of the same issues, events, and powers.

Come on, J. I think you know me better than that. You know that I meant certain doctrines derived from Daniel and Revelation, not the books. Ultimately, the substance in those two books is far more wonderful than most extant doctrines today.

Jawge

[John317]

... You know that I meant certain doctrines derived from Daniel and Revelation, not the books. Ultimately, the substance in those two books is far more wonderful than most extant doctrines today.

I understood you to mean that it's an error to study Revelation and Daniel together in order to identify the little horn power.

I based that understanding on what you had said:

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

As far as relating this to either Revelation or Daniel, water vapor has more substance. With no apologies, that's the way Holy Spirit reveals it to me.

If I misunderstood this statement, please tell what you meant by it. I had observed that Revelation gives us additional information about the little horn power. I understood you to be denying that Revelation helps us identify the little horn. I believe both Daniel and Revelation are dealing with many of the same events and issues.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

As far as relating this to either Revelation or Daniel, water vapor has more substance. With no apologies, that's the way Holy Spirit reveals it to me.

Meaning: water vapor has more substance than relating this to either Revelation or to Daniel. In other words, whatever "this" was, "this" had no foundation In Scripture.

Ciao.

Happy Holidays to all, and from Dickens, "God bless us, everyone."

Jawge

[John317]

In other words, whatever "this" was, "this" had no foundation In Scripture.

I understand this is your viewpoint, but it's neccesary to show the evidence that it either has or does not have foundation in Scripture. Neither one of us can merely make a claim, but we need to show evidence and our reasoning for believing as we do on the identity of the little horn power.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

In other words, whatever "this" was, "this" had no foundation In Scripture.

I understand this is your viewpoint, but it's neccesary to show the evidence that it either has or does not have foundation in Scripture. Neither one of us can merely make a claim, but we need to show evidence and our reasoning for believing as we do on the identity of the little horn power.

Well put.

I have taken part in these discussions in the past on other forums. The arguments are basically the same. There is nothing new under the sun. The idea that Antiochus Epiphany is the "little horn" of Daniel 7 came from the Jesuits to counter the Reformation once it had identified the papacy as the antichrist.

sky

[John317]

The idea that Antiochus Epiphany is the "little horn" of Daniel 7 came from the Jesuits to counter the Reformation once it had identified the papacy as the antichrist.

This is true, and it can be shown historically to be true, but we still need to show the evidence that Antiochus IV is not the little horn.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The idea that Antiochus Epiphany is the "little horn" of Daniel 7 came from the Jesuits to counter the Reformation once it had identified the papacy as the antichrist.

This is true, and it can be shown historically to be true, but we still need to show the evidence that Antiochus IV is not the little horn.

Yes and you are doing an excellent job in doing that.

Thank God.

sky :)

[John317]

But you said that Ford's teachings lead you to believe Daniel 8 refers only to Antiochus IV. How can that be if you have not read what Ford wrote about it?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Did I say that in so many words? Probably not.

You said that based in part on the teaching of Desmond Ford, it's impossible for you to believe Daniel 8 is referring to anyone besides Antiochus IV. That led me to believe you've studied what Ford teaches on this topic.

You said the following:

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Based on Scripture and history, and (Shriek!!!!!) teachings of Desmond Ford, it is impossible for me to see Daniel 8 as referring to any man or entity other than Antiochus IV Epi.

Ford changed his view of the identity of the little horn shortly after he wrote his commentary on Daniel. But if you compare his reasons for believing the little horn is pagan and papal Rome with his reasons for believing it is Antiochus IV, you'll see that his arguments for pagan and papal Rome are much stronger than his current views. It is strange that in his book, Ford wrote that Antiochus IV could not possibly be the fulfillment of the prophecy, but then changed a short time later and said the little horn is indeed Antiochus IV. I can't see anything in his explanations that show why he changed. He certainly didn't show that his previous explanations were wrong.

In a little while, I will post both of his viewpoints of the little horn power. We can let Ford debate himself and see which argument is the strongest.

[skyblue888]

John, would you like me to post what Andreason said about it? It's not too long and it is very interesting.

sky

__________________

Yes, I sure would. I am always interestsed in what Andreason had to say.

John317

__________________

A SERIOUS SITUATION

This vault episode brings into focus a serious situation. It is not merely a matter of two men attempting to have insertions made in some of Mrs. White's books. A much more serious thing is that this act had the approval of the administration, who stated that the men had a "perfect right" to do what they did. This pronouncement opens the way for others to follow, and as the matter is kept secret, great abuse could readily result. Undoubtedly, if the matter is left to a vote of the people, there will be no permission for any to tamper, or attempt to tamper, with the writings of Ellen G. White.

The men who visited the vault May 1, as related, stated clearly that they had discovered that Mrs. White taught plainly "that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary." On the other hand, the Ministry of February, 1957, stated the very opposite. It said that the "sacrificial act on the cross is a complete, perfect, and final atonement for men's sins."

Questions on Doctrine attempts to reconcile these opposing views by stating that whether one "hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature--even in the writings of Ellen G. White--that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application", etc. Pages 354,355.

It is clear that if the atonement on the cross was final, there cannot be a later atonement also final. When we therefore for a hundred years have preached that the great day of atonement (final atonement) began in 1844, we were wrong. It ended 1800 years before.

The hundreds of books we have published; the more than a million copies of Bible Readings we have sold; the millions of hand bills we have distributed saying that it is "court week in Heaven", were all false doctrine, the Bible instruction we have given the children and the young ministry and which they have imbibed as Bible truth, is a fable. Uriah Smith, Loughborough, Andrews, Watson, Jones, Daniells, Branson, Johnson, Lacey, Haskell, Gilbert, and a host of others stand convicted of having taught false doctrine; and the whole denomination whose chief contribution to Christianity is the sanctuary doctrine and Christ's ministry, must now confess that we were all wrong, and that we have no message to the world for these last days.

In other words, we were a deceived and deceiving people. The fact that we may have been honest does not alter the fact that we have given a false message. Take away from us the sanctuary question, the investigative judgment, the message of the 2300 days, Christ's work in the most holy, and we have no right to exist as a denominated people, as God's messengers to a doomed world. If the Spirit of Prophecy has led us astray these many years, let us throw it away.

But no! Halt! God has not led us astray. We have not told cunningly devised fables. We have a message that will stand the test and confound the undermining theories that are finding their way in among us. It is not the people that have gone astray except as they have followed the leaders. It is time that there be a turn-about.

It is now more than four years ago that the apostasy began to be plainly evident. Since that time there has been a deliberate attempt to weaken the faith in the Spirit of Prophecy, as it is clear that as long as the people revere the gift given us, they cannot be led far astray. Of this we shall speak shortly.

The time for action has come. The time to open up the dark corners has arrived. There must no longer be any secret agreements, no compact with other denominations who hate the law and the Sabbath, who ridicule our most holy faith. We must no longer hobnob with enemies of the truth, no more promise that we will not proselytize. We must not tolerate leadership which condone tamperings with the writings entrusted to us, and stigmatizes as belonging to the lunatic fringe those who dare disagree with them. We must no longer remain silent. To thy tents, O Israel!"

Letters To The Churches by M.L. Andreason.

[John317]

Yes, I've read that before. I have his Letters to the Church and I completely agree with M.L. Andreason on what he says here.

[skyblue888]

Yes, I've read that before. I have his Letters to the Church and I completely agree with M.L. Andreason on what he says here.

Thank you John.

____________________

Andreason continues:

I have been uneasy since I first heard that our leaders were negotiating with the Evangelicals but had hoped that the blandishment of our church's being reckoned among the established churches as being one of them would not appeal to our men. We had heard too many sermons on the text,"The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations,(denominations)" to be deceived. (Numbers 23:9.)

As the negotiations were considered top secret it was some time before any definite news leaked out. When it did, it was disturbing. Washington furnished little news, and all others informed me they had nothing to say. It seemed apparent, however, our leaders were being influenced and steps were being taken that would be hard to retrace.

The first authentic news did not come from our leaders or through our journals but from an Evangelical publication dated September, 1956, which issued a special edition with an account of what had taken place. This account was so unbelievable that we hesitated to give it credence. We were sure that what it reported had never taken place and that our leaders would promptly issue a denial. We waited a year, we waited two. But until this date, no protest or denial has been issued. Reluctantly, we must, therefore, accept the account as true."

[John317]

Andreason continues:

....As the negotiations were considered top secret it was some time before any definite news leaked out. When it did, it was disturbing.

Yes, that whole situation was very sad and tragic for the SDA church. I'm opposed to any secret meetings of that kind.

Have you read Herbert Douglass' book, The Fork in the Road? It's quite good. Douglass was an observer of what was happening at the time and was personal friends of the men involved. He writes very objectively and honestly about the developments and their implications for the church.

[skyblue888]

I used to read Douglass years ago. Is this a fairly recent book? I don't remember if I read this one or not.

sky

[John317]

It was published fairly recently, about a year or so ago, maybe two years now. It is definitely worth getting.

[skyblue888]

I wonder if it can be read online.

sky

[John317]

No, I don't think it can be. His great book, Ellen G. White: Messenger of God, is online but the other book isn't yet available online.