miz3 Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Our topic today will be the "interpretation portion" of Daniel chapter 7. This is where the angel tells Daniel the interpretation of what Daniel saw in his vision. Daniel chapter 7 is a continuation of visions. In this vision Daniel sees the same four(4) beasts that he has seen before in previous chapters of Daniel. These four Kingdoms are indeed Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. It is this fourth beast (Rome) that intrigues Daniel the most. So Daniel inquires about this fourth beast and what it means. The angel tells Daniel: “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.” Daniel 7:23-25. Rome indeed did devour more of earth’s territory than any of the other of named kingdoms. Rome indeed had 10 Emperors (look at the list of Roman Emperors there actually is more than 10) that ruled with autocratic power. One of these Emperors will take out three other kings(not Roman kings because the Roman Empire let other kings rule as proxies, like king Herod in Christ's day). Also under Rome Israel was subdued. I am not going into any more detail concerning history for this is not a lesson in history. The main fact is that God through this Angel messenger is telling Daniel what is to come for his people (the Children of Israel no one else!). “But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.” Daniel 7:26-27. Did you notice the words “the court will sit”? In other words the court will sit and pass judgment on the fourth beast and that “little horn”. It is not saying that judgment is made on anything but the fourth beast and that little horn. This is like in other Old Testament passages when God passed judgment on Moab, Assyria, Israel (the northern kingdom), etc. This judgment of God is not some pervasive all-consuming judgment on a worldwide basis. It does not say this is a "judgment of the God's people" which you assert is what the "Investigative Judgment" is all about. You are reading into the Bible stuff that is not in evidence. No “Investigative Judgment here! Also not here is even a hint or a scintilla of a hint that the "little horn" is the Roman Catholic Church. There is also no hint, or even a scintilla of a hint that the "little horn" is the same entity as Revelation's Babylon. Again you are making wild leaps in Biblical understanding. Without Ellen White you cannot from the Bible and the Bible only make the leaps you do in interpretation. More to come.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 8, 2011 Moderators Posted May 8, 2011 But then you knew this already. You just rely on Ellen White's statements that the Roman Catholic Church is the "antichrist". You could not possibly have gotten it from the Bible. Here are a bunch of Bible students who came to the conclusion that the papacy is the antichrist par excellance just by studying the Bible and history alone and did not get it from EGW. ANTI: to stand in place of a subtle imposter wolf in sheep's clothing not a violent opposer a gentle confuser The Roman Catholic church committed ADULTERY in her relationship with the HUSBANDMAN Christ Jesus. She became ANTIChrist when she stepped against Him. The Roman Catholic church has always 'claimed' to be walking "with" Christ. Just as Judas "kissed" Christ, so has Rome "kissed" His Truth. They "softly and gently" send their wolves forward wearing the clothing of a little lamb so as to gentle draw the masses away from Christ. They betray Christ as soft as the kiss of JUDAS! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arnulf Bishop of Orleans (Roman Catholic) "deplored the roman popes as "monsters of guilt" and declared in a council called by the King of France in 991ad that the pontiff, clad in purple and gold, was, "Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God" -Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian church, 8 vols., reprint of the 3d (1910)ed. (Grand Rapids Mich.: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.) Eberhard II, archbishop of Salzburg (Roman Catholic) "stated at a synod of bishops held at Regensburg in 1240 (some scholars say 1241) that the people of his day were "accustomed" to calling the pope antichrist." -LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, 4 vols. (Wash DC: Review and Herald publishing assc, 1950-1954) John Wycliffe "When the western church was divided for about 40 years between two rival popes, one in Rome and the other in Avigon, France, each pope called the other pope antichrist - and John Wycliffe is reputed to have regarded them as both being right: "two halves of Antichrist, making up the perfect Man of Sin between them." -Ibid Martin Luther (Lutheran) "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull [official decree]): "I despise and attack it, as impious, false... It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." --D'Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9. Cotton Mather (Congregational Theologian) "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113. John Wesley (Methodist) Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms by John Wesley, pg. 110. Thomas Cranmer (Anglican) "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7. Roger Williams (First Baptist Pastor in America) He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52. 1689 London Baptist Confession Chapter 26: Of the Church. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. ( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 ) John Knox (Scotch Presbyterian) Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from The Zurich Letters, pg. 199 by John Knox. John Calvin (Presbyterian) "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from Institutes by John Calvin. Before the Reformation, this is what most Preachers taught regarding Antichrist Date Name Reference Interpretation c. 1310 Dante Alighieri Rev. 17 Harlot Roman Church c. 1331 Michael of Cesena Rev. 17 Harlot Antichrist Roman Church Pope c. 1345 Johannes de Rupescissa Antichrist Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Harlot Pope Roman church Roman church c. 1350 Francesco Petrarch Rev. 17 Harlot Papal Court c. 1367 John Milicz Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Man of Sin Papacy Papacy Papacy c. 1379 John Wycliffe Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 17 Harlot Pope Papacy Popes Papacy Papacy c. 1388 Matthias of Janow Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Hierarchy Fallen Church Present Church Papacy Hierarchy Popes c. 1389 R. Wimbledon Abomination of Desolation Papacy c. 1390 John Purvey Antichrist Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 13 666 Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Pope Papacy Hierarchy Pope Papacy Papacy c. 1393 Walter Brute Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Papacy Bishop of Rome Rome Papacy c. 1412 John Huss Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Pope Papacy Rome Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy c. 1497 Girolamo Savonarola Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Pope Papacy Papacy Papacy During the Reformation... Date Name Reference Interpretation 1522 Martin Luther Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 2nd Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1543 Philipp Melanchthon Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy 1545 Andreas Osiander Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papal Traditions Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1554 Nicolaus von Amsdorf Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papal Traditions Papacy Papacy Papacy 1558 Johann Funck Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1560 Virgil Solis Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1570 Georg Nigrinus Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Pope, Turk Papacy Pagan Rome Papal Rome 1572 David Chytraeus Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Papacy Papacy Papacy Roman Empire Papacy 1530 Johann Oecolampadius Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1557 Heinrich Bullinger Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Pagan Rome Papal Rome Roman Church Papacy 1550 William Tyndale Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1545 George Joys Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1554 Nicholas Ridley Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Beast Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1553 Hugh Latimer Antichrist Papacy 1582 Thomas Cranmer Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1550 John Bale Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Beast Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Prelates Papacy Papacy Papacy 1562 John Jewel Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Beast Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Rome 1587 John Foxe Antichrist Man of Sin Bishop of Rome Bishop of Rome 1563 Anglican Formulas Antichrist Papacy 1547 John Knox Antichrist Little Horn Church of Rome Papacy 1593 John Napier Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Beast Pope Papacy Latin Empire Papacy Papacy Papacy Latin Empire 1614 Thomas Brightman Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Pope Papacy Papacy Early Papacy Later Papacy Papacy Papacy 1618 David Pareus Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Beast Pope & Turk Papacy Papacy Papacy Empire After the Reformation... Date Name Reference Interpretation 1600 James I of England Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1603 George Downham Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1604 George Pacard Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Rome Papacy Papacy Papacy 1607 Hugh Broughton Little Horn Antiochus 1612 Andress Holwig Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Papacy is also Antichrist Papacy 1618 Matthias Hoe Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy is Antichrist Imperial Rome Papal Rome Papacy 1618 Daniel Cramer Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Pagan Rome Papal Rome Papacy 1631 Joseph Mede Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Civil Rome Papacy Papacy Papacy 1643 Johannes Gerhard Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Civil Rome Papal Rome Papacy Papacy 1654 Thomas Goodwin Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Papacy Papacy Protestant Image 1655 John Tillinghast Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1664 Henry More Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1670 William Sherwin Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1681 Johann H. Alsted Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Papacy is Antichrist, Little Horn Imperial Rome Papal Rome Papacy 1684 Thomas Beverley Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1685 Jacques Phillipot Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy also Antichrist Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1687 Pierre Jurieu Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Eccl. Emp. Papacy 1689 Drue Cressener Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Hierarchy Papacy 1699 "Mysteries ... Finished" Antichrist Papacy 1700 William Lowth Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1701 Johannes Cocceius Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Hierarchy Papacy 1701 Robert Fleming, Jr. Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1702 Georg her. Giblehr Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1703 Daniel Whitby Man of Sin Rev. 17 Babylon Roman Church is Antichrist Papacy 1706 William Whiston Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1712 Heinrich Horch Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Papacy Papacy Papacy 1720 Charles Daubux Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Civil Rome Eccl Rome Papacy Papacy 1727 Sir Isaac Newton Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy W. Rome Greek Empire Papacy Latin Kingdom 1729 Th. Crinsox de Bionens Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Roman Empire Popes Papacy 1735 Thomas Pyle Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy also Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1740 Johann Aal. Bengel Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Jesuitism Papacy Papacy 1743 Berienberg Bible Antichrist Papacy 1745 John Willison Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1754 Thomas Newton Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy W. Rome Papacy Papacy Roman Clergy Papacy 1758 John Gill Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Papacy Papacy also AntichristPapacy 1764 John Wesley Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy also Antichrist Papacy East Empire Papal Rome Papacy 1768 Johann Ph. Petri Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Papacy Turks Papacy Papacy Papacy 1787 R. M. Antichrist Papacy 1787 Hans Wood Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy East Empire Papacy Papacy 1793 James Becheno Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Louis XIV Papacy 1794 Joseph Priestly Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1795 George Bell Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1796 Christian G. Thube Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1797 David Simpson Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy 1798 Edward King Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1798 Joseph Galloway Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy France Papacy 1798 Richard Valpy Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy 1800 Jean G. de la Flechers Antichrist Little Horn Papacy Papacy For you to persist in making the charge that SDAs derive this line of interpretation from EGW after so much evidence to the contrary makes such a statement totally ridiculous.
miz3 Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Study number two on the term "little horn". There is a "little horn" also found in Daniel 8:9. Let us look at how the angel interprets the vision and also the "little horn". "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 21And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. 23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 25And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. 26And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." Daniel 8:20-26. The ram with two horns is Media-Persia. The goat with the One Horn is Greece. The one horn is Alexander the Great. The four horns that spring up after Alexander are the rulers who split the Grecian Empire after Alexander's death. Then it states in verse 23 that in the later time of this four person rule of the Grecian Empire a new king of "fierce countenance" will come to power. This new ruler will "magnify himself" and stand up against God but this same king will be broken. 1. This little horn occurs during the latter part of the Grecian Kingdom. The Roman Empire is not even on the screen. 2. It cannot be the Roman Catholic Church. 3. This little horn also cannot be the entity stated in Revelation as Babylon. I guess I do something about the antichrist and the little horn. I used the Bible and the Bible only and nary a reference in regard to any of your assertions that the "little horn" and the "antichrist" are the Roman Catholic Church. The only way you can indict the Roman Catholic Church as being the "antichrist", the "little horn", and/or "Babylon" is if you get it from only Ellen White as the ground basis for your Doctrine.
miz3 Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Quote: Here are a bunch of Bible students who came to the conclusion that the papacy is the antichrist par excellance just by studying the Bible and history alone and did not get it from EGW. Gerry, Gerry, you keep throwing these witnesses that are anti-Catholic in their bias already. Of course they are going to interpret the way you would like. These same ones also did not have the benefit of history that we have today. How many times do you want to go over this same ground which I have already answered you as to why they interpreted the way they did? Are you stuck on hold?
Moderators Gerr Posted May 8, 2011 Moderators Posted May 8, 2011 Why/how did all these Bible students come to the conclusion that the papacy fit the description the best? Let's start with the llth horn in Dan 7 which is the same as the "little horn" in its papal phase in Dan 8. Of this power, the prophet had this to say: ESV | Da 7:24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. 25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. 26 But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. ESV | Da 8:9 Out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. 10 It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them. 11 It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. 12 And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper Salient points about this horn power: 1. It will arise AFTER the 4th kingdom (Rome) has split into 10 kingdoms. 2. It will subdue 3 kingdoms 3. It will be DIFFERENT from the other 10 4. It will speak words against the Most High 5. Wear out the saints of the Most High 6. Intends to change "times & the law" 7. The saints are given into his hand "for a time, times, and half a time". 8. It will last until the end. More later.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 8, 2011 Moderators Posted May 8, 2011 miz3: Gerry, Gerry, you keep throwing these witnesses that are anti-Catholic in their bias already. The pre-reformation interpreters of prophecy WERE CATHOLICS and even PRIESTS!!! So did most of the reformation scholars. Besides, the main point was/is to show you that scholars studying the Bible ALONE, came to their conclusions WITHOUT EGW! So HOW can you make such a ridiculous claim that SDAs got their idea from EGW who came centuries later? Did they just pull the RCC name out of a hat and say this is the antichrist? Of course, the Apostle John did say that the spirit of antichrist was already at work in his day, and that many antichrists have already come and gone from this world. But I will show you later why the papal system fits the bill more than any of the others if John3:17 doesn't do it first.
miz3 Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 HOW can you make such a ridiculous claim that SDAs got their idea from EGW who came centuries later? The idea may not be original with our pioneers including Ellen White. I never alleged that SDA were being original or were even being near the first. SDA do not hold their Doctrine based on those listed by you. SDA certainly knew intimately about all those on your cited list and agreed with them theologically. However, those on your list are not "inspired authority". Ellen White is in SDA view "the inspired authority". Thus if Ellen White says it then it must be Scripture and it must be a Doctrine. As I have shown you already, the Bible and the Bible only, in Daniel chapter 7 and Daniel chapter 8 does not demonstrate that the "little horn" is the Roman Church. In fact as demonstrated these "little horns" are actually not even the same little horn. One occurs during the Roman Empire and the other occurs during the Grecian Empire. Both "little horns" occurred long before the Roman Catholic Church! Thus, your "previous to Ellen White scholars" were wrong from a a Biblical point of view as well as from a historical point of view. With the "antichrists" again no Romans Catholic Church.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 9, 2011 Moderators Posted May 9, 2011 HOW can you make such a ridiculous claim that SDAs got their idea from EGW who came centuries later? miz3: The idea may not be original with our pioneers including Ellen White. I never alleged that SDA were being original or were even being near the first.[color:blue] Gerry: Stop pretending you're an Adventist and declare what you really are! miz3: However, those on your list are not "inspired authority". Ellen White is in SDA view "the inspired authority". Thus if Ellen White says it then it must be Scripture and it must be a Doctrine. Gerry: Patently false. If you are really SDA, you would know that we follow the historical method of prophetic interpretation. Unless you are just a new Adventist, you would know that SDA doctrine was not established on the say so of EGW. The early pioneers earnestly studied the Bible as a group, even far into the night. They also had Bible conferences. Her prophetic ministry confirmed what was established by earnest Bible study. miz3: As I have shown you already, the Bible and the Bible only, in Daniel chapter 7 and Daniel chapter 8 does not demonstrate that the "little horn" is the Roman Church. Gerry: I have seen your modus operandi in other threads, that since the words: "the Roman Catholic Church = the antichrist", and "the little horn = the Roman Catholic Church", are not expressly found in Scripture, ergo the RCC is not the antichrist nor the little horn! just as you deny the investigative judgment just because the phrase is not expressly found in Scripture. So HOW did PRIESTS like Arnulf, Eberhard, Luther, Calvin, and others, who were jealous for their beloved RC church come to their conclusions?
miz3 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Gerry Cabalo, You cite these numerous ones from the distant past some of them are Roman Catholic scholars. I am curious, why do except their "scholarship" on the "little horn" and the "antichrist" but you don't accept their Biblical scholarship on the "state of the dead", their Biblical scholarship on "Sunday Worship" (mainly the Protestant scholars), their scholarship on "baptism", their scholarship on the "Lord's Supper" (communion), etc. You seem to pick and chose depending what you agree with and disagree with. In other words "these people you cite" are "great Biblical scholars" if they agree with you and Ellen White but they are "NOT great Biblical scholars" when they don't agree with you. I think your witnesses have just been impeached. That means they are not credible witnesses because you are cherry picking. Either they are credible Biblical witnesses or they are not credible Biblical witnesses. It cannot depend on agreement with you and you alone (and/or Ellen White) as to whether they are credible witnesses or not. When you use them as an Authority you must use them as a total Authority or not use them at all. The Bible is a total Authority. To many Ellen White is a total Authority. You can't say they have Authority then undercut your Authority on other points you don't like. Either your Authority is an Authority or it isn't. The ancient ones you cite are not Authorities. They had opinions (which happen to be wrong) about many things including the "antichrist" and the "little horn" but that does not make them right, unless you are willing to go down the whole road with them as "inspired Bible scholars" on everything, not just on the "antichrist" and the "little horn". Thus, your citations are mute!
miz3 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Gerry: Patently false. If you are really SDA, you would know that we follow the historical method of prophetic interpretation. Unless you are just a new Adventist, you would know that SDA doctrine was not established on the say so of EGW. The early pioneers earnestly studied the Bible as a group, even far into the night. They also had Bible conferences. Her prophetic ministry confirmed what was established by earnest Bible study.
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted May 9, 2011 Members Posted May 9, 2011 miz3, are you a Seventh day Adventist? Or are you a former member? If you're so worried about the use of EGW writings as "inspired" or not, why don't you take it up with the GC? Or the Ellen White Estate? Take it up with Dr. Cindy Tutsch. Take it up with someone who can rightly explain things to you. Or if you're not interested in understanding EGW as a person who was not perfect, why are you writing reams and reams of cyber bullying and slandering members here who disagree with you? What's your real agenda? Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
miz3 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 rudywoofs, It appears that other SDA buddies of yours disagree with you. 1. You said that many SDA don't believe everything Ellen White said and wrote was "inspired". 2. Apparently, at least John317, ClubV12, and GerryCabalo believe that every communication from Ellen White was and is "inspired". Interesting isn't it? If you people would just tell the Truth and not dissemble in regard to the Word of God (Bible) and not dissemble and play games concerning your Doctrines and your Prophet (Ellen White) you would have less trouble. Like the Jews of old you defend the SDA Church just as they defended the Temple and their Pharisaical laws. This is why Jesus Christ was always in so much trouble. I am not the enemy! Although you treat me like the enemy because you have no truthful answers to your inconsistent positions.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 9, 2011 Moderators Posted May 9, 2011 miz3: In fact as demonstrated these "little horns" are actually not even the same little horn. One occurs during the Roman Empire and the other occurs during the Grecian Empire. Both "little horns" occurred long before the Roman Catholic Church! Thus, your "previous to Ellen White scholars" were wrong from a a Biblical point of view as well as from a historical point of view. Gerry: And a long line of distinguished scholars, and along comes miz3 who on his say so were in error just because the phrases - "the RCC = the antichrist" & "the little horn = the RCC" are not expressly found in Scripture? And that on miz3's say so, we are to believe what God told him to be the truth? Yeah, right!!! How can I find credibility in someone who can't even reason out that NO credible judge would render a verdict without investigating the facts? Here are the reasons why SDAs believe what their prophetic expositor predecessors believed: 1. Dan 2 clearly gives a general outline of world hx as seen in Nebuchadnezzar's metallic image dream, i.e. 4 world kingdoms - Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome -> 10 kingdoms -> a stone (God's kingdom). 2. Dan 7 - 4 unclean beasts, the 3rd having 4 heads & 4 wings, the 4th having 10 horns, and then with another horn that came up and uprooting 3 of the 10 horns in the process. This horn makes war & wears out the saints, changes times & the law, speaks words against the Most High. The 4 beasts are interpreted in 7:17 as 4 kingdoms, out of which 10 kingdoms will arise as well as and then that horn "that had eyes & a mouth that spoke great things." The power of this last horn is terminated by the JUDGMENT, and the verdict is given in favor of the saints & the saints inherit an everlasting kingdom. 3. The successive kingdoms in these two chapters has to be the same, the difference is that in going over the same ground in chapter 7, there is more detail given, namely the horn that came up last. 4. In Dan 8, there's a ram with 2 horns, one higher than the other; a male goat with a prominent horn and tramples the ram. The male goat's horn breaks & is replaced by 4 smaller horns. From one of the 4 winds a little horn arises. This little horn "grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. It grew great, even to the host of heaven..." tramples some of the stars, takes away the regular burnt offering, etc, throws truth to the ground. This power will do this for 2300 "evenings & mornings". 5. Again, this vision parallels the others but now with even more information. Since Babylon was about to pass from the scene, this vision starts with the ram with two horns, which is Medo-Persia. The male goat with the prominent horn = Greece & Alexander the great. The horn breaks (Alexander dies), and in its place come 4 smaller horns (his 4 generals divided his kingdom). miz3, you were doing well in your interpretation up to this point. Then you went off on a tangent with the little horn that arose from one of the 4 winds. Since Dan 2 & 7 have already established the 4 and the 10 kingdoms, there can be no question in my mind that the power that follows Greece in chapter 8, i.e. the little horn, is Rome! Rome in its two phases: Rome in its pagan phase destroys the earthly temple with its sacrifices, even rises "up against the Prince of princes", and in its papal phase, does the same with Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary by instituting the mass in its place. more to come.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 9, 2011 Moderators Posted May 9, 2011 rudywoofs, It appears that other SDA buddies of yours disagree with you. 1. You said that many SDA don't believe everything Ellen White said and wrote was "inspired". 2. Apparently, at least John317, ClubV12, and GerryCabalo believe that every communication from Ellen White was and is "inspired". Would you please show where I ever said that every communication EGW ever made was inspired by God? If EGW wrote a letter to the couple that was taking care of their child they left behind when they went to Michigan, would that be inspired? Would her grocery list be inspired? Totally absurd!!!
Moderators Gerr Posted May 9, 2011 Moderators Posted May 9, 2011 rudywoofs, It appears that other SDA buddies of yours disagree with you. 1. You said that many SDA don't believe everything Ellen White said and wrote was "inspired". 2. Apparently, at least John317, ClubV12, and GerryCabalo believe that every communication from Ellen White was and is "inspired". Interesting isn't it? If you people would just tell the Truth and not dissemble in regard to the Word of God (Bible) and not dissemble and play games concerning your Doctrines and your Prophet (Ellen White) you would have less trouble. Like the Jews of old you defend the SDA Church just as they defended the Temple and their Pharisaical laws. This is why Jesus Christ was always in so much trouble. I am not the enemy! Although you treat me like the enemy because you have no truthful answers to your inconsistent positions. Aha! You're true colors are showing. You are no SDA. dissemble /dɪˈsɛmb(ə)l/ ■ verb hide or disguise one’s true motives or feelings. – DERIVATIVES dissemblance noun dissembler noun – ORIGIN Middle English: alteration (suggested by SEMBLANCE) of obsolete dissimule, via Old French from Latin dissimulare ‘disguise, conceal’. Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 9, 2011 Moderators Posted May 9, 2011 Is this what you want to be associated with, Gerry. Or would you like to be honest and still be SDA? Until you can show where we are wrong, and show us the church that "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus," I'll stay where I am, thank you. I don't want to be associated with anyone who teaches such obvious falsehood as people not having freedom of choice, or one who worships a God who passes judgment on people who have no freedom of choice or even bothering to show why people are saved or lost.
Stan Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 I reject it BECAUSE I do not want to say .... I will let these people explain to you what I believe... Just sayin' If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
Moderators Gerr Posted May 9, 2011 Moderators Posted May 9, 2011 Gerry Cabalo, You cite these numerous ones from the distant past some of them are Roman Catholic scholars. I am curious, why do except their "scholarship" on the "little horn" and the "antichrist" but you don't accept their Biblical scholarship on the "state of the dead", their Biblical scholarship on "Sunday Worship" (mainly the Protestant scholars), their scholarship on "baptism", their scholarship on the "Lord's Supper" (communion), etc. Because their antichrist & little horn interpretation is consistent with the Bible, whereas their "state of the dead" & "Sunday worship" doctrines are not consistent with what the Bible says. [color:blue] Quote: You seem to pick and chose depending what you agree with and disagree with. In other words "these people you cite" are "great Biblical scholars" if they agree with you and Ellen White but they are "NOT great Biblical scholars" when they don't agree with you. [color:blue] Those phrases you put in quotation mark - "these people you cite" & "NOT great Biblical scholars", do I understand them to mean that you are attributing them to me? Would you please show where I have used them". Quote: I think your witnesses have just been impeached. That means they are not credible witnesses because you are cherry picking. Either they are credible Biblical witnesses or they are not credible Biblical witnesses. It cannot depend on agreement with you and you alone (and/or Ellen White) as to whether they are credible witnesses or not. When you use them as an Authority you must use them as a total Authority or not use them at all. False conclusion! Truth is progressive. When the apostate church cast truth to the ground, it took truth-seekers a long time to find those truths again. Wycliffe & Huss went only so far. So did Luther, the Wesleys & others. The tragedy of these reformers' works was that their followers would go no farther than their founders. That's why we have so many different churches. Each founder would discover some truth but would go no further or incorporate the truths that others have discovered. I believe that God raised the SDA Church to complete that reformation. For the doctrine of justification by faith, we can thank the Lutherans. For the doctrine of holy living, we can thank the Methodists. For the Sabbath, we can thank the 7th-day Baptists, and so on. The unique doctrinal truths that SDAs have rediscovered is probably Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, man's non-immortality, and our health message. Quote: The Bible is a total Authority. To many Ellen White is a total Authority. You can't say they have Authority then undercut your Authority on other points you don't like. Either your Authority is an Authority or it isn't. You can find the official SDA position on authority in our official publication, not what some individual member tells you. The Bible and the Bible ALONE IS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY when it comes to doctrine. Everything EGW wrote is subject to that authority and NOT equal to it. Quote: The ancient ones you cite are not Authorities. And neither are you! Quote: They had opinions (which happen to be wrong) about many things including the "antichrist" and the "little horn" but that does not make them right, unless you are willing to go down the whole road with them as "inspired Bible scholars" on everything, not just on the "antichrist" and the "little horn". Thus, your citations are mute! Those were cited not so much as authorities, but to show how ridiculously groundless is your charge that SDAs base their view of the little horn and the antichrist on Ellen White who came centuries after them.
miz3 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 2. Dan 7 - 4 unclean beasts, the 3rd having 4 heads & 4 wings, the 4th having 10 horns, and then with another horn that came up and uprooting 3 of the 10 horns in the process. This horn makes war & wears out the saints, changes times & the law, speaks words against the Most High. The 4 beasts are interpreted in 7:17 as 4 kingdoms, out of which 10 kingdoms will arise as well as and then that horn "that had eyes & a mouth that spoke great things." The power of this last horn is terminated by the JUDGMENT, and the verdict is given in favor of the saints & the saints inherit an everlasting kingdom. Gerry you do not read carefully which leads you to make misstatements in your analysis. Look at your words above you state that "10 kingdoms" come out of the "4 kingdoms". The Bible does not say that. Here is what it says, "23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time." Daniel 7:23-25. There are not 10 new kingdoms. It clearly states that these are kings who come from ONE KINGDOM (the fourth beast which is Rome). In addition the Bible does not break the Rome Kingdom into two parts. When you add "pagan rome" and "papal rome" you are adding to the Word of God things that are not stated in anyway shape or form in the text. Third the "little horn" comes from the 10 kings which is still the Fourth Beast. (that is Rome period, not Rome etc.). The "little horn" is not a whole new system that replaces the Fourth Beast. The Bible clearly states that it is not a new system. This is what I am saying, Gerry, your interpretations and your additions to the Word of God do not come from the Scripture itself. They come from some outside "source" that makes you think the Word of God says what it does not actually say. Thus, you tell the story differently than the Bible does. I just demonstrated your doing this in comparing your statements with what the text actually says. That's called undeniable Proof!
Moderators Gerr Posted May 9, 2011 Moderators Posted May 9, 2011 I don't see anything in this text that tells us the way to know the Truth is to use the "historic method". It says that only way to know the Truth is for the Holy Spirit to teach you! Sounds to me like you are using the wrong method, Gerry! I wonder what others think of someone who thinks that the Holy Spirit speaks only to him?
miz3 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 The tragedy of these reformers' works was that their followers would go no farther than their founders. That's why we have so many different churches. Each founder would discover some truth but would go no further or incorporate the truths that others have discovered. Looks to me like you and the SDA Church are continuing to copy their fatal mistakes. You reject everything that is not in your current line because you believe you have finished the work and their is no more "Light" to be learned. If that statement were false you would not reject the clear Biblical statements that are here presented to you.
miz3 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 I wonder what others think of someone who thinks that the Holy Spirit speaks only to him? I never claimed that! You are the one who said that you and other SDA use the "historic method of interpretation". I merely stated that the Bible states a different method is to be used. There you go again. You do not read carefully and thus you jump to conclusions and make accusations that were never ever even remotely stated. You need to careful in how you speak and how you understand.
miz3 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Gerry, I never claimed to be an Authority. I have however used what I do see as "THE AUTHORITY" and that is the Bible, the Holy and True Word of God. Unfortunately, in you I see additions to God's Word, wild interpretations that cannot be concluded from a clear reading of the Scripture, ignoring parts of the Scripture that don't fit your template. That's what I see, Gerry. Now if you want to claim Ellen White as an Authority then say so! But don't in the same breathe disavow her as being less than the Bible while claiming that she is just as "inspired" as Jeremiah, Paul, Moses, etc. And then you use her to settle Bible disputes among yourselves. And you use her to as the Foundation of your Doctrine while at the same time claiming you are a Bible and Bible only church. The Truth is you are a Bible and Ellen White church. Say so and be proud of it instead of skulking around and making word plays that hide your true self. It is far too transparent that such a stand is duplicitous and not honest.
Moderators John317 Posted May 9, 2011 Author Moderators Posted May 9, 2011 2. Apparently, at least John317, ClubV12, and GerryCabalo believe that every communication from Ellen White was and is "inspired". Interesting isn't it? What's interesting to me is your seeming ability to get everything confused and mixed up. None of us-- no SDA-- believes that every communication from Ellen White was and is "inspried." Please study 1 SM 25-45, in which Ellen White addresses the very kind of things you ask about. If you read it, you probably will know the answers to your questions. I believe everything she wrote in those pages. Have you read them? 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.
miz3 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 What's interesting to me is your seeming ability to get everything confused and mixed up. None of us-- no SDA-- believes that every communication from Ellen White was and is "inspried." OK, I am now not confused anymore. We all agree that not every word she spoke or every word she wrote was inspired! Let's build on that agreement. Please tell me which parts of her communications are inspired and which are not inspired. If you cannot give me a detailed list, then at least give me "Principle" so that I can be guided when reading her work and to be able to "easily" know which part of her work is "inspired" and which part of her work is "uninspired". That ought not be to hard for those expert in her work. In fact all SDA should be able to do this so that they can easily explain to the "general public" how her work should be handled. An explanation shouldn't take 20 pages to explain.
Recommended Posts