SDA position on the Daily

[Lysimachus]

JoeMoe,

SDA's do NOT believe the "time of the end" begins in Daniel's time OR 508!!! I'm sorry, but it really gets me IRRITATED when people PRETEND to know SDA doctrine!!! No disrespect, but many of you should be much further along than this!

It leads me to wonder, have any of you read any BASIC MATERIALS on these things??

NOTE: SDA's believe that the "time of the end" began in 1798, and some in 1844. Either position is fine, as the books were being unsealed concerning our understanding of the book of Daniel and Revelation.

508 has nothing to do with the time of the end. 508 has to do with the beginning when the Papacy married the State, and set up the abomination of desolation. An official marrying between the State and the Church, when Clovis was baptized in 508 as a Catholic, and pledged himself to defend the Papacy. This can be proven in the soundest scholarship available. The State and the Church joined hands, and vows were made to eradicate all heretics that do not come into line with Papal doctrine.

[Lysimachus]

Just a question - this thread is 30 pages of mostly scholarly stuff - parsing Hebrew words in great detail and spouting things that are over the head of a dummy like me. Is understanding of the Daily, 1844, and the 2,300 days a salvational issue? Does a Christian need to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek to understand the scriptures in their original languages in order to be saved? If so, I'll literally be "toast" at the Second Coming.

All you have to do is read some very basic literature to get these concepts. The Hebrew and Greek analysis is only done because the critics attempt to mutilate our doctrines so much, when they are really soo soo simple, that in order for us to dismantle their entire constructs of theological lore, we become FORCED to do the same back at them to deconstruct their mega towers of garbage that they have stacked to the ceiling. Then it seems like our doctrines are complicated, but they are really not. They only appear complicated when one has to write mega papers just to clean up the MEGA garbage that has been created to give their attacks a seeming support against our simple doctrines.

[Guest]

Listen to him JoeMo, he knows what he is talking about.

[Twilight II]

You all realise that the 10 kings in revelation turn around and destroy the papacy don't you?

Before Jesus comes.

[duane2064]

The Angel Gabriel makes it very plain that the vision stretches all the way to the time of the end.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

SDA's believe that the "time of the end" began in 1798, and some in 1844. Either position is fine, as the books were being unsealed concerning our understanding of the book of Daniel and Revelation.

Lysimachus,

Believe it or not, I've been an SDA for 35 years; and this is the first time I remember hearing that. It makes much more sense than it starting with Artaxerxes' decree to rebuild Jerusalem/the Temple; which is what I've heard for 35 years.

I never personally looked into it that much cuz I don't embrace the "day-for-year" concept applied to prophecy. I understand you are quite the scholar, so I'm sure you could talk circles around me on this subject. No disrespect taken. I appreciate your information on this issue as well as your input on why SDA's get into the detail that they do on these subjects.

[hch]

SDA's believe that the "time of the end" began in 1798, and some in 1844. Either position is fine, as the books were being unsealed concerning our understanding of the book of Daniel and Revelation.

508 has nothing to do with the time of the end. 508 has to do with the beginning when the Papacy married the State, and set up the abomination of desolation. An official marrying between the State and the Church, when Clovis was baptized in 508 as a Catholic, and pledged himself to defend the Papacy. This can be proven in the soundest scholarship available. The State and the Church joined hands, and vows were made to eradicate all heretics that do not come into line with Papal doctrine.

Likewise relating to 508 and 1798, many SDA's who have not kept up with their Bible studies fail to see how the papacy counterfeited the life of Christ.

In 508 King Clovis exalted the pope which culminated in the creation of the papacy 538 AD when Emperor Justinian established the pope's position in law.

The 30-years from 508-538 counterfeit the 30-years of Christ from His birth to His anointing. As Christ overcame three temptations, the counterfeit's Catholic allies uprooted 3 Arian tribes (Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths).

Then as Christ ministered for His people for 3 and 1/2 years (1260-days) the papacy "continued" for 1260-years (538-1798).

The Bible explains itself: "And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty [and] two months" (Revelation 13:5)

[The endtime meaning of the continual relates to the one who continued. As the papacy received it deadly wound in 1798 and the healing of the papal wound in 1929, Pope John-Paul II also received a deadly wound (attempt on his life) from which he also recovered. From a study of Daniel (7:11-13) 9/11 is clearly identified. On 9/11 John-Paul II was the ruling pope. He had received his deadly wound (Revelation 13:5), his kingdom restored (as did Pius XI from Mussolini) but this time on America's behalf when Reagan recognized him as head of the Vatican State. And John-Paul II was restored to the position of the head of ALL the Churches when Bush I proclaimed John-Paul II to be the world's "Moral Leader" (as the LEADER, JPII was not an underling, but the HEAD.) 9/11 was in Reagan's 91st year, he had turned 90 on Feb. 6, 2001. The season and time in Daniel 7 is 91-years without a starting date or ending date given in the prophecy. Prophetically a year is 360-days with 4 seasons. Thus a season is 1/4 of a year or 90-days and a day is a year in Bible prophecy. Thus the season and a time are 91-years (the time is already a year). On 9/11 Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton were out of office (their dominion had been taken away) and they were still alive (their lives were prolonged). At the end of 42-months (9/11 to 4/2/05) Pope John-Paul II died.Yes in the endtime meaning of revelation 13:5 Pope John-Paul II was to continue of 42-month and he did.]

[Many Adventists won't bother to check out the facts or study the prophecies cited to see if these things are so. They will overlook the Spirit of Prophecy statement: "In the last days... Then will take place the final fulfillment of the Revelator's prophecy. [Revelation 13:4-18, quoted.] {19MR 282.1}" They will get in the "fight rather than switch" mode as did their forefathers in 1888 when something was presented differently than they thought. But Present Truth is able to take care of itself. And God's word will accomplish that which He ordains.]

When the papacy received its deadly wound in 1798, it again counterfeited the life of Christ. Jesus died on Friday. Pope Pius VI died in the year of his captivity, 1798. Christ rested in the tomb Sabbath. There was no pope in office in the year 1799. And Christ arose on Sunday. Pope Pius VII was installed as pope the next year, in 1800.

This and so much more is in the book Put-Out The Light.

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

SDA's believe that the "time of the end" began in 1798, and some in 1844. Either position is fine, as the books were being unsealed concerning our understanding of the book of Daniel and Revelation.

Lysimachus,

Believe it or not, I've been an SDA for 35 years; and this is the first time I remember hearing that. It makes much more sense than it starting with Artaxerxes' decree to rebuild Jerusalem/the Temple; which is what I've heard for 35 years.

I never personally looked into it that much cuz I don't embrace the "day-for-year" concept applied to prophecy. I understand you are quite the scholar, so I'm sure you could talk circles around me on this subject. No disrespect taken. I appreciate your information on this issue as well as your input on why SDA's get into the detail that they do on these subjects.

It's really too bad bro that you don't embrace the day-for-year principle. You know that you can't be considered a true Adventist in God's eyes by accepting Jesuit teaching? Yes, to reject the day-year principle is to accept the CORE Jesuit push---what they tried to topple over during the Dark Ages. The day-for-year principle is the CORE of Adventist understanding. Remove the day-for-year principle, and every single Adventist doctrine falls to pieces. You might as well become a Pentecostal, an Atheist, or a Catholic.

Satan hates the Day-for-Year principle, as it is sacred.

By the way, you should know better not to reject the day-for-year principle knowing about the 70 weeks prophecy. Everybody knows that 70 weeks = 490 days = 490 years. And the latest scholarly research has now proven that the Hebrew word "shabuam" is "weeks", not "sevens". I even know an expert who can read Hebrew and Greek. He told me that the way the word is being employed is "weeks", and he said there is no way around it. The NIV is wrong. Therefore if 70 weeks = 490 years, then 42 months = 1260 years.

There is no way around it. I really wish some of the more stubborn Adventists who like to go off on their own tangents would just come into line and quit arguing these points. It is really a waste of time, and it is people who refuse to come into line that are holding up the Second Coming.

And by the way, I'm not meaning, "come into line" with the established organized SDA structure. I'm meaning come into line with what the unanimous counsel of the brethren have taught over many centuries. "In a multitude of counsellors, there is safety". "light shineth more and more unto the perfect day".

[duane2064]

i believe the sanctuary has parallel meanings, Christ is our place of safety, our sanctuary and our righteousness. ... Jesus said i go prepare a place for you. There is a real place.

[Twilight II]

you are either extremely lazy or a satanic plant. only satan is as gifted as you are in twisting my words. i will completely ignore your comments from here on out.

That is all I need to know...

[JoeMo]

Lysimachus,

Quote:

You might as well become a Pentecostal, an Atheist, or a Catholic.

As amatter of fact, I was a Catholic for 25 years; and am currently leaning towards the charismatic/pentecostal.

Quote:

There is no way around it. I really wish some of the more stubborn Adventists who like to go off on their own tangents would just come into line and quit arguing these points. It is really a waste of time, and it is people who refuse to come into line that are holding up the Second Coming.

Thanks for the judgementalism, "bro". Just cuz I am having some theological questions doesn't make me an infidel; and if a minor speck like me has the power to hold back Jesus, He isn't who He says He is. I'd prefer to think that Jesus will come in the fulness of time, like scripture says; and like He did in His first coming.

I admire your scholarship, Lysimachus; but your condescending attitude really turns me off. I'll leave the rest of this thread to you scholars. Adios.

[joeb]

1919 is when the big argument came to a head at the meeting, but yes, it had been brewing for awhile.

I see the point about Miller not understanding the 1844 issues clearly enough, but Smith certainly did. He STILL argued Miller's view in the 1900's.

In my opinion Crozier did NOT actually identify the "daily", he wrote all around it and his views on the sanctuary are endorsed by Sister White. Using her support of Crozier to establish her position on the daily is the very kind of thing she counseled against doing!

Consider the logic:

IF Crozier ID's daily, AND, EGW endorses his view, THEN no debate in 1919. The matter would have been settled by "inspired testimony".

rudy, took me a minute, but then I got it,

I wouldn't say that the sentences I bolded are true. There was a lot of controversy about things EGW said while she was alive. Her testimony about a lot of things was outright rejected by the church leadership at the time, and has ended up never having been followed.

[Guest]

As amatter of fact, I was a Catholic for 25 years; and am currently leaning towards the charismatic/pentecostal.

I admire your scholarship, Lysimachus; but your condescending attitude really turns me off. I'll leave the rest of this thread to you scholars. Adios.

He did misjudge you. He assumed you were an adventist. It happens a lot because of the name of the place.

[JoeMo]

RLH,

I am an SDA in the sense that I embrace the 28 Fundamentals and my name is on church rolls; although I have never closed my mind to just blindly accept prevailing SDA culture. Nothing in the 28 Fundamentals requires me to accept day-for-year, 1844, etc. If it is in the 28, please show me.

[Guest]

If you take away the foundation, i.e. "day-for-year, 1844, the Sanctuary, etc." What you have left is NOT SDAdventism. Plain and simple. It's not even in the same ballpark.

[joeb]

If you take away the foundation, i.e. "day-for-year, 1844, the Sanctuary, etc." What you have left is NOT SDAdventism. Plain and simple. It's not even in the same ballpark.

This is very true. Take away the foundations, and the rest does not exist.

[duane2064]

If you take away the foundation, i.e. "day-for-year, 1844, the Sanctuary, etc." What you have left is NOT SDAdventism. Plain and simple. It's not even in the same ballpark.

well im not sda but i do believe what EW said about the 7th day. that it would be a dividing line among christians in the tribulation. which is for me, a non sda, what defines sdas. i believe in the 7th day. for me, i think we should not burn a flame for the purpose of heat or light, nor should we travel very far. nor should we work on the 7th day. similarly even though i agree 1844 is central to sdas belief, during EW time, she refused to confirm, deny, accept, or reject, three theologians who came to her asking her to settle the matter of daniel's daily. understanding this you then can see how integrated the interpretation of the single word "daily" is intertwinded into the rest of daniel 8 & 9 & 11 & 12, even though tawmid(daily) is not even found in daniel 9. to me daniel has been so twisted, and the only reason im here, is cause it is only the sdas who are even in the same ballpark as me, at least some.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

As amatter of fact, I was a Catholic for 25 years; and am currently leaning towards the charismatic/pentecostal.

I admire your scholarship, Lysimachus; but your condescending attitude really turns me off. I'll leave the rest of this thread to you scholars. Adios.

He did misjudge you. He assumed you were an adventist. It happens a lot because of the name of the place.

They really should do something about that...

[duane2064]

...and his views on the sanctuary are endorsed by Sister White..

my point is how can EW develop a viewpoint on "sanctuary" without a viewpoint on "daily". in other words i believe she made a mistake to do so since she did not have a viewpoint on "daily" in other words to develop an opinion on sanctuary is to develop an opinion on daily. which is exactly what she recommended everyone not to do.

[debbym]

Quote:

I wouldn't say that the sentences I bolded are true. There was a lot of controversy about things EGW said while she was alive. Her testimony about a lot of things was outright rejected by the church leadership at the time, and has ended up never having been followed.

just because EG white did give inspired messages, does not mean every single thing she ever said or did was directly inspired by the H.S..

look at Jonah, he was a prophet and did things other then god\'s direct will, and he was not the only one.

what a burden to be used by God and then everyone wants to use you for the divine line in, she was just a human being. and her books were misused, and it did cause her grief.

people still need to think and understand for themselves.

[Lysimachus]

JoeMoe,

The day-year principle does not need to be in the 28 fundamentals. The day-year is already assumed. It's a given.

Read Fundamental 24, and you tell me how on earth it is possible to believe in that without the day-year principle. Impossible!

[Gibs]

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The following is the definition given for the weeks in above verse for the Hebrew word,

shabuwa` shaw-boo'-ah

or shabuan {shaw-boo'-ah}; also (feminine) shbu.ah {sheb-oo-aw'}; properly, passive participle of 7650 as a denominative of 7651; literal, sevened, i.e. a week (specifically, of years):--seven, week.

See Hebrew 7650

See Hebrew 7651

Did they take that from Adventism? Hardly as that was before Adventism realized.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Read Fundamental 24, and you tell me how on earth it is possible to believe in that without the day-year principle. Impossible!

Agreed. Thanks for pointing that out. Does the day-year principle hold true for the millenium (meaning that the millenium with be 360,000 or 365,000 years long)? If not, why not, if the principle holds true for all of the other time-related prophecies in Revelation?

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: RLH

If you take away the foundation, i.e. "day-for-year, 1844, the Sanctuary, etc." What you have left is NOT SDAdventism. Plain and simple. It's not even in the same ballpark.

well im not sda but i do believe what EW said about the 7th day. that it would be a dividing line among christians in the tribulation. which is for me, a non sda, what defines sdas. i believe in the 7th day. for me, i think we should not burn a flame for the purpose of heat or light, nor should we travel very far. nor should we work on the 7th day. similarly even though i agree 1844 is central to sdas belief, during EW time, she refused to confirm, deny, accept, or reject, three theologians who came to her asking her to settle the matter of daniel's daily. understanding this you then can see how integrated the interpretation of the single word "daily" is intertwinded into the rest of daniel 8 & 9 & 11 & 12, even though tawmid(daily) is not even found in daniel 9. to me daniel has been so twisted, and the only reason im here, is cause it is only the sdas who are even in the same ballpark as me, at least some.

Well, that post did speak volumes as to who you are. As for being in the same ballpark with SDA's...especially the more knowledgeable ones...that will yet to be seen.

Blessings,

[duane2064]

ok ballpark is a little strong, how about the same city.

if im looking for someone who does not think daily is sacrifice, who, other than the sdas, can i even have any kind of conversation with. for sda, im not in the same ballpark, but from my perspective yea.

the only reason sdas are aware that daily is not sacrifice, is because of EW emphatic statement, that its not. so from my perspective, they just except EW's statement, then go wrong, from there.

my position is if EW did not have a definitive view as to the nuts and bolts of "daily". then how can she have any position on daniel 8 at all. and by extention i am here to tell you that all sdas have daniel 8 wrong in one huge way or another. and the reason for this is because EW developed and opinion on daniel 8 and not daily.

SEEMS LIKE A CONTRADICTION TO ME!

but if i were in her shoes i probably would have made more mistakes than she. she was under a lot of pressure. everybody looking to her wanting answers.

ANYTIME SHE SAYS SOMETHING IS FROM GOD, I TAKE IT TO THE BANK.