SDA position on the Daily

[Gail]

Loving your attitude, Henry!

[hch]

When this word is used in the context of the sacrifices, the word is always used in connection to the morning and evening sacrifices. It is usually used in an adjective construction in so doing (see Exodus 29:42; Numbers 28:6, 10, 15, and 23; Ezra 3:5; Nehemiah 10:34, and Ezekiel 46:15); however, in Dan 8:11-13 (as well as Dan. 11:31 and Dan 12:11), it is seen in an adverb construction.

As I pointed out above, the Hebrew usage here is no different than the English use of the word "daily" in the subject heading of this post. You got the meaning, even though the rest of the words were not supplied to specify exactly what "daily" was referring to. To Daniel, the "continual" meant only 1 thing with respect to the sanctuary - the daily morning and evening sacrifices.

Daniel is in the context:

"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased" (12:4).

Thus in the time of the end after 1844 when there is no sanctuary on earth: is Daniel's context the sanctuary?

You did say: "it is seen in an adverb construction" So where is the VERB in sanctuary, (or in evening and morning)?

If the verb is Take Away and the adverb is Continual, is the adverb the subject?

This dialog relates to that point:

"One reputable English teacher writes in his famous grammar book that an adverb can be the subject of one sentence."

"I think your teacher means that an adverb can become a noun, and therefore become the subject of a sentence. If it's really an adverb, and acting as an adverb, it cannot be the subject."

In the example that you cite of Continual being an adverb, is it truly acting as an adverb without any possibility of being anything else? Or is it one of the rare cases where the adverb may indeed be the subject?

I will leave it at that for now.

Iron does sharpen iron. Truth does withstand scrutiny. And Present Truth builds on the foundation of truth, it does not tear it down.

[Lysimachus]

Lysimachus, here Mr. Hieks makes the same serious mistake many have made and still make, including Stephen Bohr. The assumption is that a simple counsel or comment of Ellen White is "twisted" to mean "support" of one position or another. How it is twisted is entirely dependant on your already preconceived position!!! Sister White is simply saying, "Quit being a jerk and consider Daniels position with respect." The truth, on which ever side it lays, can withstand close scrutiny. When Sister White counseled James White to "shut up" concerning his views on Daniel 11 as opposed to Uriah Smiths view she was not saying which of the two men held the right view. This is the serious mistake Stephen Bohr and many others make, ASSUMING Sister White is supporting one or the other view. She is promoting UNITY, James was fostering DISUNITY at the time and place this counsel was given.

Now, having carefully considered AG Daniels and the current populuar position yourself and most other take on the "daily", I do not agree with the "new view". I agree with the pioneer view. In a nut shell, the pioneer view follows a more literal interpretation of scripture, whereas the "new view" requires a spiritual interpretation. I read the bible just as it is written, literal unless the evidence is overwhelming or I am forced into a spiritual application.

To often we force people to take one view or the other. Why is that necessary? Why does it have to be "your way or the highway", THIS is what Sister White was counseling against! A pompous, arrogant, infallible attitude that I'm right and your wrong. I see room for BOTH the old and the new view as it concerns the daily!!! If I am forced to choose, I will side with the pioneers. I reject this idea that "new light" means we can throw out the old light because we are "way smarter" than those old foggies. Arrogant fools that we are... New light is a better understanding that builds on old light, it does not tear it down and replace it.

My dad and I used to be both heavily and deep into the Paganism view. But after carefully weighing all the exegesis, inside and out, and after weighing all the material Heiks and others have presented, we were forced to change our minds. It took a lot of humility on our part.

We used to use the same arguments as you about the Daily being Paganism. We have carefully read extensive material, including Mirion Berry's and Jeff Pippenger's.

There are a number of things I disagree with regarding Mr. Heiks and Stephen Bohr. I take issue with their dogmatic stance against Islam finding a role as King of the South. I also take issue with them coming across in a tone as though they are here to "settle the score of all controversy".

Yet, based on the arguments Heik's has presented on their own merits, regardless of other differences, I am forced to concede, as the research is too solid.

It would be impossible for me to show this to be so until one actually takes the time to read the book, "The 'Daily" Source Book" for themselves, as he covers the entire history of the controversy concerning the Daily from beginning to end, with the most exhaustive verse-by-verse, word-by-word comparison. The "New View", you will learn, was actually the "Old View". And the "Old View" was actually the "New View".

I would not be so dogmatic if I were you. I'd take the advice, and read the book for yourself, from beginning to end my friend before coming to any ultimatums.

God bless.

[ClubV12]

Marcos, I was to brutal in my analysis, forgive me for my rudeness. On to the question at hand....

I leave room for whatever position one may take on the daily, I prefer the pioneer view.

I don't know Mr. Heiks, I've met and have a ton of respect for Stephen Bohr. However, BOTH men make a similiar mistake in ASSUMING a comment by Sister White can be interpreted just the way they want to see it. In this case, her comment to Hastings was to setup a time to review the doctrinal concerns Daniells has, in order to foster unity. She offers no opinion in this letter as to who is right or wrong or what the daily is or isn't. Mr. Heiks is putting words in her mouth.

Stephen Bohr follows Louis Were's mistaken position in saying Sister White supports James Whites view on Daniel over Uriah Smiths view. They both totally miss the point of Sister Whites comment. STOP arguing in public about who is right or wrong, press together, find unity. By twisting her comments Bohr and Were are guilty of doing exactly what she wanted to prevent, fostering disunity!

If you can't make a case for your posititon without tearing down someone else you inspiration is from the devil, pure and simple. God cannot bless your efforts. Present your position, state your case, leave the thorns alone, they will only hurt you.

[hch]

STOP arguing in public about who is right or wrong, press together, find unity. By twisting her comments ...fostering disunity!

If you can't make a case for your position without tearing down someone else your inspiration is from the devil, pure and simple. God cannot bless your efforts. Present your position, state your case, leave the thorns alone, they will only hurt you.

Makes me think that if Uriah and James could worship the same God and fellowship in the same SDA church even though they did not agree on various points of faith, that there is hope for the rest of us if we will but listen to the lessons of the pioneers.

Maybe the church that appears to have become a convalescent center for the incurably ill may yet become a hospital to heal the sick saints?

[Gibs]

It is too simple, so few will ever figure it out. You will all know here now in a few yrs which will seem long as they are going to be tough and really tough.

The answer is in your face!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Ted Oplinger]

Brother Henry (hch is your tag for "His child Henry", no?),

Quote:

I thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, but alas though we both wrote copious amounts of words, there was very little communication.

That can happen...all too easily. And I am chief of sinners with regard to copious amounts of words. I must disagree, though, about the communication - there is much communication occurring; unfortunately, not all of it is straight-forward.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

You do forget that the Sea Beast of Revelation is Rome in its final form?

Since I clearly asked about Pope John-Paul II as the one head that literally received the wound that was healed in the end-time, my understanding that the Sea Beast in Revelation 13 is the papacy in its final form did not forget any such thing.

Henry,

Your query about John-Paul II, I did note, but I did not respond to that part (as my reply was already getting very long). My question was in regard to what I saw was an stated disconnection on your part, where I understood you to state the 4th beast of Daniel 7 was not the sea beast of Revelation 13. Your stated position on Daniel was those beasts pertained to 4 literal kings, whereas the sea beast was a prophetic symbol.

As your posited remark came in response to my own remarks apart from anything you said, I understood you to be positing a different understanding as superior to mine own. While your comment about "blindness" would invite a hostile response, I instead approached without the rhetoric, and devoted the large part of my discourse to demonstrating why I connect the two passages together. I also took the time to show where your apparent position was untenable.

As for your query about John-Paul II - are you saying he received the deadly wound, or are you saying this Pope was the one receiving the healing?

Either way, this is not according to historical Bible prophetic interpretation. The deadly wound was dealt in 1798, when General Berthier took Pope Pius VI prisoner, and abolished Papal temporal authority. It was the general sentiment of the European peoples and sovereigns alike that for all practical purposes, the Papacy was dealt a fatal wound, and Roman Catholicism would soon wither away.

This began an era where Italy proper began absorbing the Papal states into itself, with the culmination of taking Rome in 1870.

As for the deadly wound being healed, historical prophetic interpretation places that event with the Lateran Concordant of 1929, where Mussolini signed the documents giving the Papacy beck its temporal authority and its territories (the Papal states). Newspapers the world over quoted the Scriptures of Revelation 13, with headlines screaming "Deadly Wound Healed!".

If you are positing an opinion on John Paul II that counters this, I would not agree to your position. I would necessarily challenge it in light of the historical data supporting the perspective I outlined above.

Quote:

One technique in debating is to say "you don't know what you are talking about." Rather than to look at the idea. Debating techniques attempt to discredit the presenter. If the subject is too hard to reconcile with the point of view being defended, make those that hold the opposing view look stupid.

That is not my intent, Henry. However, in light of terms found in your posts ("blindness", "overwhelmed", and "jumbled response"), you do seem to holding yourself up more as an arbitrator than a participant in discussion "presenting truth" as you understand it.

The question you quoted of mine was one of asking for remembrance, not to make foolish.

My dialogue about the beasts/kings being literal (to which I have regard to think is where your point is directed) was simply a demonstration of what must be considered should the word "king" in Daniel 7 was taken literally, which respect to history's record over the same time span. With respect to each beast was a simple question - which king takes primacy?

If I may add to that argument - for each beast, the main affect of the beast upon both God's people and the world was not through a single king (Greece and Rome). The names of those who put the Greek and Roman Empires together are never mentioned in Scripture, nor did they have an impact upon God's people with respect to freedom to worship God as God directs. The later forms of those kingdoms, though, did have a huge impact.

With what I understood you to be presenting, I simply replied how the literal application fell apart. It appears the feedback you received you saw as "debating". That said, when you come into a discussion suddenly, challenging another's understanding, then topping it with your comment about "blindness", you somehow expect not to have your own understanding challenged in return?

Quote:

When the 1888 message shone bright from the throne of God, and EGW spoke in favor of Jones and Waggoner, our leadership closed their eyes to the light and set the cause of God back. I have no illusion that the Church today will be fair and unbiased when light is presented.

From your paragraph there, it would appear we have much in common with respect to 1888. On this note, I know EGW stated emphatically there is much more light for the church to receive in days future, before God wraps the Gospel work up.

I am also very well aware she just as emphatically declared in days future that church people would leave the established landmarks of prophetic interpretation, and declare new interpretations need to be made - calling this the "new light" to which EGW referred to.

In a discussive reply, it is my understanding any new light on prophesy would not only re-affirm the old landmarks, it would necessarily fit the method of prophetic interpretation EGW (and the Reformers before her) all used. Such would fit the parameters the Scripture sets forth for beginning/ending, and allows God to place the prophetic time within the historic time times which reference those conditions.

Quote:

I may not have been clear. Or I may have stepped on toes.

The former - you were not clearly defining your position.

I wear iron-toed boots in this forum. It is very hard to step on my toes...but very easy for me to step on others without knowing how hard I am stepping. I do have the demonstrated penchant for taking posts section by section and discussing the contents of them. I get very wordy in the process. And dicing positions down does tend to step on the toes of those who would rather have their positions and opinions go unchallenged, particularly those which go counter to established Adventist positions.

When I post something counter to prevailing understandings (ie, the positing of the application of the 1290 and 1335 prophecies above), I must couch it as a query (like above), or else have copious amounts of in context support (Scriptural and historical), as such things WILL be challenged in this forum. Guaranteed.

If you are of such a position where any reply questioning your understanding is seen as debate, then you will necessarily have a rough ride here.

If my reply was "jumbled, mixing apples with oranges", I would politely ask perhaps you need to re-evaluate the coherence of the post to which I replied. Perhaps apples and oranges get mixed because they are present in copious amounts in a jumbled form.

Quote:

I am sorry that I gave you so much in my last post. From your response, it is evident that you were overwhelmed.

Overwhelmed? Up until this line, your appeal for discussion and understanding carried some weight. The condescending tone with this line comes through quite clearly. It does appear you don't really want feedback on your own interpretations within a discussion format.

No, I was not overwhelmed. I sifted through your post rather thoroughly. In respect to that, your examples (Cain, and circumcision) in your reply are overly simplistic. They seem to miss the substance of each case, but I will not address those here.

In your original reply to my post, you both called question to my linking the 4th beast of Daniel 7 and the sea beast of Revelation 13, then you tried to make the 4th beast of Daniel an apple with respect to the orange of the sea beast of Revelation 13.

I conclude both are oranges. And I discussed why I do so.

With your remarks about the beasts of Daniel with respect to Revelation, you appear to have a willingness to assign interpretations to these symbols apart from the established landmarks EGW affirmed to us. That, or you are lending the appearance of belonging to an Adventist off-shoot.

Up front, if either of these is the case, then we will have very pronounced differences of opinions.

Currently, there is a fashionable trend among some Adventists of trying to find "new light" on prophecy, "light" that somehow is being missed by the church; because the church was "wrong" about 1888, they must necessarily be "wrong" about prophetic interpretation as well.

A polite question: Does this describe you are doing?

(hopefully)

Blessings,

[ClubV12]

Ted says,

"Currently, there is a fashionable trend among some Adventists of trying to find "new light" on prophecy, "light" that somehow is being missed by the church; because the church was "wrong" about 1888, they must necessarily be "wrong" about prophetic interpretation as well."

I wonder if this is what the Children of Israel did for forty years in the wilderness while they wandered as punishment for their unbelief and failure to cross over into that good land. We to failed to cross over, there are many many referrences to the fact the Lord could have, would have, wanted to fulfill all of Daniel and return in the 1800's. 1888? We were on the shoreline, only a step away, and we turned back. Looking for "new light"? We can't even understand the old light! As a church, we should return to where we last saw the light and begin anew, or continue to wander...

How much "new light" and "fulfilled prophecy" did the Children of the Covenant discover during the forty years they wandered? What excuses and encouraging lies did they tell the children? "We", blew it, "we" shouldn't be here, "we" need to pray the prayer of Daniel, for our sins and the sins of our people.

[Gibs]

"Many are deceiving themselves by thinking that the character will be transformed at the coming of Christ, but there will be no conversion of heart at His appearing. Our defects of character must here be repented of, and through the grace of Christ we must overcome them while probation shall last. This is the place for fitting up for the family above. {AG 243.5}

Probation is almost ended. . . . Get ready! get ready! Work while the day lasts, for the night cometh when no man can work. {AG 243.6}

When Jesus stands up, when his work is finished in the most holy, then not another ray of light will be imparted to the sinner. {LS88 341.1}

Therein is the answer to the question of this thread.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Lysimachus]

Ellen White also talks about how many Adventists are trying to find new light, and something new and sensational, and in so doing, end up walking off the path.

I'm going to stick to the pillars, sorry. I find no fulfillments in any of the events you have been mentioning HCH. They are confusing, and just such a mish-mash, hodge-podge. I feel greatly sorry for a brand-new person trying to digest all of that.

[hch]

Brother Henry (hch is your tag for "His child Henry", no?),

[hch]

As for your query about John-Paul II - are you saying he received the deadly wound, or are you saying this Pope was the one receiving the healing?

There is a dual application. "Pius VI was the pope specified in prophecy" that received the deadly wound. Pius XI received the healing when Mussolini restored the crown to the pope as head of state.

But Revelation 13 states that the world wondered after the beast. America did not wonder after the beast until John-Paul II received his wound in 1981. Thus the world without America is not all the world. But when America came on board: Reagan did as Mussolini on America's behalf and George Bush I declared Pope John-Paul II to be the "world's Moral Leader." That is akin to elevating John-Paul II to be the head of All the Churches.

Thus the deadly wound is healed and ALL the world wonders after the beast.

[hch]

I am also very well aware she just as emphatically declared in days future that church people would leave the established landmarks of prophetic interpretation, and declare new interpretations need to be made - calling this the "new light" to which EGW referred to.

In a discussive reply, it is my understanding any new light on prophesy would not only re-affirm the old landmarks, it would necessarily fit the method of prophetic interpretation EGW (and the Reformers before her) all used. Such would fit the parameters the Scripture sets forth for beginning/ending, and allows God to place the prophetic time within the historic time times which reference those conditions.

(hopefully)

I Must agree with you wholeheartedly on this point.

But alas some trash has infiltrated the church since 1844. And when the trash is swept aside by the new light, one class that is not grounded in the message sees the trash as if it were some of the pillars of faith.

So Bible students who prayerfully dive into the word for 8-18 hours at a time may have difficulty communicating with superficial Bible students that spend much of their time reading what people have said about the Bible rather than with the Bible to understand what it says about itself.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

Thus with the threefold view of Daniel, I have to ask if the daily (CONTINUAL) was applicable to his day, the interim between his day and ours, and how it relates to the time of the end, when Daniel is opened.

Considering at Daniel's time, the physical sanctuary was demolished. The angelic messenger was talking in sanctuary symbols, and Daniel knew enough to think the subject was not the earthly sanctuary. Daniel also knew a reference to "the continual" was also a direct reference to the morning and evening sacrifice, the continual sacrifice of atonement by which Israel approached God, and stood in grace before God. Daniel knew the earthly sacrifice was but a symbol of what occurs in heaven to stand in grace before, and receive atonement from, God.

Daniel could not conceive of any earthly power that could so magnify itself so as to sweep away from people access to God. This is why he was intensely interested to find out what that 4th beast was. When the angelic messenger told, it made him physically ill - but he kept it a private matter.

When the angel came back to revisit the vision (chapter 8), what he was told again made him sick - this time for days.

Quote:

The same is true with the 4-kingdom model of Daniel 2 & 7.

Daniel's day = 4-kings foreshadowing what was to come

Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus & Belshazzar (last two as one)

Interim period

Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome (pagan & papal)

Endtime 4 literal American Presidents with the last two being as though they are one.

I don't know where you got your 4 king model from, but it doesn't appear to be sound.

Of your Babylonian example, Neriglissar is nowhere mentioned in Scriptures. Since you have obtained this list from an extra-Biblical source, then I must say your 4-king model fails, as when Neriglissar was assassinated, Neriglissar's son Labashi-Marduk ascended to the throne as a boy. Labashi-Marduk was likewise assassinated within the year by a faction headed by Belshazzar.

Nabonidus, Belshazzar's father, was placed on the throne. He ruled three years, then decided to dedicate himself solely to the Babylonian moon-deity, doing archaeological work in Arabia. Nabonidus did return with kingly authority, leading troops to meet Cyrus, but upon seeing the enormity of the Medo-Persian army, fled. Not much more is known about him beyond that flight.

Belshazzar is not listed as a king of Babylon in any archaeological sources I can currently find. He is listed as ruling in the form the king's regent. As such, Belshazzar's offer to Daniel was quite illegal for him to do.

The way I count it, Henry, there are 5 rulers of Babylon. Four are indeed kings, but no two kings ruled as one. The last was a king's regent. Major difference.

I can see no way you can pull US Presidents into Daniel's prophecies of chapters 2 & 7. The US is just not there, in any shape or form in the symbols.

Daniel 7 and 8 clearly link the 4th beast to Revelation 13's sea beast as one and the same, so the US is not the sea beast.

The only place where the US matches the symbols is Revelation's land beast. But there is not a multiplicity of extra horns to play around with presidents. Those horns do not contain any qualities as seen with the little horn of Daniel 7 & 8.

Quote:

Thus for you to I understand me "to state the 4th beast of Daniel 7 was not the sea beast of Revelation 13" is not a accurate understanding of my view.

That is what you proposed earlier, in your first post to my response to another poster. If there is a misunderstanding there, look to your own writing.

Quote:

The First phase includes the 42-months from 538-1798 at which it received the deadly wound.

But the papal beast does not remain wounded. Its deadly wound is healed just prior to the rise of the second beast that is from the earth. Thus in the context, the Spirit of prophecy identifies Pope Pius VI as the head that received the wound and the healing did not commence until Pius XI was restored to his kingdom. Thus two popes as pagan and papal Rome can be viewed as the wounded/healed head. And after its wound is healed, that beast only has six heads remaining (Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I & II, and Benedict XVI). And the 7th head is in his 7th year (his first or ascension year finished out John-Paul II's last year). Seven has been the number of completeness.

If we are going to count Popes (something Biblical prophesy does not do), then it would be far better to reference St. Malachy' prophesy of Papal lineage, where John Paul was referred to as "Toil of the Sun" (born under a solar eclipse; did more to brighten the image of the Roman Catholic church than any Pope previous).

He places our current Pope as the "Glory of the Olives", with one more to follow - Petrus Magnus.

If you're looking for a more fantastic prophetic interpretation, that'd be the way to go.

Quote:

I don't want to sound like a know it all, but there are very few that I meet who know where we are in prophetic history and instead of going from light to greater light, it seems like they want to go back to the light of the pioneers. So many rely on general signs and deny the specifics of God's word that testify that God is moving His people from light to greater light.

You have indeed come across as one who thinks they have it all figured out. Sad, for one just beginning to post on these boards. Yes, God is moving His people from light to greater light, but I'm not convinced from our short exchange God is leading in the direct you're pointing.

Quote:

That is like trying to park your car and go back to a horse and buggy. It is unsafe to drive a horse and buggy on a modern interstate. It is equally foolish to deny that the horse and buggy were essential to the development of the automobile.

Though unsafe, at least the horse and buggy moves, and can be outfitted with a slow vehicle warning.

It is far more unsafe to tow a fancy-looking prototype with no engine onto the interstate, then leave it there. The prototype goes nowhere fast, blocks people from traveling through, and poses a significant collision hazard.

You may think you have a great model there, Henry. Thanks, but I think I will stick to the old landmarks.

Blessings,

[hch]

With your remarks about the beasts of Daniel with respect to Revelation, you appear to have a willingness to assign interpretations to these symbols apart from the established landmarks EGW affirmed to us. That, or you are lending the appearance of belonging to an Adventist off-shoot.

Up front, if either of these is the case, then we will have very pronounced differences of opinions.

Currently, there is a fashionable trend among some Adventists of trying to find "new light" on prophecy, "light" that somehow is being missed by the church; because the church was "wrong" about 1888, they must necessarily be "wrong" about prophetic interpretation as well.

A polite question: Does this describe you are doing?

(hopefully)

Dear Brother Ted,

Now that I have digested your post, I will start with the last question first.

No.

When I reached the point in my Christian experience that I was ready to tell God to take a hike, I concluded my prayer by giving Him 2 weeks to straighten me out or leave me alone.

I don't think it took Him 2 days to put me in my place and then He asked why I had waited so long? After that we began our journey to the kingdom, the Lord and I in earnest.

He called me to study Daniel. That had been on my heart for 30-years, but I would not do it.

Then when I got into the study, I feared going it alone - not wanting to get out on a limb with myself leading myself astray. I searched the Advent world via the internet around the globe for study partners. Fair weather friends. Too busy, not interested, claiming to be unqualified, satisfied with what our church teaches (there is nothing wrong with the teachings and looking deeper will only confirm them or bring about growth - weren't there 27 fundamentals but now there are 28 - that new one was not found by not looking), fearful, and so forth. So I thanked God for the call and bowed out after giving 3 years to the study of Daniel with only a Bible and a concordance.

2 weeks later, the Holy Spirit said, Study Daniel. I picked up my Daniel Bible: my marginal notes and references made no sense. I was overwhelmed with horror. God giveth God taketh away blessed be the name of the Lord.

The Lord is gracious. After three days of repenting with fasting and prayer, He said, Study Daniel and my understanding was restored to me with so much more that it is very difficult to communicate with those that have settled into a view that has not moved for centuries.

I don't mean that in a negative way. It is like anything. Like a mechanic working on a car before they were computerized and after. There is a difference in what they need to know. You better know how to deactivate the air bag before attempting to replace a directional switch.

So when I started back on Daniel it was with the Bible, a concordance, and the Spirit of Prophecy. Prove it in the Bible then verify it with the SOP. So sometimes that butts me up against some things that have "crept in unawares" and believe me there are those brethren who would rather fight than switch. That was the problem with 1888. And unfortunately that is the problem with New Light. When it penetrates the comfort zone it is first rejected, then the bearer is pigeonholed as a non-believer (wolf in sheeps' clothing), then God settles the matter and people take their stand for or against.

I am a 4th generation SDA. My Great grandmother became a believer in Maine in the 1800's. I love my Church and I pray for it (with tears at times) when I see how it compares to the Word of God and the SOP. But I also know that not everyone in God's garner is as they appear. The wheat and the tares will grow together until the Master divides them.

God is able to get the truth of His word to His people who need it. Daniel explains it quite well.

Ellen White only explained the symbols as far as she understood them. "Truth is to unfold from age to age as the people of God need it."

Example: horns Daniel 8 clearly identifies them as kings

EGW stated that the little horns on the beast from the earth in Rev 13 are "Republicanism and Protestantism"

So what are the two lamblike horns?

Exactly what the Bible says they are.

Is the spirit of prophecy contradicting the Bible by saying that they are something else. NO.

The Spirit of Prophecy is explaining the characteristics of the two kings that are symbolized by the horns.

A problem arises when the children of the pioneers treat the characteristics of the horns that describe the traits of the horns as if the traits are the symbolic meaning of the horns.

Then the misapplication of the symbolism skews the meaning of the prophecy and it becomes a tug of war as to who is rightly dividing the word of truth?

To thine own self be true. When we stand before God on Judgment Morn, He will not ask what did you hear about Bible truth, but rather: How readest thou?

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

There is a dual application. "Pius VI was the pope specified in prophecy" that received the deadly wound. Pius XI received the healing when Mussolini restored the crown to the pope as head of state.

I do understand dual applications, but that application does not appear to called for in interpreting this symbol.

Just because America (in your opinion) did not immediately follow the Papacy in amazement does not mean the rest of Christendom did not, nor does it follow from Revelation 13 all the world had to do this following at the precise point of the wound being healed.

John is receiving this vision of these beasts not according to a chronology, but as entities who have the ultimate effect of exhibiting the characteristics on a global scale with fantastic results.

The full effect of the healing of that seemingly fatal wound has not yet been fully unfolded in time, because neither beast of Revelation 13 has come to full bloom yet.

Trying to count Popes and Presidents is placing a construction there that is not in the prophetic symbols.

Quote:

Thus the deadly wound is healed and ALL the world wonders after the beast.

That is not what the Scriptures say there, Henry. Were I to place your apparent construction on the sea beast, I'd have to conclude the 42 month prophesy must still be future, as that prophecy was listed after the time of the fatal wound being healed.

In 1929, the whole world did marvel that the Papacy regained its power and temporal authority. It was headlines everywhere - even here in the US. Outside the US, the Papal authority garners far more respect and a following. But you have a severe disconnect on the role the US plays in the end times, from my perspective, and you fail to take in what "all the world" would mean in your criteria.

Your disconnect on the US is evident in your attempt to make the US follow the sea beast, when in fact the US (in the form of the land beast) already has a place in league with the sea beast, even as the land beast rises to power and the sea beast appears fatally wounded.

Next, let's look a bit closer at your argument.

You're saying the US is the depending power not following the sea beast. Not true. the Soviet Union was formed a decade prior to the Lateran Concordant of 1929. While the concordant was heralded the Soviet news, the people there - being communist/atheist - did not follow after the beast, and worked at counter purposes to the Vatican. Even now, the Russian Orthodox church (while "independent", it does Rome's bidding) does not wield the kind of power foretold of the sea beast. While the Soviet union is long gone, the Russian Republic is still a very powerful force in this world...and it does not follow after the sea beast currently.

Likewise, the Muslim world has not followed after the beast since 1929. Neither has India, China nor Japan, home to half our world's current population. Even with sitting presidents sending diplomats to the Vatican.

Is the whole world following after the beast as you say? No. Then, by your own criteria, you cannot say the deadly wound is fully healed.

The act of establishing a diplomatic relationship does not correlate into "following the beast" or a "healing of the wound". It simply means a nation recognizes another temporal sovereign exists. It accords no rank with that relationship.

I posit this: on the one hand, the Concordant was the healing, but the effect of that healing has not been fully realized worldwide. God has placed a hold on that for now.

I would put much more stock in the thought that, as later pointed out in Revelation 13:12-14, the land beast works in concert with the sea beast to direct worship to that beast (or its image - verse 15), a co-operative effort between the beasts that does succeed in winning that kind of following. Neither beast is yet in full bloom. Counting Popes and Presidents via a construction not in the prophesy, to me, is a bit premature.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

I do like hearing of one's life testimony; upon hearing yours, I must ponder why you have placed such a construction on these prophecies?

Quote:

He called me to study Daniel. That had been on my heart for 30-years, but I would not do it.

You got into the game 30 years late. Better late than never.

Quote:

He said, Study Daniel and my understanding was restored to me with so much more that it is very difficult to communicate with those that have settled into a view that has not moved for centuries.

The old landmarks stay where they are (that is why they are landmarks), but interpreting prophecy from a historical perspective has moved markedly through the centuries. Sorry you haven't noticed.

EGW plainly stated any new light will not remove the old landmarks, nor will it disrupt the foundation of truth God has laid so far within His Reformation movement.

As I said before - your interpretation not only does not fit what history was shown, it moves away from those landmarks. That's not being stodgy and stale, Henry; it is called remaining on God's enlightened ground.

Quote:

I am a 4th generation SDA.

Noted. That said, there are lost of N-generational Adventists who don't know squat about their heritage as a leader in God's Reformation movement. Some, thinking something new has to be found to spark progress again, throw away the plain testimony of the Scriptures and SOP.

And there are some like me - never heard of the Adventist church until 3 months prior to my baptism 27 years ago. Have been an avid student of prophesy for the last 30 years. Prior to being baptized, I studied just about every conceivable school of thought on Daniel and Revelation.

What the Adventist church has now, is that which was built on top Reformers going before us. This method of interpretation is by far the most accurate I have come across. When I see Adventist - especially the multi-generational ones - begin tossing it aside, not building on what God clearly built before, it saddens me, and makes me wonder why.

I do not see what you have presented here as building on that foundation, Henry.

Quote:

Example: horns Daniel 8 clearly identifies them as kings

Yes - to a point, Henry. It says "two horns are the kings"; it does not say "two horns are two kings. Major but subtle difference, Henry.

Cyrus and Darius were Median kings. Artaxerxes was Persian.

Two horns. Three kings. One king too many? No - two nationalities from whence the kings come from. Two nations, functioning as one empire. Greece was one empire that split into four kingdoms (Daniel 8:21).

In prophecy, horns are given to mean kings (Daniel 8:20), kingdoms (Daniel 8:21), or source of power (Ezekiel 29:18-21, where no king was set up in Israel that Babylon could not depose, yet God most definitely opened up the Spirit of Power through Daniel and Ezekiel, as he was taken from Israel to Babylon, and prophesied there. All Babylon knew God spoke through Daniel and Ezekiel).

Even the word "king" can be a symbol for a nation, not just a singular ruler. Context is everything.

Quote:

EGW stated that the little horns on the beast from the earth in Rev 13 are "Republicanism and Protestantism"

So what are the two lamblike horns?

Exactly what the Bible says they are.

Is the spirit of prophecy contradicting the Bible by saying that they are something else. NO.

The Spirit of Prophecy is explaining the characteristics of the two kings that are symbolized by the horns.

You chose to equate horns with kings, per Daniel 8:20, little recognizing Daniel 8 also equates horns with kingdoms (the very next verse). You also discount the usage of horn in prophecy to denote a seat, our source, of power.

The US does have two sources for its power - a republic form of government (no civil king), and Protestant religion (no spiritual king). The US is not governed by kings. Equating horns with kings for the land beast makes no sense...EGW was not speaking of US kings. She spoke of the two sources of power upon which the US succeeds as a nation.

Quote:

A problem arises when the children of the pioneers treat the characteristics of the horns that describe the traits of the horns as if the traits are the symbolic meaning of the horns.

Then the misapplication of the symbolism skews the meaning of the prophecy and it becomes a tug of war as to who is rightly dividing the word of truth?

No, Henry, you make the error to the other side of the coin - going too narrow in your defining of a symbol, where even the context (taking Daniel 8:20 and 21 together) states there is good solid reason to expand the symbols meaning to what God wants understood.

I make no tug of war. I simply do not see the application you have made as being consistent and correct.

Blessings,

[duane2064]

duane2064,When all the dust was settled, about 1910 or so, Ellen White brought the subject up again, and said that it was time to listen to A.G. Daniels and hear him out and what he had to say about the Daily. This was after their spirits had calmed down, and after A.G. Daniels finally listened to Ellen White to go evangelize in the cities.

can you please provide a link to EW writings or what proof you have of these statements, because, looking into it, there isn't any hard evidence of your claims, again, you are about complete misinfo, unless you can provide a link for people to check out

http://www.adventtimes.com/content/Daily-in-Daniel.pdf

[hch]

...Daniel knew enough to think the subject was not the earthly sanctuary.

[hch]

The same is true with the 4-kingdom model of Daniel 2 & 7.

Daniel's day = 4-kings foreshadowing what was to come

Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus & Belshazzar (last two as one)

Interim period

Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome (pagan & papal)

Endtime 4 literal American Presidents with the last two being as though they are one.

[ClubV12]

What WAS the "deadly wound"? It was the ability of the Papal power to convict people of crimes of heresy. Persecute them with civil law, put them in jail, execute them, banish them and all manner of terrible things done under civil law.

The deadly wound has not been healed and won't be healed until that former power has returned.

[hch]

I can see no way you can pull US Presidents into Daniel's prophecies of chapters 2 & 7. The US is just not there, in any shape or form in the symbols.

[hch]

Daniel 7 and 8 clearly link the 4th beast to Revelation 13's sea beast as one and the same, so the US is not the sea beast.

[hch]

If we are going to count Popes (something Biblical prophesy does not do), then it would be far better to ... If you're looking for a more fantastic prophetic interpretation, that'd be the way to go

[hch]

You have indeed come across as one who thinks they have it all figured out. Sad, for one just beginning to post on these boards. Yes, God is moving His people from light to greater light, but I'm not convinced from our short exchange God is leading in the direct you're pointing.