SDA position on the Daily

[hch]

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 Ted,

Wow!

I'm glad I use my natural soft reader to read these long posts to me (if you don't have it or some reader it is free). Our dialoging is allot to digest.

Some of this may have already been answered in posts that have been passing over the net. I read your comments through once and break it into "small" replies. lol

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.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

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

The evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive that Ellen White was not taking sides of the daily, and that her problem with A.G. Daniels and Prescott was not in relation to their interpretation of the Daily itself, but their approach in presenting it---it was the spirit of Satan, and their wanting to bring this issue to prominence when it was something that should have been considered at the bottom of the scale in importance.

Ellen White was fully aware that A.G. Daniels had a different understanding of the Daily, and she never once stated that his view was wrong. But she did state his spirit was wrong.

AFTER A.G. Daniels had been converted, and began to heed the counsels of Ellen White, and after he began to put his priorities first, in 1910, Ellen White wrote Haskell and said that it was time we give A.G. Daniels a fair hearing on his positions, and that Haskell needed to be more open. This position could only be in regards to the Daily, as that was the only main contention Daniels had.

She said that we should give his opinion a fair and candid investigation.

Well guess what? Because of they were unwilling to come together in a humble spirit, the meetings simply never took place.

Thus, to this day, the "daily" battle still rages.

Not because A.G. Daniels was wrong, but because neither side was willing to humble themselves and really allow the other to make a full case on the matter.

It is unequivocally clear, however, that men like Crosier, A.T. Jones, Waggoner, Daniels, Prescott, etc. etc. believed that the Daily was in relation to Christ's continual High Priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

[hch]

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

[hch]

You're saying the US is the depending power not following the sea beast.

[hch]

Brother Ted,

Lest I be misunderstood. For 30 years I did not focus exclusively on Daniel. Which is not to say that I did not study the word during that time. In fact, I gave weekly Bible studies, taught Sabbath School, etc.

I'm glad you found the Advent message as well.

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.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

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

Do you have something to corroborate this point from Scripture or Spirit of Prophecy?

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

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

Then we should check it out.

William Shea, lists the chronology of Babylonian kings in his blue book (title might be off a little) Bible Amplifier, Daniel and Maxwell has some information also in God Cares, Vol. 1 Daniel.

With the move and what not, my library is not accessible to me at this time. So I'll see what random sources have to say on this.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

You're saying the US is the depending power not following the sea beast.

Brother Ted,

Please give me some context for a "depending power". I don't know what I could have written to convey this notion to you? If you could link something that I actually wrote to your response, maybe I could figure out what you are talking about.

This is my position from the Spirit of Prophecy:

Originally Posted By: Spirit of Prophecy

“At the time when the Papacy, robbed of its strength, was forced to desist from persecution, John beheld a new power coming up to echo the dragon’s voice, and carry forward the same cruel and blasphemous work. This power, the last that is to wage war against the church and the law of God, is represented by a beast with lamblike horns. The beasts preceding it had risen from the sea; but this came up out of the earth…”ST, Feb. 8, 1910 par. 5

“The application of the symbol admits of no question. One nation, and only one, meets the specifications of this prophecy; it points unmistakably to the United States of America. GC88 440.2

In the post I quoted this from, you strongly alleged that the deadly wound was healed when the US finally sent an ambassador to the Vatican - that at that point," all the world followed after the beast" in your reckoning.

I have merely laid out that that is not the case. The prophecy does not depend upon the US granting diplomatic relations to the Vatican as the point upon which the world following after the beast depends.

Over half of the world still does not regard the beast with amazement or marvel. In fact, 1/4 of the world regards it with extreme hatred and loathing.

Blessings,

[hch]

Brother Ted,

What happened to your iron toes?

I read your post and answer them in the order that they flow. If we agree, great if you say something that is different from my understanding, I ask about it and give the reason for my point of view.

This response comes back with a tone that is almost too hot to handle. And you express well some of the very feelings that I have been tempted to think about your earlier comments, but pray over rather than make them an issue. Sometimes when I read your responses, I wonder what did I say that brought that on? So I wonder if I am being clear in what I am writing and giving the reason for my faith so that you can understand. And make replies that accurately represent my views.

Are you intentionally misreading things? Or do you read only what you wish to read? Based upon this (and your following posts, you are indeed coming across as a contentious know-it-all who has his own little spin on EGW/Scripture - one not accepted by most students of prophecy.

[hch]

Am 8:11 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:"

[Ted Oplinger]

Brother Ted,

What happened to your iron toes?

I read your post and answer them in the order that they flow. If we agree, great if you say something that is different from my understanding, I ask about it and give the reason for my point of view.

This response comes back with a tone that is almost too hot to handle. And you express well some of the very feelings that I have been tempted to think about your earlier comments, but pray over rather than make them an issue. Sometimes when I read your responses, I wonder what did I say that brought that on? So I wonder if I am being clear in what I am writing and giving the reason for my faith so that you can understand. And make replies that accurately represent my views.

[joeb]

Ted,

I really like the last sentence of your signature. It's almost Franklinesque in its wisdom.

[Lysimachus]

I appreciate your work Ted!

Keep it up! Very very few Adventists are grounded in our messages, and are willing to valiantly defend our pillars.

I would agree that the "daily" is in reference to spiritual sacrifices. It also alludes that the term “evening-mornings” was used by Daniel because he was using artistic “sanctuary language” concerning the lamps that burned “always”, or “daily” in the sanctuary (See for example: Exodus 27:20, 21; Leviticus 24:2,3) So there is more of a fusion of understanding here of a continual ministration with lights burning from evening to morning, where we are able to come before God with our sacrifices continually.

And also we have 1 Peter 2:5, which states, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

What say you?

[Ted Oplinger]

I appreciate your work Ted!

Keep it up! Very very few Adventists are grounded in our messages, and are willing to valiantly defend our pillars.

I would agree that the "daily" is in reference to spiritual sacrifices. It also alludes that the term “evening-mornings” was used by Daniel because he was using artistic “sanctuary language” concerning the lamps that burned “always”, or “daily” in the sanctuary (See for example: Exodus 27:20, 21; Leviticus 24:2,3) So there is more of a fusion of understanding here of a continual ministration with lights burning from evening to morning, where we are able to come before God with our sacrifices continually.

And also we have 1 Peter 2:5, which states, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

What say you?

I agree with that conclusion, Lysimachus.

When I read Exodus, of how Moses was told to set in place the sanctuary - every bit of it was an image of some aspect of redemption's plan going on in heaven...right down to the various sacrifices and the way those sacrifices were handled in the rites. That included the morning and evening sacrifices.

I am glad Peter, John, and Paul all recognized this when comparing Christ's sacrifice to what they knew in the sanctuary service, they wrote such in their New Testament contributions.

Blessings,

[hch]

Daniel's prayer regarding the sanctuary being in ruins clearly points to the fact that he was concerned that the plan of salvation as depicted through the Temple services was disrupted. He was concerned about the remission of sin that was dependent on the shedding of blood. Thus from his frame of reference without a Temple and a sacrificial system, how could the people of his day receive the remission of sin?

“As Jesus died on Calvary, He cried, ‘It is finished’ [John 19:30], and the veil of the temple was rent in twain, from the top to the bottom. This was to show that the services of the earthly sanctuary were forever finished, and that God would no more meet with the priests in their earthly temple, to accept their sacrifices.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

Daniel's prayer regarding the sanctuary being in ruins clearly points to the fact that he was concerned that the plan of salvation as depicted through the Temple services was disrupted. He was concerned about the remission of sin that was dependent on the shedding of blood. Thus from his frame of reference without a Temple and a sacrificial system, how could the people of his day receive the remission of sin?

How could remission of sin be received?

That makes the assumption God could only work through Israel to affect the remission for sin, and then only through the sacrifices. Today's corollary would be that God can only work through the church to spread the Gospel of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and only then by accepting what the church messenger says and becoming a member.

My return question would be...Does the Bible hold that assumption to be a valid stand? From my studies, I could not agree with that assumption.

Revelation 5:9 "And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals, for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.' "

The italicized "men" is supplied; dropping it doesn't take anything away from what was purchased by the Blood shed for us: that being the whole human race.

Tribe - the least, most insignificant grouping of people together above the family

Tongue - there are literally hundreds of dead languages from ages past.

People - Groups of tribes, etc., who may, or may not have had a land to call their own. This would be a fitting description of the Hebrews while enslaved in Egypt.

Nation - Every group of peoples who've ever formed a nation on earth.

When I take in the scope and magnitude of just what every means, I am astounded.

It means even the least, most insignificant tribe that ever was (or is today) will have members present in heaven; it means every Native American tribe will be represented there;

It means every tongue - including the Pre-Flood language of the earth - will be represented. It means all of those dead languages from peoples in human race far-flung away from Jerusalem, will have representatives there;

Every peoples - including those peoples hostile to Israel while existing contemporaneously - will be represented there;

Every nation - Ancient and modern - will be represented. That would necessarily include Ancient Egypt, who enslaved Israel for 400 years.

All of that would necessarily include the 3500+ years of Biblical time the human race has wandered this earth in sin, where there was no Temple/Tabernacle nor a Church, and details of organized peoples worshiping God together through sacrifices are sketchy at best outside of the Noah/Abraham line.

BUT - am I making too much out of the scope of one verse?

Genesis 15:13-16 "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed for 400 years. But I will judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterwards they will come out with many possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. Then, in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.".

Two references here - the nation enslaving Abraham's descendants would be judges...meaning regardless of that nation's professed religion, God has supreme sovereignty over that nation. God has established the characteristic of working long and patiently with nations before placing them in judgement. Ancient Egypt (seeing that nation and people/culture no longer exists today) is one such nation to have people before the throne, purchased by the Blood of the lamb. Similarly, the Amorite nations were still under probation in this passage. God was still working with those nations...and there would be no tribes of Israel wandering the promised land leaving those curious burnt offering altars behind.

All said - how were the sins of any pre-Exodus peoples...including enslaved Israel...remitted outside the earthly burnt offering sacrifices?

Exodus 25:8, 9 "Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them. According to to all I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so shall you construct it."

Every bit of the Tabernacle came from a pattern of what was in heaven...right down to the earthly sacrifices pointing to the True sacrifice. The sacrifice Abel brought before God in Genesis 4 is the same sacrifice seen in Leviticus 1. All pointed to the True sacrifice to come, as seen in Hebrews 10:4-7 with regard to Old Testament sacrifices: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,'Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure; then I said, "Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of Me) to do Your will". '"

Hebrews 10:4-7 hearkens to Micah 6:6-8 "With what shall I come to the Lord, and bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the Lord take delight in thousands of rams? in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my first born for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love kindness (mercy), and to walk humbly with your God?"

Other verses can be brought in add upon this. Taken together - the burnt offerings were the symbol by which one could participate in type on earth while the True sacrifice covered them in heaven God desired people not to need sacrifices, but to allow their lives to demonstrate God is at work to will and to do within what is pleasing in His sight. When the sacrifices were not available to participate in (whether through distance, ignorance or exile), people were covered by...grace, as they would be covered by the True sacrifice:

Romans 2:12-16 "For all who have sinned without the Law will perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the law, for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, not having the Law, are a law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written into their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my Gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ"

Gentiles - outside the sacrificial system - are covered; they are found doing not only Micah 6:8, but also doing Exodus 20:1-17, in their daily lives because it is written on their hearts. Who wrote it their? Jeremiah 31:33, 34.

So - I must conclude the assumption God works solely through a single people/corporation - is incorrect - God works through grace before He adds the symbols to portray the plan of redemption. As it was in Eden (Genesis 3:15) - the promise first, then the sacrifice pointing to Christ - so it would remain so for the remainder of time.

In short, during the exile, Israel was covered by this same grace. Daniel, deprived of the symbols to participate in, still managed to approach God acceptably through all those decades leading up to Daniel 9. I would doubt he would think he was the only one so covered (as per his 3 friends, also deciding to be faithful).

In Daniel 9, Daniel is seen praying for his people in intercession. Without the Hebrew economy, how would he know Israel was forgiven, and allowed to return? By God's promise (found in the writings of Jeremiah), not by earthly sacrifice. Trusting in God's promise is what saves and redeems. This lesson is found throughout the Old Testament...

The Ark of Noah - what saved? The promise first (Flood, God's protection and grace, then the receding of waters), then the sacrifices.

Abraham? The promise first, then the sacrifices (Genesis 15)

Sinai? The promise first, then the sacrifices. (Exodus 19-Leviticus 4)

Also, Daniel 9 contains no reference to the Temple being desolated/rebuilt. Those references are to Jerusalem being desolate (not the Temple), and the command to go forth and rebuild Jerusalem (not the Temple). Daniel was not given the insight here that the Temple symbol, given by God, was going to be re-established as part of God's plan. Daniel DID know the sacrifices would continue until Messiah the Prince, but he was given no indication if that system was going to to be the same as he remembered it being.

Blessings,

[Gibs]

1844 was the last of day for a year prophecy, so how can one make the 1260, 1290 and 1335 yrs? This is a very endtime prophecy that falls far into the time of the end begining 1844!

The days of Dan the prophet are to be shortened for the elect's sake. I find the 1290 and 1335 are the shortened days, literal days as John only sees 1260

Just tell me when the deadly wound is healed of Rev 13:3 that's all I need to know.

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.

[ClubV12]

"Futurists" exposed...

Point of clairification on folks who believe the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year segments of the 2,300 year prophecy are literal days. The official Seventh-day Adventist Church position is that these time segments are years (using the day for a year principle) and that these time segments are in the past, the last of which terminated in 1844. They are not "future", they are not literal days, there is no dual fulfillment of these time frames.

Those who believe the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year segments of the 2,300 year prophecy are both literal days and are applied in the future are typically not members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Though they often allude to, suggest or imply they are. This is not to imply such believers are insincere, indeed, even fanatics and extremists can be deeply sincere. Even to the point of delivering themselves to be burned or martyred for Christ. But there is no reward for the sin of presumption and sincerity should not be mistaken for truth. Sadly, many sincere folks are sincerely mistaken.

Gibs ask's,

"Just tell me when the deadly wound is healed of Rev 13:3 that's all I need to know." Simple enough. The deadly wound is healed when the combination of civil and religious power is such that men can be compelled by law of the land to acknowledge Sunday as a legal and religious day of worship. Until that happens, the wound is not healed.

[Ted Oplinger]

"Futurists" exposed...

Point of clairification on folks who believe the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year segments of the 2,300 year prophecy are literal days. The official Seventh-day Adventist Church position is that these time segments are years (using the day for a year principle) and that these time segments are in the past, the last of which terminated in 1844. They are not "future", they are not literal days, there is no dual fulfillment of these time frames.

Those who believe the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year segments of the 2,300 year prophecy are both literal days and are applied in the future are typically not members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Though they often allude to, suggest or imply they are. This is not to imply such believers are insincere, indeed, even fanatics and extremists can be deeply sincere. Even to the point of delivering themselves to be burned or martyred for Christ. But there is no reward for the sin of presumption and sincerity should not be mistaken for truth. Sadly, many sincere folks are sincerely mistaken.

[Gibs]

Well you who are historics in belief of Dan 12:1 sinks your ship.

Da 12:1 ¶ And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

The time of trouble such as never was must be in play first, Dan 12 is not past history it is future history.

Stumble around in the dark all you want to is fine with me, but I tell you now it'll get you nowhere!

ClubV12, I do agree when the deadly wound is healed and it is when Martyrdom begins again. It may begin a little before the Sunday for the Sabbath decree comes down as that may have to come from the Dragons mouth himself.

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.

[joeb]

Ted,

I really like the part of your post #603958 in which you speak of all those who will be saved. It's the only thing a just and loving God can do. He must save those who have followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit and yet never heard the Gospel.

Not many people agree with that idea, but I sure do. The Holy Spirit works upon all human hearts, not just some of them, and those who follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit, yet not heard the Gospel, have met the same criteria of salvation as those who have heard the Gospel and followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

[Ted Oplinger]

Well you who are historics in belief of Dan 12:1 sinks your ship.

Da 12:1 ¶ And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

The time of trouble such as never was must be in play first, Dan 12 is not past history it is future history.

Stumble around in the dark all you want to is fine with me, but I tell you now it'll get you nowhere!

ClubV12, I do agree when the deadly wound is healed and it is when Martyrdom begins again. It may begin a little before the Sunday for the Sabbath decree comes down as that may have to come from the Dragons mouth himself.

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.

Well, I among of those "historics" when it comes to those prophecies that have specific time intervals associated with them...yet I have yet to meet anyone who has considered Daniel 12:1 to be an event in the past. So, please forgive me if I don't see the issue of contention here. Maybe it's because it is Sabbath, and I am resting too comfortably in the Lord right now to pick up on it...

Does Daniel 12:1 have a specific time interval associated with it? No? Thought so. Does Revelation 13:11-18 have specific time intervals associated there? No? But...aren't Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 13:11-18 talking about the same short period just before Christ comes to claim His own? Yes? Then.....

...if they don't have time prophecies in those passages, and these passages are clearly yet future....why would this "sink the ship" of someone who has fitted prophetic time intervals for events in the past...even if those intervals covered the past activity of a participant who still has actions future yet to do? A history...which hasn't yet been written, because it is yet to unfold in time?

Or have I made a substitution here that doesn't apply? You DID link "historics" and Daniel 12:1 as the issue....but...who...has...done...that?

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

Ted,

I really like the part of your post #603958 in which you speak of all those who will be saved. It's the only thing a just and loving God can do. He must save those who have followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit and yet never heard the Gospel.

Not many people agree with that idea, but I sure do. The Holy Spirit works upon all human hearts, not just some of them, and those who follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit, yet not heard the Gospel, have met the same criteria of salvation as those who have heard the Gospel and followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Don't thank me - thank God! He it is who instructed me when I prayed about what was to be done for the remission of sins for those never near the Tabernacle nor the Church, whether in time or in space. He showed Revelation 5:9, then asked quietly the magnitude of the word, "every" when placed between "purchased...with Your blood" and "tribe...tongue...people...and nation."

I then realized there is ~4000 years of Old Testament history that is covered by His blood....and became astonished at the magnitude of grace that implies. The rest...kind of really fell right into place.

Many people have a cultural/denominational pride that says, "ONLY through....X means...will the remission of sins be conveyed through to the sinner, and then ONLY as the sinner shows some sort of action the they are participating in those means. This also known as remission of sins could only come through bringing a sacrifice to the tabernacle/Temple, or accepting the Gospel by being baptized, becoming a member of X church, then participating in the rites therein. BUT...if this was true, then...

...how did king David obtain forgiveness and remission for the sins of his Bathsheba drama? Both murder and adultery were sins by which one COULD NOT bring a sacrifice to the Tabernacle/Temple and receive atonement for. These sins were to be confirmed, then judgment meted out then and there. No atonement - even if those affected most forgave the perpetrator - was possible, according to the Law.

Yet...David did receive atonement. He is counted among the faithful. If his atonement did not come through the Sanctuary sacrifices, though, from where did it come from? Only by the blood of Jesus...

Blessings,

[ClubV12]

Since the Lord was supposed to have come in the 1800's but we failed to "cross over" just as the Children of Israel failed to cross over, we have been wandering ever since we turned back into the wilderness. Since this is a fact, supported by numerous quotes of Ellen White, then it follows that ALL of Daniel 11 should have been, could have been, fulfilled in the 1800's. Daniel 11:40-44 HAVE ALREADY been fulfilled by the Crimean War which ended in 1856. We, as a people, have been waiting for the final fulfillment of the last verse, verse 45.

Any dates AFTER 1890 or so have little or no meaning as they relate to "way marks" or "fulfilled prophecy" events. Hence, 1929 is smoke and mirrors. 9-11 means nothing in terms of fulfilling prophecy or being a "way mark". It doesn't matter who is President or what World War did or didn't happen. Nothing significant happened in the forty years of wandering with the Children of Israel. Nothing significant will or has happened for the Seventh-day Adventist Church since 1890, when "we" blew it and failed to cross over. Been wandering ever since. THATS WHY it appears prophecy has failed!!! It has not, WE have failed, not God. WE shouldn't even be here!!

One verse, one verse only, verse 45, when that happens, 12:1 follows in short order, THEN we go home.