Samie Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 In Dan 12:11, we find: Quote: 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Here are delineated two events, separated by 1290 days: the taking away of the daily [sacrifice] (Hebrew 'tamid') and the setting up of the AoD. Note that in Dan 11:31, these same events are likewise delineated. What does this fact tell us? It had been shown that vv21-45 all occurred under the reign of the king of v21 = the man of sin = the beast, and hence all within the lifetime of a man. Therefore, this understanding of Dan 11:21-45 which was based on the words of Christ Himself, unlocks yet another door of understanding: the understanding that the occurrence of the 1290 days are likewise within the lifetime of a man, and therefore, cannot be years but literal days! Quote
ClubV12 Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Samie, you have completely missed the point about HOW inspiration, the Holy Spirit and the Lord speaks to us, how He teaches us. So go ahead, do your own thing when it comes to scripture interpretation, good luck with that. As a member of the Adventist Church, just curios, does it bother you at all that your views on the 2,300 year prophecy are not at all in harmony with what the Church believes? Quote
Lysimachus Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Marcos, what IF I am right, then what? Dan.11:31-35 prove that this happens at the end. It does NOT happen thru out the time period you believe. Look at verse 40. There was NO chapter break between 11 and 12 so now look at 12:1-3 and you will see this all happens at the very end of time on this earth. It is IN the future no matter what you mistakenly believe. Soon, it will proove itself to be true. By the way, what is the difference between a 'false christian' and a non-false christian? I do NOT want to be in line with those who are foolish virgins. I am fine just where I am, thank you! And NO way Jose, will I ever stop doing what Jesus said to do in Matthew 28:20--YOU can't stop me my friend! After all, is not the ONE good and faithful servant found in Matthew 24:45 independent? Isn't he the ONE in charge of the Master's house? Will not he 'get' everything the Master has right now IF he feeds his fellow servants? And, the 144,000 make up just a small fraction of all Adventists right now, so it would be utterly stupid to line up with all of those foolish virgins! Kellogg thought he was absolutely right too. He would not submit to the counsel of the brethren, nor Sister White. Are you sure you're not acting like Kellogg? Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Moderators John317 Posted February 23, 2012 Moderators Posted February 23, 2012 It had been shown that vv21-45 all occurred under the reign of the king of v21 = the man of sin = the beast, and hence all within the lifetime of a man. Therefore, this understanding of Dan 11:21-45 which was based on the words of Christ Himself, unlocks yet another door of understanding: the understanding that the occurrence of the 1290 days are likewise within the lifetime of a man, and therefore, cannot be years but literal days! The man of sin, & the beast, is not a single man but it's a religious/political power that is headed by a man. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Lysimachus Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 In Dan 12:11, we find: Quote: 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Here are delineated two events, separated by 1290 days: the taking away of the daily [sacrifice] (Hebrew 'tamid') and the setting up of the AoD. Note that in Dan 11:31, these same events are likewise delineated. What does this fact tell us? It had been shown that vv21-45 all occurred under the reign of the king of v21 = the man of sin = the beast, and hence all within the lifetime of a man. Therefore, this understanding of Dan 11:21-45 which was based on the words of Christ Himself, unlocks yet another door of understanding: the understanding that the occurrence of the 1290 days are likewise within the lifetime of a man, and therefore, cannot be years but literal days! Wrong Samie. The "he" that is being mentioned in verses 21-45 are new people. The positions are being "switched". The "he" simply represents a starting point in verse 21, but it continues switching to new offices of power from that point on. Nebuchadnezzar was not the only ruler of Babylon, yet Daniel told him "thou art this head of gold". Yet Daniel said, "after THEE shall arise another KINGDOM". Therefore, the Kingdom was the focus, but why was Nebuchadnezzar being mentioned as the head of gold? Because Nebuchadnezzar was the REPRESENTATIVE OF BABYLON. A "King" and "Kingdom" are used synonymously. The "he", is simply an "office of position", referring to kingdoms and empires over time. You are espousing futuristic, Jesuit, psuedepigraphal garbage. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Moderators John317 Posted February 23, 2012 Moderators Posted February 23, 2012 Are you [Dr. Rich] sure you're not acting like Kellogg? Far worse that Kellogg ever dreamed of acting. Dr. Rich teaches that a large portion of the Bible was planted by Satan and that Peter was deceived by the Devil on the day of Pentecost. You can find this teaching in the book, The Spirit of the Church, which Dr. Rich, Wayfinder, and Musicman advertize and distribute on the web-site. Musicman was the author, but he based it on Wayfinder's teachings. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
ClubV12 Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Hmmmm, when folks ask for book, chapter, verse to prove or disprove a point, I think I'm going to start calling the "the silver platter syndrome". No digging, no searching, no thought or mental strain required, maybe someone's already covered that though with "couch potato". :) Quote
Lysimachus Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Dr. Rich, Wayfinder, and Musicman = what I term the "monkey-wrench group". They always throw our discussions off course into debates about the Bible's validity, and slow us down from accomplishing the things that we want to get accomplished on this board. =/ Samie is close behind them. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Samie Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Dr. Rich, Wayfinder, and Musicman = what I term the "monkey-wrench group". They always throw our discussions off course into debates about the Bible's validity, and slow us down from accomplishing the things that we want to get accomplished on this board. =/ Samie is close behind them. I don't mind being labelled with whatsoever you like, brother. It doesn't concern me at all. What concerns me more is your resorting to ad hominem slants to cover up your inability to show from Scriptures how or why I could be wrong in my position I present in this forum for scrutiny under the magnifying glass of the unerring Word of God. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 David was converted as a young boy--he does not count and neither does Sampson. I did not say becoming evil or doing bad things after being good. Ok, lets get back to Dan. ll, sorry about that bump in the road guys. Some days I am a cross examiner but I need to take a vacation from that. As a whole, I see those on this forum are very sincere and for that I am glad. Without fun debate, things would get borring for me. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 [/grote] Kellogg thought he was absolutely right too. He would not submit to the counsel of the brethren, nor Sister White. Are you sure you're not acting like Kellogg? Quote
wayfinder Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Dr. Rich, Wayfinder, and Musicman = what I term the "monkey-wrench group". They always throw our discussions off course into debates about the Bible's validity, and slow us down from accomplishing the things that we want to get accomplished on this board. =/ Samie is close behind them. Throw stones all you want. All we have ever asked you to do is to show proof from the Law and prophets and the testimony of Jesus as recorded by His eyewitnesses. If someone was not an eyewitness/earwitness how can their testimony be trusted, expecially when their account is different than that of the earwitness? Don't think that the council that gave us the creed and dogma of the Catholic church, could or would give us an err free and perfect canon. John 10:26"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.30 "I and the Father are one."31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Lysimachus, you are an expert on generalizations, but I still enjoy the disscussions with all of you. Quote
ClubV12 Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 I'm sure Dr.Rich also understands and recent research shows just how unreliable "eye witness" reports are. Many studies have been done that show such testimony is highly suspect and easily influenced by others. In all fairness, using the approach that only an eye witness can be trusted, I would have to throw the entire case out. No forensics? No hard evidence? No circumstantial evidence? ALL you are going to rely on is eye witness accounts from obviously biased individuals? ....case dismissed. Some things, you just have to take on faith. Quote
Samie Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Originally Posted By: Samie It had been shown that vv21-45 all occurred under the reign of the king of v21 = the man of sin = the beast, and hence all within the lifetime of a man. Therefore, this understanding of Dan 11:21-45 which was based on the words of Christ Himself, unlocks yet another door of understanding: the understanding that the occurrence of the 1290 days are likewise within the lifetime of a man, and therefore, cannot be years but literal days! The man of sin, & the beast, is not a single man but it's a religious/political power that is headed by a man. Quote
cheddar Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 YES, I love corn flakes! They are GrrrrrrrrrrreAT! We even have a hill on I10 called Kellogg Hill. I don't see any Sister White hills around. haha, that funny! Quote
Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2012 Moderators Posted February 24, 2012 Would you be surprised to learn that Dr. Rich cannot practice law? Is it any wonder he can't? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Samie Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Would you be surprised to learn that Dr. Rich cannot practice law? Is it any wonder he can't? I suggest nothing of this sort in this forum, please, brethren? Let's just get on with discussing the biblical issues of the thread directly. Thanks. Quote
wayfinder Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 I'm sure Dr.Rich also understands and recent research shows just how unreliable "eye witness" reports are. Many studies have been done that show such testimony is highly suspect and easily influenced by others. In all fairness, using the approach that only an eye witness can be trusted, I would have to throw the entire case out. No forensics? No hard evidence? No circumstantial evidence? ALL you are going to rely on is eye witness accounts from obviously biased individuals? ....case dismissed. Some things, you just have to take on faith. Not so fast! Are you now saying that John and Matthew are not to be trusted in their accounts of what they heard their Teacher say? John 14:26 NAS "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 17:17"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.18"As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.19"For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.20"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me Jesus is not speaking of faith my friend; but I guess you don't accept John's testimony because it is unreliable. What I am saying is that John and Matthew were with Jesus when He taught the people, Luke and Paul were not. In a court of Law, hearsay is not admissible as evidence, only eyewitness testimony. Quote
Lysimachus Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 There is nothing ad hominem about what I said. The truth is, this topic is about Daniel 11. Not about Paul. And somehow Dr. Rich, Wayfinder, and Musicman always end up turning the discussion into a debate about the inspiration of Paul. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Dr. Rich Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 John317, I just won judgments on 10 cases this last month, so I will agree with you that I do not PRACTICE at all, I do it right the first time. And of course the reason is that my King who I am a bondservant for, forbids me to become yoked with people who control you. Being a bondservant for Jesus meanst severing all ties with those who want to control you from the Kingdom of the World. If anyone has a problem with this, then that is ok with me, as I must do what God wants me to do first. If you don't understand this, call me and I will show you how evil the legislative Article III Justice and Courts have become. It's going to get worse, too! Quote
Lysimachus Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Can you provide biblical basis that backs up your view, brother? Why would Paul use the words 'son', 'who', 'himself', 'he' to describe the "man of sin" if the "man of sin" is indeed a religious/political power? I have no disagreement that indeed the man of sin is a leader; in fact I had said he is a king, as the Bible explicitly says. As king who demands worship, he wields tremendous religious and political powers at his disposal. It is obvious Samie that you gave no thought to my article. I will post it again: http://www.scribd.com/propheticlandmarks...Single-Man#full I suppose the Harlot Woman is a single woman because she mentioned as a "she" and a "her"? Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
wayfinder Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 There is nothing ad hominem about what I said. The truth is, this topic is about Daniel 11. Not about Paul. And somehow Dr. Rich, Wayfinder, and Musicman always end up turning the discussion into a debate about the inspiration of Paul. No, you do. When we ask for a proof text from an earwitness you get all flustered. I have only responded to the accusations leveled against me, et al. Quote
Lysimachus Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Originally Posted By: Lysimachus There is nothing ad hominem about what I said. The truth is, this topic is about Daniel 11. Not about Paul. And somehow Dr. Rich, Wayfinder, and Musicman always end up turning the discussion into a debate about the inspiration of Paul. No, you do. When we ask for a proof text from an earwitness you get all flustered. I have only responded to the accusations leveled against me, et al. Give me an example of the accusations I have not addressed. Perhaps I did not see them? I am working 10 hours a day online, and am not able to see every post in between breaks. It's not that I can't address your arguments. I know I can. But it SAPS a lot of energy to try to waste our time dealing with issues concerning whether Paul is inspired or not, when we should be dealing with much more relevant and important issues to the topic. I know you have a hard time accepting that this is what you do, but it's the truth nonetheless. It is not that I cannot address them, my frustration rests on the amount of precious time you sap on people on subjects that I never dreamed we'd be discussing. And they are a waste of our precious time. The last thing on my mind when I joined this forum was to have to debate people like you about whether Paul is inspired or not! This is sheer madness Wayfinder! And it is incomprehensible how you cannot see it. It is unfathomable that it is come to this. Unfathomable! Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Throw stones all you want. All we have ever asked you to do is to show proof from... The only problem with that is that you always do it right in the middle of other people's threads that have absolutely nothing to do with your singular subject matter. Your one and only topic. The first couple of times you do it, people try to be nice, and not say anything. But I've been watching you three highjack virtually every thread you've ever posted on, for 2 years now. What about Daniel 11? Quote
Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2012 Moderators Posted February 24, 2012 The man of sin, & the beast, is not a single man but it's a religious/political power that is headed by a man. Originally Posted By: Samie Can you provide biblical basis that backs up your view, brother? Why would Paul use the words 'son', 'who', 'himself', 'he' to describe the "man of sin" if the "man of sin" is indeed a religious/political power? The little-horn, the antichrist, the man of sin, and the beast-- all are the same power. That power-- the papacy-- is headed by the pope. Daniel 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. None of those "horns" are individuals but are powers, and it says that this "little horn" has the eyes like that of a man and a mouth speaking great things [against God]. The Bible teaches that this power arose only a few centuries after the death of the apostles and it will be destroyed when Christ returns. Of course the original antichrist is Satan himself, but he uses earthly powers, including the papacy and the Catholic Church, to attack Christ and His followers. Consider: Daniel 7:25-26 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. [26] But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And: 2 Thes. 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.