Daniel 11

[Samie]

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?

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 suppose the Harlot Woman is a single woman because she mentioned as a "she" and a "her"?

[ClubV12]

Just musing,,,,

Being a fairly new Adventist it's becoming more clear that many many Adventists in the Church for decades or even their whole life have so little knowledge of the fundamental teaching of the Church on the 2,300 year prophecy. I was shocked to find that recently a lifetime Adventist in my community, soon headed to Andrews U for an advanced degree had not even read the Great Controversy. The fellow I first studied with, life long Adventist, knew the basics of the 2,300 year prophecy but was not aware of the 1260 or 1290 year segments or what they meant.

It's becoming LESS of a surprise when folks wonder how it is possible I have learned so much about these things in a year or so. Less suprising that some are offended by my knowledge as if to say they certainly know more because they've been studying for decades!

Samie, my guess, and I say this in a very heart felt way, "Brother", is that you have not read the Great Controversy. Your lack of basic Adventist knowledge on Daniel 11 is startling. Was startling, it making more sense though, so few Adventists actually seem to know this stuff. And then there are those, I've met a few in real life now, who are off on wild tangents and bizzare theories that are completely out of harmony with the fundamental beliefs of the Church.

Whew,,, I'm not sure what to make of it all, certainly "disturbing" comes to mind.

[Dr. Rich]

ClubV12, please don't give up your study and I for one do see how much you have learned, but test everything--as that is what I started to do over 20 years ago and was very surprised at how many issues I assumed were true, were not.

Today, the news states that the Vatican wants to investigate a 1500 old book called "The Gospel of Barabas" thought to be one of the missing gospels. Right now it's in Turkey and it will be very interesting to see how the Vatican does it's test. Why? Well, you can Google "gospel of barnabas" try reading chapters 40-45 and tell me what you think.

So IF you feel that the study of Daniel and Revelation is interesting, take a look at it just to see how deceiving Satan can be.

I have attempted to read just about everything out there and---my goodness there is lots and lots out there folks! Hang on, it's going to be a very rough ride!

[ClubV12]

You know the interesting thing about studying the Adventist doctrines, proving and testing them, holding fast that which is good, is I'm finding just how extremely accurate and well balanced those view points are. The more I study, the more harmony I come to with the brethren at the higher levels, in particular the G.C. level.

I see, locally, some confusion and dare I say outright ignorance of many things "Adventist". Some serious error IS being introduced locally. I also see that in various parts of the country, even at some Conference levels. The smoke clears and the issues become more consistent the higher I look into what the Church "officially" believes. As opposed to what any given group here or there may be teaching or preaching.

The fundamental are amazingly solid, the 2300 year prophecy absolutely stands in tact, it is a strong pillar of the faith. Other issues I think we tend to dwell on to much, the nature of Christ for instance. Not a big problem for me, He was divine, He was human, it is enough for me to know that. The daily, OK, whatever definition you like, I have one, I'm good to go. There IS a storm coming, THAT is the important concept, get ready.

WHY Daniel is so important to us, to Adventists, to the world, is that we may see just how short time is. It is a wakeup call, GET READY. I get it, I'm on it, God help us. I won't get lost in the details and loose site of the reason FOR the details.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

...

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.

...

[Samie]

Just musing,,,,

...

Samie, my guess, and I say this in a very heart felt way, "Brother", is that you have not read the Great Controversy. Your lack of basic Adventist knowledge on Daniel 11 is startling. Was startling, it making more sense though, so few Adventists actually seem to know this stuff. And then there are those, I've met a few in real life now, who are off on wild tangents and bizzare theories that are completely out of harmony with the fundamental beliefs of the Church.

Whew,,, I'm not sure what to make of it all, certainly "disturbing" comes to mind.

[ClubV12]

I find lots of Adventists can quote this or that SOP referrence, but few have seriously read her works, studied them. If you have, I'm glad. If you have, I do wonder, how is it possible you have come to the conclusions you have regarding Daniel 11 without rejecting much of what she had to say? But then again, I'm seeing more and more Adventists that don't fully believe in the SOP even when they DO quote a piece here or there. Not probing Samie, as I said, "musing", just trying to come to a better understanding of these troubling questions.

As we see on this very thread, numerous and discordant views abound, from ADVENTISTS no less! This is no different than what we see in any given Christian Church. The PRIMARY message of "press together" has been lost, it's more like "every man, every Adventist, for himself".

...a bit baffling it is...

I certainly don't disagree with the GC quotes you just posted. I see them in an entirely different way than you do however. I see them in the light of "press together", not scatter.

[Samie]

I find lots of Adventists can quote this or that SOP referrence, but few have seriously read her works, studied them. If you have, I'm glad. If you have, I do wonder, how is it possible you have come to the conclusions you have regarding Daniel 11 without rejecting much of what she had to say? But then again, I'm seeing more and more Adventists that don't fully believe in the SOP even when they DO quote a piece here or there. Not probing Samie, as I said, "musing", just trying to come to a better understanding of these troubling questions.

As we see on this very thread, numerous and discordant views abound, from ADVENTISTS no less! This is no different than what we see in any given Christian Church. The PRIMARY message of "press together" has been lost, it's more like "every man, every Adventist, for himself".

...a bit baffling it is...

I certainly don't disagree with the GC quotes you just posted. I see them in an entirely different way than you do however. I see them in the light of "press together", not scatter.

[ClubV12]

I find your interpretations of Daniel to be directly opposed to the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. What you CLAIM to be the words of Jesus you misapply. I base that on sound doctrinal reasoning, reading and understanding the same verses differently than you and with due consideration to the interpretations of the brethren spanning over a 100 years.

Now, one of us is "dead" wrong. My independant study leads me to conclude the pioneers got it right, it leads to pressing together with them. On the other hand your interpretation leads to division within the Church, a scattering of Gods people.

Well, thats the way I see it, which is why I am wondering, did we read the same book, The Great Controversy? Doesn't seem likely.... :)

[John317]

...But why do you seem to overlook what Daniel himself recorded as to what those "horns" are?

Daniel 7:23-24

Quote:

23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

The one who explained to Daniel said the "horns" are "kings"! How can they be not individuals? Any verse that led you to the conclusion that these "kings" are not individuals, but powers?

The ten horns represent kingdoms emerging from the fourth kingdom symbolized by the beast (vvs. 23, 24). As in the dream of the statue, the fourth kingdom ends up being divided. Daniel 2: 41, 42. cf. Daniel 7: 7,8.

Notice that Daniel 7: 17 says that the four great beasts are "four kings."

Are the four great beasts that arise from the sea in Daniel 7: 2-7 four individual kings? Clearly not. They are kingdoms. In Daniel 7: 23, the angel Gabriel tells us directly that the fourth beast shall be the fourth KINGDOM.

Notice also that Daniel 8: 20 says that the ram represents the kings of Media and Persia, and verse 21 says the shaggy goat represents the "king of Grecia," i.e., the kingdom of Greece. (See NASB.)

Verse 21 is an instance of where the Aramaic word "king" is used when it actually signifies "kingdom," which is how the New American Standard Bible translates it.

Verse 22 says that the four horns that arose in the place of Alexander the Great, the first king, represents four KINGDOMS that will arise out of the kingdom of Greece. These four horns were not individuals but kingdoms, including the Seleucid kings and the Ptolemies.

[ClubV12]

Samie says,

"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."

If I understand you correctly, Brother, then Daniel 11 is in the past, having been fulfilled within the lifetime of a single man.

Consider this statement from Sister White on Daniel 11 and compare:

"The world is stirred with the spirit of war. The prophecy of the eleventh chapter of Daniel has NEARLY reached its complete fulfillment. Soon the scenes of trouble spoken of in the prophecies will take place." {9T 14.2}

NEARLY, not yet fulfilled, which is consistent with the views of both James White and Uriah Smith, who had individual opinions over who the King of the North might be. Turkey? Russia? James White was more cautious in his position, not wanting to take to firm a stand on the details. Uriah Smith was more outspoken with his opinions in stating that "who ever" it was, the final conflict, armegeddon, was at hand and some power WOULD rise in his lifetime to become the North King. I like James Whites approach, one of caution, carefully considering the options, not wanting to put even a hint of a timeline on end events.

[John317]

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!

What can we expect from people who believe Acts 2: 3 should be translated as "a tongue of fire" rather than as it is, "tongues as of fire"?

Might as well be talking to a house on fire. No matter what evidence you show them, they will keep speaking the same trash, year in and year out, about how Peter was deceived by Satan on the Day of Atonement, and about how all of Paul's letters were planted in the NT by the Devil.

We know whose voice is actually speaking, the same one who spoke through the serpent in the Garden. Who else would love for Christians to believe their Bible is full of the words of Satan?

[Samie]

Brother John317;

I suggest we don't clutter our discussion with other issues. I had already followed you to the "horns" in Dan 7 from the "man of sin" which you said is not a man. Please, let go of the "beasts"; let's dwell on the "horns" first. In this vein, I'll ignore and delete from quote the "beasts" portion of your post and address the "horns" issue.

...

The ten horns represent kingdoms emerging from the fourth kingdom symbolized by the beast (vvs. 23, 24). As in the dream of the statue, the fourth kingdom ends up being divided. Daniel 2: 41, 42. cf. Daniel 7: 7,8.

...

[Samie]

Samie says,

"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."

If I understand you correctly, Brother, then Daniel 11 is in the past, having been fulfilled within the lifetime of a single man.

...

Brother ClubV12;

You could have been too busy with other matters you missed my post emphatically saying Dan 11:21-45 is yet FUTURE.

[Gordon1]

Now WHERE did the Lord send Paul to receive instruction? WHY would the Lord send him anywhere if ALL he needed was the bible, the bible only and the Lord to teach him?

The Lord sent Paul to the brethren, that he might learn from them. How foolish and prideful to think that we can stand alone and the Lord will teach us all things, just us, no one else is needed. Whew,,, what delusion is that!

Your position is not Biblical, it counters Paul's witness. It's the word of CLUBV12 vs. the Word of God.

Here is the evidence that your dependence on quarterlies, commentaries or 'brethren' is unsound. Pressing together with the wrong kind.

Here is the Scriptural record:

"IMMEDIATELY, I conferred not with flesh and blood.

"Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;

but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter..

...behold, before God I lie not."

Paul's testimony from Galations 1:16-20

[Gordon1]

"Paul, an apostle,

not of man, neither by man,

but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father.." Galations 1:1

Following Paul's conversion, "IMMEDIATELY I conferred not with flesh and blood" (v.16)

Three years later Paul went to see Peter the fisherman, a layman, for fifteen days. He saw no other apostle except James. (v.19)

Here lies the sorrow of your zeal. You condemn others for their delusion, foolishnes, pride, etc. But you're unaware of the Biblical record. At least, read the first chapter of Galations.

Leave the commentaries. Buy a Strong's concordance and redeem the time.

[ClubV12]

Gordon, you should trying reading more of Ellen White before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it.

"The marvelous light that illuminated the darkness of Saul was the work of the Lord; but there was also a work that was to be done for him by the disciples of Christ. The answer to Saul’s question is, "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." Jesus sends the inquiring Jew to his church, to obtain from them the knowledge of his duty. Christ performed the work of revelation and conviction; and now the penitent was in a condition to learn of those whom God had ordained to teach his truth. Thus Jesus gave sanction to the authority of his organized church, and placed Saul in connection with his representatives on earth. The light of heavenly illumination deprived Saul of sight; but Jesus, the great Healer, did not at once restore it. All blessings flow from Christ, but he had now established a church as his representative on earth, and to it belonged the work of directing the repentant sinner in the way of life.

The very men whom Saul had purposed to destroy were to be his instructors in the religion which he had despised and persecuted."

Redemption; or The Ministry of Peter and the Conversion of Saul." (45)

[ClubV12]

Samie verse 22 is the crucifixtion of Christ, an ANCHOR POINT in Daniel 11, AD 31.

To consider your theory that 21 to 45 are one continual time frame you have to ignore virtually every Adventist theologian who ever commented on Daniel. ALL the pioneers, the Adventist commentary and the position of the Adventist Church today.

You can press together or continue to scatter deceive folks like Gordon1 who knows little about Daniel and will certainly only be confused by your false theories and error.

22. Arms of a flood. “Arms” denotes power, and here, particularly, military power (see vs. 6, 15). The picture is evidently that of floodlike armies of soldiers (see ch. 9:26). Tiberius was eminently successful in leading several military campaigns, both in Germany and in the East on the frontiers of Armenia and Parthia.

Prince of the covenant. Identical with the Prince who confirms the covenant in ch. 9:25–27 (see ch. 8:11). That this was the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is clear from the prophecy of ch. 9. It was when Tiberius reigned (a.d. 14–37), and upon the order of his procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, that Jesus was crucified, in the year a.d. 31.

Nichol, F. D. (1978; 2002). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4 (870)

[Gordon1]

Thanks CLUBV12. I see a kind of Saul in you.

I hope you'll soon abandon the persecution and start hearing the laymen.

[ClubV12]

The straight testimony will cause the shaking, Gordon. It's something your going to have to deal with. You can press together and support the Church or you can bind yourself with those who oppose the fundamental doctrines and teach error.

That is the choice all will make and they will certainly call it "persecution" and "Saul" when the straight testimony comes.

Here it comes, pay attention:

Samie is teaching error as it concerns the Seventh-day Adventist belief on the fundamental issues of Daniel 11. "Close" to the truth is FAR from the truth in reality. This isn't horse shoes or hand grenades, you either believe in the pillars of our faith or you don't. IF you don't, fine, no problem, but WHEN you openly teach and preach ERROR, that must be met with the straight testimony.

[ClubV12]

Samie says,

"You could have been too busy with other matters you missed my post emphatically saying Dan 11:21-45 is yet FUTURE."

This is NOT the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Daniel concerning the verses (inclusive) you have noted. This is error, this entire thread has been dedicated to helping you and others understand that. You reject the counsel of the brethren and continue to chart you own false course.

[Samie]

Samie verse 22 is the crucifixtion of Christ, an ANCHOR POINT in Daniel 11, AD 31.

[ClubV12]

"This is exactly why I am submitting my stand to this discussion forum for it to be scrutinized under the lenses of the infallible word of God."

Have you submitted this "new light" to your local Church brethren for due consideration Samie?

If so, and they have rejected it, as I'm sure they will:

What then are you prepared to do about this delima you face? Will you continue to ignore their counsel? Will you persist on teaching your own doctrine against the official position of the Church? What should you do if you believe the Church got it wrong? That William Miller got it wrong, James and Ellen White got it wrong, the Adventist commentary got it wrong, your local Church got it wrong, your Pastor and Conferenece got it wrong? Will you ignore them all and continue to teach and preach that which you have been told is error?

If you understand and have knowledge of the history of this Church EVERY prominent man that was ever a member of it has LEFT or BEEN REMOVED from the Church if they persisted in teaching error. Error not as you define it, not as I define it, not as this forum defines it, but as the Seventh-day Adventist Church defines it. If you don't agree with that Church, of which you are a member, and continue down this road of error, the end result will be your eventual departure from the Church. Many before you and those who will come after you would wear that as a "Badge of Honour". Many voices will support you in the decision you will come to in time, leave the Church. Many will take leaving as a sign that they were right after all.

The question for you, Samie, is will you keep walking down this road regardless of the counsel of the Brethren, regardless of the cost?

[Lysimachus]

Samie,

No one has denied that the Little Horn, Man of Sin is a "man".

You simply aren't grasping what we are saying.

The Little Horn/Man of Sin is a man, but not one single man at one single point in time. And this man is the "representative" of the entire system.

In other words, you, as the single man, represent the entire business. So when we refer to you, we're referring to you and your business.

The Papacy is headed by a single man, the POPE! He has the eyes of a man. But the Pope represents the entire Papal System, so everything in the Papal System, all the way down to its cardinals and monks is a "part" of this "man of sin system".

It's similar to when Paul said the "man of God".

Once again, you refuse to read my article, as I address all these arguments.

I just might copy and paste it here eventually if you refuse to read it.

Your mind is so pidgeon holed into the Jesuit, Psuedepigraphal Beliar Man, possessing all the power of the Devil at one single time in history, that you seem incapable of ascertaining these things.

Seriously now, like a single man at one point in time (Revelation 13), is going to grow 10 horns on him?? lol WOOWWW

Oh how can we help you see that this view is Comic Book Fiction? Left-Behind Fiction? Walt Disney FICTION? Perfidious, Jesuit, Pseuedepigraphal MYTHOLOGY?

[Samie]

I think I can only cross the bridge once I reach it. The question is, what bridge? It's the one this discussion forum is currently building. I'm certainly hoping it is one that will lead us all to the shores of Revival & Reformation.