Biblical Evidence for the Investigative Judgment

[John317]

....You're just so used to seeing the time periods stretched out over thousands of years that you can't conceive of anything else. And if we figure in the 2300 days which are roughly six and a half years then the end-time could be upwards of ten years long. All the events of Dan. and Rev. could happen in the span of ten years.

Speaking of conjecture, you have no basis in fact for saying the above things. You know nothing about what I can conceive. Neither do you know that "all the events of Daniel and Revelation could happen in a span of ten years."

[John317]

Could you please also tell whether "a time, times, and the dividing of time" in Daniel 7: 25 is symbolic time or literal time?

Originally Posted By: cheddar

If I'm throwing out the day for a year principle isn't it obvious?

Is Daniel 7: 25 in a symbolic passage of prophecy?

And what does that period of time refer to?

[John317]

Check out the diagram of God's judgments:

[John317]

Commentary by Brad Williams on the above diagram of God's judgments--

Here is an clarification that I hope will be an aid in appreciating the diagram:

Salvation history concerning the hour of God’s judgments is reminiscent of the organization of Hebrew poetry and also of the messages of the prophets of Israel. God’s prophets were shown three foci of divine judgment: The world, the nations, and the chosen. Jeremiah is a good example of this. He warns of God’s punishment of each of these.

This is also reflected in the divine order of judgment as shown on the diagram:

The first judgment is upon the world,

The next two are upon the nations,

The following two are for and upon the chosen,

The last is upon the world.

And, by the way, each act of judgment is an act of salvation that carries forward the ultimate purpose of the Gospel : Putting an end to Satan and all sin, and bringing in everlasting life for the saved. Note how Rev 14:6,7 points out the place of judgment in the Gospel – no wonder it is call “the everlasting Gospel.”

Now the passages from which the time prophecies come:

Worldwide Flood – Gen 6 and 7

Upon Egypt – Gen 15:13,14

Upon Babylon – Jeremiah 25:11,12

Upon and for Chosen Israel – Daniel 9:24, 26

Upon and for Chosen “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16) in Christ – Dan 8:14; Rev 14:6,7

Upon the Lost World – Rev 20

[John317]

Please take notice of the six time prophecies in the above chart.

Then consider:

If God sees fit to tell the Jews when the Messiah would arrive (Dan 9:24ff) and Abraham when his family would leave a land of oppression.... if God sees fit to announce the judgment up the world, on Egypt, on Babylon, on Christ and Israel, on the lost at the end of the thousand years of Rev 20 it seems like God thinks time prophecies (including the time of His judgments) are important. Since Jesus himself, speaking of the book of Daniel said, "let him that readeth understand (Mark 13:14)," and also said of the prophecies of Revelation, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. (Revelation 1:3),” it is a shame that we don't diligently "read .., hear..., and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

There is wisdom in not being too sure of ourselves when it comes to understanding prophecies in advance of their fulfillment. But surely we would not think badly of Daniel who looked for and studied Jeremiah concerning the fulfillment of the 70 year prophecy, of the wise men who were studying Messianic prophecies and the stars, of those faithful in Israel who studied and meditated and spoke one to another concerning the time when the Savior would come.(Brad Williams)

[miz3]

Check out the diagram of God's judgments:

Nice diagram but it proves nothing. One can see all kinds of patterns in the Bible and many have. However, just because it "appears" to be a pattern does not mean that it is true. Dozens of people have used number patterns to show that the Bible predicted this and/or that event. This does not mean that the Bible is actually predicting such an event.

Besides your diagram ASSUMES the year/day which you have not established as of yet. In fact it has also been conclusively shown that the year/day is not a prophetic time period as a "general principle". Again you are "assuming way too much".

Cheddar is correct that when you look at Daniel 7 and the "times, etc" part you "see" year/day. That particular passage does not in and of itself make a unbiased reader immediately think "Oh, my that must be a year/day thing".

Come on John317 you clearly are stretching way beyond any reasonable credibility with this "times thing".

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“Ellen White NEVER MERELY BORROWED anything. A comparison of her writings with the writings of people that she "copied" shows that she sometimes used other people's writings in order to express what God had shown her. She was very selective in the use of other people's writings. She wouldn't use the parts that conflicted with the message that God wanted her to convey. Also, Ellen White changed the significance of the original writing so that it conformed to her own intentions.”

You have painted a pretty picture of what Ellen White did, but telling half of the truth will not satisfy the demands of the True Witness as exemplified in the book of Revelation. In some cases, Ellen borrowed not only portions of what she wrote, but even the titles of the chapters and the illustrations contained therein.

Those pictures show the signatures of the authors in the original source, but said signatures were deleted in Ellen books. This shows the intentional purpose of trying to appear that said illustrations belonged to Mrs. White when in fact they were borrowed without permission, without acknowledgment, and with the obvert intention of concealing the source where the pictures came from. The intentional concealment of what was borrowed is different from the lack of acknowledgment of the original sources.

“What you say does not take into account the fact that some of the writers she "borrowed" from also borrowed from other writings.”

The fact that others did what was wrong does not justify her actions. While she was borrowing without acknowledging the sources, other Adventist writers were complaining in our official publication that those who were engaged in borrowing from our magazine had a duty to at least acknowledge their sources. Our own writers were demanding a higher moral duty from others while Ellen White was borrowing extensively with impunity.

“Your objections on this point have been answered very well many times before. In order to fully answer them again here, it would take us completely off topic. Let's stay on topic and deal with the Bible evidence presented in the first two posts of the thread.”

I agree that this is off topic. I would have kept my silence were it not for the fact that you have been trying to paint an incomplete picture of what took place. Covering up for Ellen White is not right.

I do value her writings and I am grateful for the material she provided to us. I said this before but it’s worth repeating. My view is that her writings should be valued based on its content. A piece of gold does not loose value simply because it has been borrowed or stolen. Its value is based on its intrinsic worth, which is determined by an expert in metals.

I have no intent of adding anything to what I have already stated, unless you decide to continue with this off topic conversation.

[miz3]

Bradley Williams is making way too many assumptions that are not in the Biblical Passages.

As I told you before "patterns" are all over the Bible. Just because a "pattern" exists does not make it a "TRUTH".

Second a plain reading of the Bible does not show that your pattern is "truth". In Fact the Bible debunks your pattern because you have not yet established the "year/day" thing.

Your first hurdle is still the "year/day" principle and patterns such as you have given are not it. The pattern you have given does not prove the "year/day" because the "year/day" is ASSUMED in the diagram/pattern.

That is like defining the word "good" by saying it means "good".

To show a chart that 'assumes' the year/day is not proof of the 'year/day' no matter how many patterns are involved.

[miz3]

Your diagram also shows three literal times and one symbolic time period. This is inconsistent. It shows only that the "symbolic time period" does not fit the pattern you are trying to demonstrate.

This is just sloppy assuming from nothing. If this chart is an example of Bradley Williams then he should be ashamed to have ever put such a sloppy assumption into print. It is embarrassing to see SDA so-called scholarship be sooooooo sloppy.

If this is an example of how the IJ is proved then you have a giant problem.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“So, yes, of course God knew the sanctuary on earth would be destroyed in 70 AD. That's why the sanctuary to be cleansed was the heavenly sanctuary and not the one in Jerusalem. [Hebrews 9: 23 speaks of the need for the heavenly to be purified, or cleansed.]”

By jumping to the book of Hebrews, you are taking what we have in Daniel 8 out of context, and ignoring the explanation given by the angel to Daniel. Did you read the entire chapter 8 of Daniel the way I suggested? Is there any reference to the Temple in Heaven? The reference is to the earthly temple which was brought low and desecrated.

Then you jump to another chapter for establishing the beginning of the 2300 days prophecy when the context is the Battle of Granicus between Alexander the Great and Medo-Persia.

This is like the man who read in the Bible that Judas had hanged himself, and then found another text in the Bible which said: “Go and do likewise.” By taking biblical texts totally out of context you can arrive at very strange and erroneous conclusions.

“The sanctuary in Jerusalem had no more validity in God's eyes after the death of Christ.”

I strongly disagree! Read Ezekiel 37 which describes the resurrection in the Valley of the Dry Bones. Said prediction depicts what happened to the State of Israel in 1948 which was secured by the victory of Israel over the Arabs in 1967, which is the logical terminus of the 2300 prophecy.

You are also ignoring what Paul predicted about the future of God’s chosen people. He said that they would be grafted again into the original vine. Where did you get the idea that God had no more concern for his chosen nation?

[Dr. Rich]

Dr. Rich, your post #538411 is off topic. The subject is the IJ. The IJ doesn't depend on Ellen White. Please notice that she or her writings are not even referred to in the first two posts of the discussion where the evidence for the IJ is presented.

Good point John317, just trying to get some common ground for the IJ as that issue was formost in that post.

[Dr. Rich]

Please take notice of the six time prophecies in the above chart.

Then consider:

If God sees fit to tell the Jews when the Messiah would arrive (Dan 9:24ff) and Abraham when his family would leave a land of oppression.... if God sees fit to announce the judgment up the world, on Egypt, on Babylon, on Christ and Israel, on the lost at the end of the thousand years of Rev 20 it seems like God thinks time prophecies (including the time of His judgments) are important. Since Jesus himself, speaking of the book of Daniel said, "let him that readeth understand (Mark 13:14)," and also said of the prophecies of Revelation, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. (Revelation 1:3),” it is a shame that we don't diligently "read .., hear..., and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

There is wisdom in not being too sure of ourselves when it comes to understanding prophecies in advance of their fulfillment. But surely we would not think badly of Daniel who looked for and studied Jeremiah concerning the fulfillment of the 70 year prophecy, of the wise men who were studying Messianic prophecies and the stars, of those faithful in Israel who studied and meditated and spoke one to another concerning the time when the Savior would come.(Brad Williams)

Not bad yourself John317. Yes, time is a critical element I would say.

[Dr. Rich]

The day for a year principle is very much a part of the date 1844 so there is no reason why it can’t be discussed on this thread. Since you brought up the times, time and the dividing of time that would be a good place to start.

There are seven time periods in Dan. and Rev. that are three and a half years long according to the Jewish calendar. Have you ever read thru all seven? They’re not all talking about the same thing, yet adventists make all seven out to be the same thing.

Some are talking about the beast and little horn power, others about the ministry of the two witnesses and still others about when God’s people flee into the wilderness. Not all the same. Jesus’ entire ministry lasted three and half years so there is no reason why major events in Dan. and Rev. wont last three and a half literal years.

You’re just so used to seeing the time periods stretched out over thousands of years that you can’t conceive of anything else. And if we figure in the 2300 days which are roughly six and a half years then the end-time could be upwards of ten years long. All the events of Dan. and Rev. could happen in the span of ten years.

Not all true cheddar, as the time for God's people is 42 new moons, not three and half years, so that time priod would start and stop on a new moon, not the spring or fall equinox.

Also, Jesus' ministry with His disciples was for only one year, not three and a half years, as that period was assumed because of Daniel's prophecy.

The rule for day/year time events is: "Timing within the restoration calendar (Jubilee) is given in days/years. One day equals one year. Timing after the expiration of the "restoration calendar" is literal."

To answer John317's question as to why Daniel just didn't say three and a half years is the same reason why Jesus come to this world as found in John 18:37, so that only those of the truth would understand. The disciples asked Jesus why He spoke in parables and Jesus gave the same reason.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“But she wasn't saying that we shouldn't study her own writings. Nor was she saying her writings are false or shouldn't be believed. On the contrary, Ellen G. White said all SDA families should have her books in their homes and be reading them. The truth is, we need both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. There's no reason we can't study and know both sources of authority.”

Yes, I do have her books, and they are heavily underlined. My point is that she herself insisted that our main source for doctrine is the Bible. She also suggested that there is much to be discovered by our study of Scriptures. She did not claim that her writings were to be used as the final interpreter of Scripture.

What we teach about the 2300 days prophecy and the Investigative Judgment should be solidly based on what the Bible teaches, and context is a surer guide to the study of the Bible than the ingenious detachment of certain texts from its natural context. The way we have treated Daniel 8 is a good example of what leads to erroneous conclusions.

I will rather believe the description the angel gave us in the book of Revelation where he said that our experience resulting from the study of Daniel would be bitter and not bitter sweet. Bitter means that we were wrong in 1844. Bitter sweet means we were only partially wrong and partially right. We have been saying that we were right after all on the date, but wrong only on the event. What I am saying is that we were totally wrong in 1844—on the date and the event.

Is it so difficult to be humble and recognize that we were fully wrong? Who did we succeed in deceiving? Only ourselves. No other Christian organization fell for our deception. Could it be that God allowed Ellen White to err on this doctrine as a natural consequence of her intentional concealment of what she was doing: borrowing text, chapter titles, and even illustrations without the proper acknowledgment of sources and even the deletion of the names of the authors of said illustrations?

Why do we feel obligated to defend what is indefensible? Did the Prophet Nathan do this when he confronted King David with his sin? Did Paul feel the need to justify Peter’s wrongful action when he confronted him with his unchristian behavior?

[Kevin H]

I should be more active here, but there are times where I have more time to write and times where work (and right now doing my taxes and working on a program I've been asked to preach in 3 churches) and getting ready for the Air Force annual tour will limit but I will do what I can.

First of all, God works with our questions and study and discussion. The things we know about God and the Bible are based on hints, evidence and proof. Proof is the strongest, hints are still valid but the weakest. However God has shown a preference to evidence and some hints, and gives very little proof. When John the Baptist's disciples came to ask Jesus if it was he, Jesus did not say yes or no but just continued his work then said "Tell John what you saw." What was the evidence. When Jesus askes "Who do others say that I am and who do you say that I am?" After Peter answered Jesus said that Peter was blessed because flesh and blood did not tell Peter but the Holy Spirit revealed it to Peter. In other words, it was not a person who told Peter. Jesus did not grab Peter by the buttonhole push him up against the wall and say "Look, I'm the messiah" but allowed the disciples to evaluate the evidence.

It is good to discuss the evidence of the Investigative Judgment. But remember that we need to discuss and listen to what each other says. Some people have been very hurt by those who have misunderstood and/or misused the Investigative Judgment. I do not know the background of many of the people here. I don't know the pain in the life of some of the people who have turned this pain into being bitter towards the Investigative Judgment. As a child I notied two types of Seventh-day Adventism. There was the joyful religion of my Grandma and Aunt Judith for example, and then there was what I saw in an Aunt by marriage and even more so in an Uncle by marriage and others around me when I'd visit the relatives in California. When I first heard the text "Suffer the little children to come unto me" I thought that the word "Suffer" meant to make them suffer and that Jesus belonged to this group of Adventism which was doing a wonderful job of suffering the children to come to Jesus. I don't know how my attitude would be towards the Investigative Judgment had I been raised in that invironment. I noticed that critics of the Investigative Judgment tend to preach against it as if they find it liberating to be free. However the Investigative Judgment that you long to be free from is an Investigative Judgment that I have never been enslaved to.

However althought you might have had a bad expirence, some of us have had good expirences. My background included looking at the evidence presented by Biblical Theologians, archaeology, linguistic studies. Some here have said that they reject this evidence as pagan, yet they seem to want to quote similar studies that appear to support their views. All I can do is say that I love the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. Our understanding of it is not perfect and there is wheat mixed with chaft. But when people just blindly attack the investigative judgment, all I ask of you is to show that you are trying to understand why I love this doctrine, how I understand it. Then if you want to show weaknesses in my understanding of the evidence then feel free to share it, but let's use a spirit of listening love with each other.

While I will try to be clear in my reasoning, remember that this is what makes sence to me so show specifics, don't simply dismiss with comments like "I don't accept those scholars" "You don't make sense" and expect me to put my hand to my forehead and say "That's right I should reject this archaeological or linquist find" or "That's right I don't make any sense" While you may reject my sources, I have been impressed by them and these thoughts make sense to me. And I understand your attacks as if you are trying to set your self up as a Pope in my life demanding that I come to your beliefs at the expence of my understanding of the evidence. All that you do for yourself is make me think that you mind is made up and you are not interested in the facts. That you are like the Pope wanting to make Galileo recant. I find the Investigative Judgment to be a joyful doctrine and see you as an Armstrong or Jehovah's Witness that is arguing that I cannot enjoy cellebrat Christmas or my birthday.

I will give you the respect that you're background has given you a lot of pain about the Investigative Judgment and that you don't see what I see. However please give me the freedom to reflect my background that I was not raised in a home where my parents believed in "SUFFERING" the little children to come to Jesus. Give me the benifit of the doubt that I might see something that you don't see, you don't have to accept my evidence, but please accept the fact this this is the evidence that has given me my understanding of the joyful little doctrine.

[Dr. Rich]

“The sanctuary in Jerusalem had no more validity in God's eyes after the death of Christ.”

I strongly disagree! Read Ezekiel 37 which describes the resurrection in the Valley of the Dry Bones. Said prediction depicts what happened to the State of Israel in 1948 which was secured by the victory of Israel over the Arabs in 1967, which is the logical terminus of the 2300 prophecy.

You are also ignoring what Paul predicted about the future of God’s chosen people. He said that they would be grafted again into the original vine. Where did you get the idea that God had no more concern for his chosen nation?

Nic, The prophecy is Ezekiel 37 is conditional my friend, and that condition did not happen so the prophecy will not happen either. You advised John317 to read all of Dan. 8 but then you failed to see the conditions in Ezekiel's prophesies. Also, Paul's words about 'all Israel will be saved' and his fictional story about the original branch being grafted back in is NOT what Jesus said or taught as Jesus clearly said that the branch that does not bear fruit will be cut off and thrown in the fire-NOT grafted back in.

Jesus made it known in Matthew 21 that Israel was no longer God's chosen people and that now they were just another nation as all of the world's nation. The event of the dead fig tree and verse 21:43 is proof that what Paul thought and taught was actually fiction and wishful thinking. Dan. 2's prophecy about the NEW Kingdom of Heaven being set up at the time of the ten toes also showes us that Israel would become toast.

Now, back to the IJ. John317, your bible verses that you gave are very vague on the judgments to come, but I can see how someone who wanted to use them to come up with an excuse for the great dissappointment could use them to their advantage.

[skyblue888]

Quote:

This to me sounds more like what the Jesuits would argue to undermine Adventism just as they argued to counter the Reformation.

miz, if you cannot see the day/year principle, we will never see eye to eye, to be sure. Upon this principle rests the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, the foundation and central pillar of the Advent Movement. By attacking it we would be attacking the Advent Movement which was of God.

So is that what you are doing miz?

sky

I am attacking falsehood.

If attacking falsehood makes me a Jesuit then so be it. Calling me names will not embarrass me to change my position.

If name calling is all you have then that is shows that you have nothing to offer in regard to Truth.

Falsehood is falsehood whether committed by a huge corporate structure such as the RCC, the SDA Church .org, etc. or by a single human being.

miz, you say you are attacking falsehood!!! Please explain to us how someone who claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist can attack the principle upon which Adventism stands or falls!!! You are claiming that the principle is false. Therefore Adventism is a hoax but if it is a hoax why would u want to be an SDA?

By saying that Jesuits would attack the year day principle has nothing to do with name calling. If I tell you that what you teach or what you are doing is similar to what others teach and do, is that name calling? Of course not.

sky

[miz3]

I should be more active here, but there are times where I have more time to write and times where work (and right now doing my taxes and working on a program I've been asked to preach in 3 churches) and getting ready for the Air Force annual tour will limit but I will do what I can.

First of all, God works with our questions and study and discussion. The things we know about God and the Bible are based on hints, evidence and proof. Proof is the strongest, hints are still valid but the weakest. However God has shown a preference to evidence and some hints, and gives very little proof. When John the Baptist's disciples came to ask Jesus if it was he, Jesus did not say yes or no but just continued his work then said "Tell John what you saw." What was the evidence. When Jesus askes "Who do others say that I am and who do you say that I am?" After Peter answered Jesus said that Peter was blessed because flesh and blood did not tell Peter but the Holy Spirit revealed it to Peter. In other words, it was not a person who told Peter. Jesus did not grab Peter by the buttonhole push him up against the wall and say "Look, I'm the messiah" but allowed the disciples to evaluate the evidence.

It is good to discuss the evidence of the Investigative Judgment. But remember that we need to discuss and listen to what each other says. Some people have been very hurt by those who have misunderstood and/or misused the Investigative Judgment. I do not know the background of many of the people here. I don't know the pain in the life of some of the people who have turned this pain into being bitter towards the Investigative Judgment. As a child I notied two types of Seventh-day Adventism. There was the joyful religion of my Grandma and Aunt Judith for example, and then there was what I saw in an Aunt by marriage and even more so in an Uncle by marriage and others around me when I'd visit the relatives in California. When I first heard the text "Suffer the little children to come unto me" I thought that the word "Suffer" meant to make them suffer and that Jesus belonged to this group of Adventism which was doing a wonderful job of suffering the children to come to Jesus. I don't know how my attitude would be towards the Investigative Judgment had I been raised in that invironment. I noticed that critics of the Investigative Judgment tend to preach against it as if they find it liberating to be free. However the Investigative Judgment that you long to be free from is an Investigative Judgment that I have never been enslaved to.

However althought you might have had a bad expirence, some of us have had good expirences. My background included looking at the evidence presented by Biblical Theologians, archaeology, linguistic studies. Some here have said that they reject this evidence as pagan, yet they seem to want to quote similar studies that appear to support their views. All I can do is say that I love the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. Our understanding of it is not perfect and there is wheat mixed with chaft. But when people just blindly attack the investigative judgment, all I ask of you is to show that you are trying to understand why I love this doctrine, how I understand it. Then if you want to show weaknesses in my understanding of the evidence then feel free to share it, but let's use a spirit of listening love with each other.

While I will try to be clear in my reasoning, remember that this is what makes sence to me so show specifics, don't simply dismiss with comments like "I don't accept those scholars" "You don't make sense" and expect me to put my hand to my forehead and say "That's right I should reject this archaeological or linquist find" or "That's right I don't make any sense" While you may reject my sources, I have been impressed by them and these thoughts make sense to me. And I understand your attacks as if you are trying to set your self up as a Pope in my life demanding that I come to your beliefs at the expence of my understanding of the evidence. All that you do for yourself is make me think that you mind is made up and you are not interested in the facts. That you are like the Pope wanting to make Galileo recant. I find the Investigative Judgment to be a joyful doctrine and see you as an Armstrong or Jehovah's Witness that is arguing that I cannot enjoy cellebrat Christmas or my birthday.

I will give you the respect that you're background has given you a lot of pain about the Investigative Judgment and that you don't see what I see. However please give me the freedom to reflect my background that I was not raised in a home where my parents believed in "SUFFERING" the little children to come to Jesus. Give me the benifit of the doubt that I might see something that you don't see, you don't have to accept my evidence, but please accept the fact this this is the evidence that has given me my understanding of the joyful little doctrine.

This is insulting condescension.

This not about suffering some "emotional pain" that needs to be healed. Once healed then we will see the Investigative Judgment as being true once we are "healed" from our pain.

People don't accept this Investigative Doctrine because it is unBiblical, plain and simple.

Using the Bible and the Bible only can you prove the Investigative Judgment?

A reading of your above post demonstrates that you cannot prove the IJ from the Bible and the Bible only but must depend on some "extra Biblical sources" in order for you to prove this doctrine.

However, that is not what the SDA Church .org says. The SDA Church .org says that the Investigative Judgment can be proved by using the Bible and the Bible only.

Thus, my friend your so-called other sources don't count.

Very little if any at all is solved by some "psychological" mumbo jumbo.

You point to us who disagree with the Investigative Judgment as if we have "psychological" problems. Could it be that shoe just might be on your foot?

Just askin'.

[miz3]

miz, you say you are attacking falsehood!!! Please explain to us how someone who claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist can attack the principle upon which Adventism stands or falls!!! You are claiming that the principle is false. Therefore Adventism is a hoax but if it is a hoax why would u want to be an SDA?

By saying that Jesuits would attack the year day principle has nothing to do with name calling. If I tell you that what you teach or what you are doing is similar to what others teach and do, is that name calling? Of course not.

sky

Jesus was a Jew and He belonged to the Jewish Religion of His day, yet Jesus attacked the falsehoods of that Religion and never ever left the Jewish Religion. All this can be found by even a cursory reading of the Gospels.

This should explain your befuddlement.

[Dr. Rich]

Kevin, while you wrote lots of 'stuff' it is all irrelevant to the issue of the IJ being proved from the bible ONLY. It 'pained' me just to read all of this nonsense. Here is the thing: We probably all agree that there will be a judments or judgmets--it's the time of the judgments that is in question.

First, God can and does judge our choices ALL the time. He judged Eve and Able during their life time, but ONLY about their choice, NOT as to their salvation. Therefore, it must be clear that the ONLY judgment that needs to be identified is the one that matters, the one about salvation or not.

Second, any judgment before anyone's salvation issue comes up is just an everyday judgment of the person's choice. Here we find that the judgment between the ten virgins is very critical because the foolish are forever barred from entering heaven. This means that at this time (before the time of trouble) there is a judgment for a group of people who match the description of the ten virgins (the Adventists only) which can also be called the shaking I suppose, but it is final for the both the foolish and wise. This therefore can't be the 'IJ' as it did not begin in 1844.

Third, There is a judgment for a group of people prior to the one for the wise and foolish, as we find in revelation 2's Thiratra and 3's Sardis where only a few are judged as sanctified. These are the first fruits or the bond servants called the "priests" in Rev. 5:9-10. Therefore, there are two judgments prior to the time of trouble, but neither started in 1844 because these judgments are ONLY for those living in the last generation.

Fourth, there is another judgment for those living in the last generation and that can be found in Rev. 7:9-15, and this occures during the time of the trouble for this is the judgment for the "Bride" prior to the last five months of this earths history. When this occures, there is no more judgments for the living as no one from then on can ever make another choice one way or the other. So this did not start in 1844.

Fifth, there is another judgment at the time during the time of trouble and that is for those who had died but were considered righteous. This too did not start in 1844.

Rev. 11:1 confirms the two judgments for the 144k and for the five wise virgins ONLY. Rev. 11:2 confirms the judgment during the time of trouble of all of the living where those from all nations are judged and from out of this comes the "Bride". Neither of these Judgments start in 1844.

This is MY proof that the 'idea' of the Investigative Judgment as presented by EGW is totally false. Now it's your turn to show me my error.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

miz, you say you are attacking falsehood!!! Please explain to us how someone who claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist can attack the principle upon which Adventism stands or falls!!! You are claiming that the principle is false. Therefore Adventism is a hoax but if it is a hoax why would u want to be an SDA?

By saying that Jesuits would attack the year day principle has nothing to do with name calling. If I tell you that what you teach or what you are doing is similar to what others teach and do, is that name calling? Of course not.

sky

Jesus was a Jew and He belonged to the Jewish Religion of His day, yet Jesus attacked the falsehoods of that Religion and never ever left the Jewish Religion. All this can be found by even a cursory reading of the Gospels.

This should explain your befuddlement.

I don't think that the word "attack" is the right word but He did expose false teachings by teaching the truth.

Now let us reason together. The starting point for the 70 week prophecy in Daniel 9 is 457 B.C. By applying the year day principle Jesus was anointed in the Jordan River by the Holy Spirit just as predicted, in the autumn of A.D.27 at the end of the sixty ninth week. Verse 25. Then there remained the last prophetic week in the middle of which Jesus was crucified and thus caused the sacrificial system to cease. Verse 27.

Now if anyone among the Jews had made claims that applying the year day principle to Daniel 9:24 was a falsehood, then what? It would mean that Jesus being anointed in the Jordan River by the Holy Spirit in A.D.27 would mean absolutely nothing and the fact that He was crucified in the middle of the last prophetic week would also mean nothing.

If the year day principle is false, Adventism means nothing. 1844 means nothing and 1888 means nothing, etc etc.

Jesus did not question the pillars of the Jewish faith which had been buried underneath the traditions and speculations of men. He came to magnify them. In like manner, our worrk is not to question the pillars of the Advent faith but to magnify them. By suggesting that the year day priniciple is a falsehood, we are undermining the very foundation of the Advent Movement and that we cannot afford to do because it is founded upon the plainest declarations of the Word of God.

sky

[cheddar]

If the year day principle is false, Adventism means nothing. 1844 means nothing and 1888 means nothing, etc etc.

Wrong!

1888 has nothing to do with the day for a year principle.

Get real.

[cheddar]

Jesus was a Jew and He belonged to the Jewish Religion of His day, yet Jesus attacked the falsehoods of that Religion and never ever left the Jewish Religion. All this can be found by even a cursory reading of the Gospels.

This should explain your befuddlement.

true.

[John317]

To answer John317's question as to why Daniel just didn't say three and a half years is the same reason why Jesus come to this world as found in John 18:37, so that only those of the truth would understand. The disciples asked Jesus why He spoke in parables and Jesus gave the same reason.

I agree that it was put in symbolic terms so the spiritually unwise would not understand but only those of the truth would.

The same principle can be applied to other prophetic passages regarding time.

Putting the prophecies in symbols also meant that they would be understood when the book of Daniel was unsealed and not before.

Don't you agree that periods of time within the context of symbolic prophecies might reasonably be expected to be expressed in symbols?

[cheddar]

miz, you say you are attacking falsehood!!! Please explain to us how someone who claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist can attack the principle upon which Adventism stands or falls!!! You are claiming that the principle is false. Therefore Adventism is a hoax but if it is a hoax why would u want to be an SDA?

By saying that Jesuits would attack the year day principle has nothing to do with name calling. If I tell you that what you teach or what you are doing is similar to what others teach and do, is that name calling? Of course not.

sky

I wonder if the Jesuits had anything to do with Rome's gospel being preached from adventist pulpits.

You know the one where good works need to be maintained so that we can be worthy to earn heaven.

The third angel's message in verity got kicked out on it's butt a long time ago.