Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 First show "2300 days"; then lets talk further. The literal reading, of course, is "2300 evenings [and] mornings." Genesis 1: 5ff show that each 24 hour day consists of "evening-morning." 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.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 1888 has nothing to do with the day for a year principle. 1888 wouldn't have happened if there had been no 1844 Movement. 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.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 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.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 I must object; the literal reading, of course, is NOT "2300 evenings [and] mornings." Please give what you believe is the literal reading of Daniel 8: 14. 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.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 Surely, if "a day for a year" was a "principle", we could have expected it in the Ten Commandments even. The fact we DON'T speaks for itself. Why would you expect to find it in the Ten Commandments? 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.
cheddar Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Get real! what has 1844 got to do with your fanciful "day for a year principle"? a 'principle' is an axiom; a LAW, an IMPORTANT law-principle. Surely, if "a day for a year" was a "principle", we could have expected it in the Ten Commandments even. The fact we DON'T speaks for itself. What most fail to realize is the DFAY principle is an attack on the bible or word of God itself. God's word means exactly what it says and I'm not talking about symbols. When the bible says days - it means days, when the bible says months - it means months and when the bible says years - it means years. The best evidence for the DFAY principle is the 70 weeks but I'm fairly certain that when Jerusalem is rebuilt in the last days it will become clear that even the 70 weeks belong in the end-time. I guess it's all just speculation until then.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 I'll explain myself ... The original translates literally, 2300-morning oblations / sacrifices and evening-oblations / sacrifices. PLease show your evidence for this. The words "oblations" and "sacrifices" do not occur in the original language. It literally reads, "evenings-mornings," not mornings-evenings. Why do you turn it around to read "mornings-evenings" and feel the need of adding words which don't occur in the original language? The Bible never refers to evening and morning sacrifices. If you believe it does, please show the references. 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.
Moderators Kevin H Posted April 10, 2012 Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 Miz3 and Dr. Rich: I'm sorry that I was so unclear in my post that you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. Please allow me to rephrase it: We all have different backgrounds. As we deal with the evidence it is colored by our backgrounds and what we have known, as well as evidence whe have or have not been exposed to. What I am asking is not to agree or to even understand each other, only to try to respect where each other comes from. However I guess by your reply that you believe that this is one topic where you are free not to try to understand, where you are free to be a bully and to simply re=arrange the words others have written into messages that did not enter their minds.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 I'll explain myself ... The original translates literally, 2300-morning oblations / sacrifices and evening-oblations / sacrifices. The fact that you have to add words and change the order of the words speaks volumes about your interpretation. Doing these things shouldn't be necessary in order to understand what's being said. Originally Posted By: Seventh Day The morning's oblation was sacrificed the third hour of day; the evening's oblation was sacrificed the ninth hour of day. ONLY daylight-time is implied There is NO connection with the creation indication of one day as having consisted of a night part and a daylight part. NOT NEARLY; THERE IS NO RESEMBLANCE WHATSOEVER. The creation narrative shows that every 24 hour day consists of an evening and morning. The biblical "day" begins with the evening, not with the morning. It seems to me to be relevent to what Daniel 8: 14 is saying. 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.
miz3 Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Sky, I don't agree with your conclusions, however, the year/day does not exist where Daniel is concerned. Whatever the consequences of such Truth is, that is what must be. I cannot ignore Truth just because it interferes with any pet conclusions. The Truth is the Truth. In this case the Truth is "no year/day". Why? Because the year/day is not Biblical. There are many patterns that seem to be in the Bible. However, just because I see a "pattern", be it numbers, letters, etc. does not make that particular pattern True. Many people have used alpha-numeric patterns to prove that the Bible predicted the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in NYC. Does this mean that the methodology of this pattern is Biblical Truth? Some do, I don't. I believe in following the plain Word of God just as God wrote it and preserved in the reasonably tight translations of the Bible. Anything else is to me just hocus-pocus junk. The plain Word of God clearly does not support the "year/day". However, you are free to believe such unBiblical theory if you want to preserve the false theories of our SDA beginnings. The SDA pioneers are exempt because given the world in which they lived it was perfectly logical for them to view these doctrines of the Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment/1844 as they did. However, today knowing what we know about history, the Fact that Christ's return was NOT IMMINENT in the way the pioneers believed, etc. there is no reason for us to cling to this outdated theory. In addition, it is an embarrassment to Truth to continue the "excuse in the corn field" in order to cover our mistake. SDA made a mistake. OK, big deal. Who hasn't? The thing is to be honest enough now to admit our mistake and move on. The Fact that SDA made such a mistake does not make me want to quit the SDA Church .org. If it does you, then fine, that is your choice.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 What I am asking is not to agree or to even understand each other, only to try to respect where each other comes from. Great and very important point, Kevin. It is everything! Even in heaven and on the new earth, people won't always agree with each other, but those disagreements won't cause them to be unChrist-like. 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.
miz3 Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Originally Posted By: Kevin H What I am asking is not to agree or to even understand each other, only to try to respect where each other comes from. Great and very important point, Kevin. It is everything! Even in heaven and on the new earth, people won't always agree with each other, but those disagreements won't cause them to be unChrist-like. Disagreements in heaven? Where in the Bible do we find this John317?
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 What most fail to realize is the DFAY principle is an attack on the bible or word of God itself. God's word means exactly what it says and I'm not talking about symbols. Please explain exactly what the following texts are talking about: 1) Daniel 7:25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. 2) Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished. 3)Rev. 11:1-3 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, [2] but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months. 4) Rev. 11: 3-- And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth." 5) Rev. 12:6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days. 6) Rev. 12:14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 7) Rev. 13:5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. 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.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 Are the above verses literal or symbolic? 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.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 Disagreements in heaven? Where in the Bible do we find this John317? Do you believe everyone is going to think exactly alike and agree in everything they talk about? We are still going to be individuals with individual opinions and viewpoints, and those opinions are not going to be the same as everyone else. 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.
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 John317, consult your, own, SDA, textbooks. Text, 'unto two thousand and three hundred DAILY'S" Daniel 8:14. What SDA textbook do you find this in? The SDA Bible Commentary gives the literal reading: "evening morning," and compares it to the description of the days of creation. See the SDA Bible Commentary on Daniel 8: 14 (page 844). Originally Posted By: Seventh Day I need not tell you; your own teachers do tell you. And since I am no master of the Hebrew language, I am in no position to criticize their findings with reference to the Hebrew term used. ['tamid' 'yom'] e.g., Questions on Doctrine 1957 p 255. Page 255 of Questions On Doctrine does not say that Daniel 8: 14 reads "unto two thousand and three hundered daily's." In fact, on page 269 of that book, it says that the literal reading of Daniel 8: 14 is "evenings mornings." You can see a literal reading of Daniel 8: 14 by consulting the New American Standard Verion or Rotherham's Emphasized Bible. Others that show the literal translation are Young's Literal Translation and the Amplified Bible. The NASV reads, "He said to me, 'For 2,300 evenings [and] mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.'" The Amplified Bible: "And he said to him [and] to me, 'For 2,300 evenings [and] mornings; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed [and] restored.'" 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.
Dr. Rich Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Originally Posted By: skyblue888 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. Yes and no. 1843-44 is the end of the 2300 years which started at 457bc. This event was the start of the Dan. 2's prophecy about the NEW Kingdom of Heaven being set up at this time. Therefore, the time was right, but they got the event wrong. 1888 has nothing to do with prophecy.
Dr. Rich Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich 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? For sure John317. Thanks.
Dr. Rich Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Miz3 and Dr. Rich: I'm sorry that I was so unclear in my post that you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. Please allow me to rephrase it: We all have different backgrounds. As we deal with the evidence it is colored by our backgrounds and what we have known, as well as evidence whe have or have not been exposed to. What I am asking is not to agree or to even understand each other, only to try to respect where each other comes from. However I guess by your reply that you believe that this is one topic where you are free not to try to understand, where you are free to be a bully and to simply re=arrange the words others have written into messages that did not enter their minds. Bully? Come on Kevin, you can do better than that my friend! John317 opened this thread up by a real good attempt to establish the IJ from the bible. I had to read it a couple of times in an attempt to see where he was coming from, but I could not get one of those verses to identify with anything to do with a so called IJ that allegedly started in 1844. That is why I presented evidence from the words of Jesus to show that the idea of an IJ and it starting in 1844 was false. I suppose those who read those words can be jury. John317 also wrote that it makes no difference who is right or wrong in heaven--but what Jesus said in REv. 21:8 and 22:15 refutes what John317 wrote. Not believing that the Holy Spirit will lead true believers to ALL the real absolute and singulary truth regarding salvation to me makes fun of the very words and promise Jesus gave us about the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Rich Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Originally Posted By: miz3 Disagreements in heaven? Where in the Bible do we find this John317? Do you believe everyone is going to think exactly alike and agree in everything they talk about? We are still going to be individuals with individual opinions and viewpoints, and those opinions are not going to be the same as everyone else. Did you get this from the bible or is this just an opinion John317? Have you read Rev. 14:5 yet? What does "no lie in their mouths" mean?
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 Text, 'unto two thousand and three hundred DAILY'S" Daniel 8:14. ['tamid' does not equal 'yom' or 'yamim' or 'ereb' or 'boqer'] tamid refers to anything done "continually" or "regularly," not merely sacrifices but anything having to do with the sanctuary system. See QOD, page 261-263. I agree with you that 'tamid' does not equal 'yom' [day], or any of the other words you've listed here. Originally Posted By: Seventh Day LXX, "until vespers / late afternoon and morning of daylight" [hohs hesperas kai prohi hehmerai] The Septuagint reads: heos hesperas kai proi heemerai, which is translated, "until evening and morning days," essentially the same as the Hebrew text except that the LXX adds "days." The Alexandrinus Greek text (c. AD 300) reads, "And he said to him, 'Evening and morning [there shall be] two thousand and four hundred days; and [then] the sanctuary shall be cleansed.'" Notice that the LXX translators understood the 2300 evening-mornings to refer to "days." This is discussed at some length on pages 262,263 of QOD. "Days" is also in Luther's translation, as well as in the ancient Vulgate and the Syriac translations of Daniel 8: 14. 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.
skyblue888 Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Originally Posted By: skyblue888 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. It should be obvious to all that what was meant by saying that is that if 1844 is a hoax then it follows that 1888 is also a hoax and our existence today as a people is also a hoax. But that I will never believe. The Advent Movement is supported by immovable pillars of which the IJ is central. The IJ is now in progress and soon when the mission of the Gospel is completed, the great final test will accomplish the final seperation between the wise and the foolish showing who have the wedding garment on in order to pass the judgment of the living and then probation will close and the destiny of each class will be forever fixed. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Dr. Rich Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Daniel 8:14, "the daily / continual [tamid] sacrifice / oblation [minchah]". What is your point SD? Do you have one? Do yourself a favor (Miz3 and Cheddar too) and read what Daniel wanted to know and then read what God told him in Dan. 12:10. Now lets use some commen sense here. IF this 2300 were actual days, then the start for those days HAD to be given, not as a year, but as a specific day and that event must be able to be tracked by history. IF you can't do this for a specific day, they you have some serious problems. Also, the event(s) God was given to Daniel to write down concerned ONLY end time events and 2300 actually days from back then would NOT be within the end time events. Also, God had to give this information is a way to make the true understand sealed up until after the full time given for the Jews/Israel in Dan. 9:24 to become righteous lapsed AND continuening all they way until the very last generation would be living to experance the time of the end. Problem is, Matthew 25:1-13 is a prophecy about the last Kingdom of Heaven as to who they are and what they will be doing and what they did. You will see that it is NO mistake that they got the time of 1844 correct, but got the event wrong as THEY at that time thought they were the Bride. But the prophecy says that they are NOT the bride, but the bride's servants (maids) who's job it is to help get the Bride ready during the time of trouble. Daniel 12:3 and 10 show that only those with special insight will be able to fully understand. So ask yourselves, do you have that special insight, or not? And how does one GET this special insight? (Matt. 24:45)
Moderators John317 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Moderators Posted April 10, 2012 The words "oblations" and "sacrifices" do not occur in the original language. It literally reads, "evenings-mornings," not mornings-evenings. Why do you turn it around to read "mornings-evenings" and feel the need of adding words which don't occur in the original language? The Bible never refers to evening and morning sacrifices. If you believe it does, please show the references. Originally Posted By: Seventh Day Refer Crudens, oblation oblations, specifically Daniel 9:21, the TIME of the _evening_ [viz., mid-afternoon] oblation = sacrifice. Yes, of course there were evening sacrifices. But my point is that the Bible doesn't refer to "evening-morning sacrifices." In other words, the terms used in Daniel 8: 14 are never used with reference to sacrifices, or oblations. However, the Bible does use the terms in describing the 24 hour day. Notice this quote from QOD on the topic of "Evening-Morning": "In the primary, literal sense, 'evening-morning' obviously designated a 24-hour day, for according to Bible reckoning, each 24 hour day begins at sunset and ends at the following sunset (Genesis 1). Thus the dark part of the day, designated 'evening,' always precedes the light part of the day, called 'morning.' And the very fact that in Daniel 8: 14 the word for 'evening' precedes 'morning' inherently implies the same sequence of night and day, and therefore a full 24-hour day, not a half day, as some reckon (and thus make the 2300 days equal 1150 days). If, then, 2300 evenings-mornings meant 2300 days, the period would, if reckoned as symbolic time in this symbolic prophecy, stand for 2300 literal years." 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.
skyblue888 Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Amen. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Recommended Posts