Biblical Evidence for the Investigative Judgment

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

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."

True.

sky

[John317]

Amen, sky.

[John317]

... 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.

Yes, the 2300 "days" are not literal, actual days. That would only be about 6 years long. On the other hand, 2300 symbolic days (equalling 2300 years) would reach down to "the end time events." In our way of thinking, 1844 may not seem like an end-time event, but God doesn't view the length of time the same way we do. In terms of the history of the world, 1844 to 2012 is only a short period of time. If Jesus were to come now or if he were to come in 15 years, when the saved look back on 1844, they will know that it was included in the end-time events.

[skyblue888]

The history of the Advent Movement based on the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 can only be understood and appreciated by those who are led by the Spirit. Not every Seventh-day Adventist can give a reason for this peculiar faith. There is nothing new under the sun. The majority of the Jews were lacking in their understanding of the 70 week prophecy which pointed to the coming of a suffering Messiah who would be "cut off". They expected a totally different Messiah. In fact they expected that the Messiah would lead the Jews to defeat the Romans and that He would establish a temporal kingdom on earth and that they would rule the whole world with Him. Those who persisted in studying the 70 week prophecy showing a suffering Messiah, the anathema was pronounced upon them.

Today there is a mighty current within the ranks of Adventism in favor of doing away with the doctrine of the IJ based on Daniel 8:14 simply because it is a doctrine that is very disturbing to those who have not fallen on the Rock Christ Jesus. Put bluntly, it is a doctrine which disturbs the peace of those who are adventists only by name and who long to go back to Egypt.

sky

[John317]

Daniel 8:14 though contains the two words, "daily" [tamid] and, "sacrifice" [minchah]

I REPEAT:

Daniel 8:14, "the daily / continual [tamid] sacrifice / oblation [minchah]".

SD, those words-- daily or continual or sacrifice/oblation [minchah]-- don't occur in Daniel 8: 14.

Here's a literal translation, from the American Standard Verion (1901): "And he said unto me, 'Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings [and] mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.'"

The words "daily" or "continual" or "sacrifice/oblation [minchah]" aren't in the original, Hebrew text.

Of the 67 different translations of Daniel 8: 14 in my library, I don't have a single one that contains the words "daily" or "continual," or "sacrifice/oblation."

Those are all added words.

[skyblue888]

Dr. Rich, do you know what the word WATCHWORD means?

sky

[phkrause]

And to add to that, here's the CJBs translation of Daniel 8:14 The first said to me, "Two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings, after which the sanctuary will be restored to its rightful state."

and here's the same verse from the online Tankh, that all Jews go by: 14. And he said to me, "Until evening and morning, two thousand and three hundred, and the holy ones shall be exonerated."

[Dr. Rich]

Dr. Rich, do you know what the word WATCHWORD means?

sky

What does it mean to you? Is this like a 'keyword', meaning one of the keys to understand? If you want some keywords, then study Daniel's words in chapter 7 and 8 for the real understanding, but of course it was sealed, (the understanding was sealed up) until those with insight would see it and understand. This means that it was impossible for EGW or any of the early Adventists to fully and correctly understand the 2300 day prophecy. It's just that simple, so why should we even attempt to make sense of the IJ because of what God said. (God said it, not me)

Dan. 7:14 speaks of the Dan. 2's KOH which is the KOH set up at the end of the time established in Dan. 8:14, 1844. Read it! Now, read in Dan.8 about the "host" for this NEW Kingdom of heaven--you will see the words "host" many places. The word "Sanctuary" is associated with the word "Host". The Sactuary did not and could not function without a NEW host for the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice in Dan. 8:12 the 'host' was given to the Prince of the princes? This clearly means that the last KOH was set up with a host for it at the appointed time, (verse 17) it being 1844. Notice the word "holy people" in verse 24? Who do you suppose these are? Now notice that this whole vision and understand was sealed or 'shut up' so that NO ONE would ever understand it until the last generation living and then only the wise will be able to fully understand this. Are you one of them? EGW was NOT one of them because she is not now living. It's just that simple!

Those warnings to the KOH in Rev. 2 and 3 are not something to sneeze at. Clearly Jesus is warning them (Adventists) to get back to what they once learned--before they all fell asleep. Anyway, that's my take.

[skyblue888]

"The Scripture which above all others had been both the FOUNDATION and the CENTRAL PILLAR of the Advent faith was the declaration: 'Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.'" Daniel 8:14. These had been familar words to all believers in the Lord's soon coming. By the lips of thousands was this prophecy repeated as the WATCHWORD of their faith." G.C.409.

The prophecy of Daniel 8:14 is the "watchword" of our faith.

Now that means that if someone comes in among us to unsettle the faith of God's people by casting doubt upon the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith, he is none of ours. He must therefore be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Its that simple Dr Rich.

No offense intended.

Just stating a simple fact.

sky :)

[Dr. Rich]

It's clear that you refuse to read anything that I post Sky as you did not have time to study the scripture I told you to reaad to get a full understanding this whole issue. It's just that simple Sky.... But then it's your choice too as God clearly made it known, but only to those who are really seeking the truth and EGW clearly could not have know the truth as she is now dead.

The 2300 day prophecy is NOT contained in only ONE verse! It is the time that was given to Daniel in a 'code' so that no one would understand it until those living in the last generation. (Dan. 8:26)

Yes, IT is the foundation of the Adventist church, but the IJ was not as that was just an answer dug up to defend the 2300 day prophecy that even William Miller rejected (the IJ). Those who wrote about this in 1955 had NO CLUE as to the real truth either.

The TRUTH about the 2300 years is the answer given to Daniel about WHEN the last KOH would be set up--and that is exactly what happened.

[miz3]

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.

So you are saying that there will be discord in heaven. Some will think one thing is true while others will think something else is true.

Do you have a Biblical reference for your assertion. Book, chapter and verse please.

[miz3]

John317 since you have staked the "credibility of Ellen White" on so much of your doctrine/belief concerning the Scriptures it would be incumbent on you to defend Ellen White's credibility.

I showed you an example of Ellen White not be credible because she was in direct contradiction to the Holy Scriptures. Yet you have ignored that example.

Why did you ignore that example?

I will repeat it again below so that you might have another opportunity to confront this issue of Ellen White and her credibility.

ELLEN WHITE’S CONTRADICTION OF THE BIBLE

Originally Posted By: John317

She didn't mean that we should only reject parts of her writings. She was saying that if we find that her writings contradict God's Word, the Bible, we should reject her writings-- i.e., her entire prophetic ministry. This is made clear in the first 45 pages of 1 Selected Messages. She has very plain things to say about those who selectively use her writings only to support their favorite themes or ideas. That is like only using some parts of the Bible while rejecting other parts. Ellen White also said that was wrong to do, but yet many continue to do it. Either Ellen White was a genuine prophet of God or she wasn't.

Well John317 here is a blatant instance where Ellen White contradicted the Bible.

"God cannot take to heaven the slave who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and holding a lower position than the brutes.... He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He permits him to be as if he had not been,...." (Early Writings, p.276)

This statement is in direct contradiction to the Words of the Bible and the Bible only.

John chapter one which says that Jesus Christ is the "light that lights" every human and by itself makes Ellen White's words above wrong and in contradiction.

The Bible in addition says that "nothing is impossible" with God. And those texts in context were talking about Salvation and who could and could not be saved.

So the Bible and Ellen White are in contradiction to each other in this case.

Even the degradation of slavery cannot keep God from saving such poor sinners and some will be in the Kingdom of Heaven according to the Bible Principles that God can and does do the impossible.

So God can save babies, even babies, who die in the womb. Nothing is impossible with God.

Since Sky has brought Ellen White as an Authority on this subject, I ask you again to defend Ellen White in regard to her contradiction of what is in the Bible. I put it above so you can see it again.

I look forward to your response.

[skyblue888]

There was given to Mrs. White in the earliest days of the Advent Movement a vision which showed the true picture of the history of the true church from that day clear through to the Kingdom of God, to the gates of the Holy City.

It is found in Early Writings, p.14 and 1 S.M.62.

It reads as follows:

"While I was praying at the family altar, the Holy Spirit fell upon me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the advent people in the world, but could not find them--when a voice said to me, 'Look again, and look a little higher.' At this I raised my eyes and saw a STRAIGHT AND NARROW PATH, cast up high above the world. On this path the advent people were traveling to the City, which was at the farther end of the path.

They had a bright light set up behind them at the first end of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path, and gave light for their feet so they might not stumble.

And if they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the City, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and they said the City was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising His glorious right arm, and from His arm came a glorious light which waved over the advent band, and they shouted, Alleluia!

NO INTERMEDIATE POSITION

Here indeed is a clean-cut picture of the travels of the people of God to the Kingdom. The details of this vision are well worth noticing. The faithful few are shown on a path described as being a straight and narrow one cast up high above the earth. Those who get off the path fall down into the wicked world below. There is no intermediate position.

At the beginning of the path there is a bright light which sends a beam of light clear along that path to the gate of the City at the far end. The picture is that the light shines only on the pathway, therefore it must be a narrow beam of light, as narrow and as straight as the path.

The light is the light of the Midnight Cry, and the Midnight Cry was the message that gave power to the second angel's message. See Early Writings, p.238. More than this, it shone on with the accumulated light of the first and second angel's messages to bring the light of the third angel's message as well.

Now there is the whole point of the vision. That light shines along that pathway and those who are on the pathway are in that light. Conversely those who are in that light are on that pathway and those who are on that pathway are the people of God who would go right through to the Kingdom. The others fall off the pathway and therefore out of that light and find themselves forever with the dark and wicked world below. To get off the pathway is to get out of that light, and to get out of that light is but to get off the pathway. But the people of God stayed in that light and on that pathway and those who stayed made it to the Kingdom.

Others RASHLY DENIED the light behind them, and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and fell off the path down into the wicked world below. It was as impossible for them (those that gave up their faith in the '44 movement) to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path one after another." *brackets mine

Therefore the whole question as to who are the people of God at the present time is not a question as to who bears a certain name, or who as the result of the faithfulness of their forefathers can claim physical descent from them.

The only question to be asked is, Who is on that pathway, standing in that light? That is the only question. And it would not matter what the proportionate numbers in each case were. If the whole of the professed church of God had stepped off the path, and out of that light and only one person remained in that light on that path, then that person alone would constitute the church of God and the people of God upon the earth today. Thank God it is not so. God's cause and God's church has never, and will never drop to only one person even though Elijah thought that it had in his day. There will always be a faithful few in this sin cursed earth.

sky

[Dr. Rich]

Sky, even the GC knows that vision was not correct so why are attempting to use that now? As Miz3 posted before, this thread is not about EGW's writings as it is supposed to be about the bible proving the IJ correct. So far, nothing that I have read from the bible has anything to do with any investigative judgment starting in 1844, nor that Jesus moved from the living room to the place where His Father was as that totally is not in the bible.

If you intend to just fill up this thread with EGW's writings in an attempt to destory this thread so others can't read it for fear that people will see how foolish it is to still believe in it, then that is a very selfish thing to do. Miz3 and others have pulled the plug on her, so what ever you write from now on is meaninless.

[Dr. Rich]

Well John317 here is a blatant instance where Ellen White contradicted the Bible.

"God cannot take to heaven the slave who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and holding a lower position than the brutes.... He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He permits him to be as if he had not been,...." (Early Writings, p.276)

This statement is in direct contradiction to the Words of the Bible and the Bible only.

John chapter one which says that Jesus Christ is the "light that lights" every human and by itself makes Ellen White's words above wrong and in contradiction.

The Bible in addition says that "nothing is impossible" with God. And those texts in context were talking about Salvation and who could and could not be saved.

So the Bible and Ellen White are in contradiction to each other in this case.

Even the degradation of slavery cannot keep God from saving such poor sinners and some will be in the Kingdom of Heaven according to the Bible Principles that God can and does do the impossible.

So God can save babies, even babies, who die in the womb. Nothing is impossible with God.

Since Sky has brought Ellen White as an Authority on this subject, I ask you again to defend Ellen White in regard to her contradiction of what is in the Bible. I put it above so you can see it again.

I look forward to your response.

[miz3]

According to Sky, God told Ellen White and Ellen White told Sky that those who do not believe in the Investigative Judgment are lost because the IJ is the "central pillar" of the SDA Church .org.

If that is true then why even have this discussion at all? Either believe the IJ or burn in hell.

Yet it is OK that Ellen White is in clear contradiction to the Bible and no one is able to dispute this FACT in regard to Ellen White's statement in Early Writings page 276.

Second we have also established that the year/day principle is not in the Bible and thus the IJ is not either.

Apparently the IJ is only in Ellen White and that is sufficient authority for the SDA Church .org. Then they blatantly tell us with "straight face" that the IJ didn't come from Ellen White but came from the Bible.

The Quality of Honesty is the most vital component between two or more entities in a relationship. Honesty is the vital cog that builds trust between human relationships. It appears the SDA Church .org does not subscribe to this truism.

John317 you tried but Sky let the cat out of the bag that the true SDA Church .org faithful believe in the IJ because Ellen White said so and not because this doctrine is actually in the Bible.

I was willing to "stay on topic" but apparently Sky was not because he knew the the IJ was not in the Bible but actually was an Ellen White doctrine. Sky even played the ultimate card that says "either believe in the IJ or burn in hell". Sky was convinced so strongly that he declared that sentence on me and some others.

Thank you Sky for once again setting us straight that Ellen White is actually the "highest authority" in the SDA Church .org. It is clearly not the Bible.

[Lysimachus]

I did show you by demonstrating that the year/day principle is not a wide/all inclusive use principle. Without the year/day everything else is false. The year/day is the foundation on which all your other assertions rest. Since the year/day does not exist as a "wide/all inclusive use" principle then you have nothing.

You know very well Miz3 that I have taken great lengths of time in previous threads proving the day-year principle. You got very frustrated with me and would respond with almost single line responses to the solid exegesis I established. It is amusing to watch you come into a thread all over again with your same old arguments, desperately hoping that maybe, just MAYBE, we have forgotten the arguments we used before. So you continue to regurgitate the same old rehashed arguments and continue to look the other way and pretend these arguments haven't been addressed before.

[Kevin H]

John has been using his understanding of the Bible to discuss the topic. Dr. Rich asked something that he was wondering about in the Adventism of his childhood, which would need to talk about Mrs. White to answer that question, then those trying to answer the question get attacked for quoting Mrs. White when John was using for his goal to use the Bible.

Hey, John will use the Bible when giving his studies, but there is nothing wrong with quoting Mrs. White if there is a historic question that deals with Mrs. White's influence on the church.

[Kevin H]

Good that someone was able to turn to a place to quote, however how about some discussion looking at the evidence from the Bible as presented in books such as "Sanctuary and the Atonement" and "Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation" and other books from this time period by the Biblical Research Committee.

Now I will admit that I am not impressed with ALL the chapters in these books. Some do appear to me to have the conclusion first then trying to create the evidence to fit their conclusions. However other articles do appear to go for an honest reading of the text and continued study and let the facts fall as they will. Of course my 3 favorite chapters are from "Sanctuary and the Atonement" tited "The Mighty Opposits: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2, and "We Must All Appear: The Investigative Judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White" But critics do not show any evidence that they have read these chapters. Granted these 3 chapters are study in the thought of Mrs. White, but other texts such as in "Selected Studies" and another book looking at Daniel at the time look at literary structure of the text.

These books are written by people who have been able to study it full time, and despite some of them having what I understand to be weak arguments, some have quite strong arguments, but the critics want to listen to us part time students of the topic rather than show that they read these studies and give critiques that show their weaknesses.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

I did show you by demonstrating that the year/day principle is not a wide/all inclusive use principle. Without the year/day everything else is false. The year/day is the foundation on which all your other assertions rest. Since the year/day does not exist as a "wide/all inclusive use" principle then you have nothing.

You know very well Miz3 that I have taken great lengths of time in previous threads proving the day-year principle. You got very frustrated with me and would respond with almost single line responses to the solid exegesis I established. It is amusing to watch you come into a thread all over again with your same old arguments, desperately hoping that maybe, just MAYBE, we have forgotten the arguments we used before. So you continue to regurgitate the same old rehashed arguments and continue to look the other way and pretend these arguments haven't been addressed before.

You made that up. It never ever happened.

Please cite your most cogent arguments here and now and we will see how affective you are to my responses.

I am disappointed that you would cite something that actually never ever happened. To what lengths will you go in your attempts to shore up a discredited doctrine.

Again please restate your best and most affective arguments that "you say" put me in my place. I would like to see you do this again for all to see.

The Truth is you were the one who was frustrated and could not credibly show the year/day and/or the IJ, the Sanctuary/1844.

Again I cite that Honesty is the most vital and important ingredient one can bring to the table of other humans. Time for you fess up to the Truth, my friend.

[miz3]

Good that someone was able to turn to a place to quote, however how about some discussion looking at the evidence from the Bible as presented in books such as "Sanctuary and the Atonement" and "Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation" and other books from this time period by the Biblical Research Committee.

Now I will admit that I am not impressed with ALL the chapters in these books. Some do appear to me to have the conclusion first then trying to create the evidence to fit their conclusions. However other articles do appear to go for an honest reading of the text and continued study and let the facts fall as they will. Of course my 3 favorite chapters are from "Sanctuary and the Atonement" tited "The Mighty Opposits: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2, and "We Must All Appear: The Investigative Judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White" But critics do not show any evidence that they have read these chapters. Granted these 3 chapters are study in the thought of Mrs. White, but other texts such as in "Selected Studies" and another book looking at Daniel at the time look at literary structure of the text.

These books are written by people who have been able to study it full time, and despite some of them having what I understand to be weak arguments, some have quite strong arguments, but the critics want to listen to us part time students of the topic rather than show that they read these studies and give critiques that show their weaknesses.

Are you saying that this doctrine is sooooooooooooooo complex that the average pew sitter in the SDA Church .org cannot by reading the Bible and the Bible only understand this doctrine? Only the highest of scholars are able to know this truth?

Is this God's plan for the world to know this by only listening the SDA Church .org scholars and by "faith" accept what they say?

Kevin I am sorry but God does not work this way. The uneducated disciples and the common people of Jesus Christ's day fully understood what He was talking about. Even Mary, the sister of Martha, and uneducated woman sat the feet of Jesus and learned the Truth.

Surely your not asserting that this doctrine is only for the "elite" because it is soooooooo nuanced and complex? It sounds like this is what you are saying.

I also detect a note of interest here also. In that it appears the only way to prove this doctrine is to go to Ellen White. You could shorten the discussion by just admitting that Ellen White is actually the reason SDA and the SDA Church .org believe in the IJ. First Sky, and now Kevin are injecting this idea.

I actually think there is excuse making here because those who hold to the IJ are running out things to show their case.

Unfortunately we still have not gotten by the "year/day" because the proponents cannot show from the Bible and the Bible only that such a principle exists. The year/day is only the first step and they have nothing.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I also detect a note of interest here also. In that it appears the only way to prove this doctrine is to go to Ellen White. You could shorten the discussion by just admitting that Ellen White is actually the reason SDA and the SDA Church .org believe in the IJ. First Sky, and now Kevin are injecting this idea.

One could have the option to accept life in eternity without predetermination (investigative judgement) if the Father Creator so chose that they would be happy there, but what is good for one would also be allowed for another. And what would we do with the ones who hate our guts and would spend the rest of eternity making life miserable for all whom they hate? Without the investigative judgment, who is to determine such minor???? nuances of government? If not in the words of a person we have evidence to be inspired by the King of kings, perhaps we might search these pages for the evidence.

"And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen." John 21:25 NKJV

God blesses!

[Kevin H]

I know Miz3 that this post will appeal to evidence that you will reject and only make a comment about pagan scholars or something similar.

Dissagree with me if you wish, but I cannot underestamate the influence of the chapter "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in my understanding of the Bible as a whole and the Investigative Judgment. Now, while that chapter gives a macro over view of the Old Testament as a whole, we can make micro applications of this chapter to the different periods of scripture.

Reading Deuteronomy 4 from this perspective, the Hebrews give two possible histories for the Hebrews. One if they are faithful and how God would bless them in the land, and if they are not faithful they would get curses to help them realize that they are doing wrong, but if nothing else worked then they would have gone into exile. Deuteronomy 4 calls the exile "The Last Days" and how God would work with them in exile. As you study it out in the Bible, the Hebrews were to share the gospel with their neighbors telling about their unfaithfulness and God's faithfulness and that if they spread the gospel the exile was suposed to end in a glorious second exodus lead by the messiah.

Daniel 1-6 expects the days Daniel was living in to be the last days.Daniel 2 does not in it's immediate context expect kingdomes, but individual kings. The book of Daniel names four kings. They could have been the last 4 kings before the messiah's kingdom.

When the Hebrews first came to the promised land they could have crossed over, but the people fearned so that generation went into the wilderness for 40 years and the next generation was again at the borders of the land. God gave them a chance to go in once and lead them around to another chance. Daniel is written the same way, the exile could have ended with the messiah leading a second great exodus home. If not then God would cycle around and things from the first cycle would give the principles for futher cycles. Thus Daniel 7 draws an analogy from Daniel 2 and instead of it being 4 kings, it turned into kingdoms.

Daniel 7 still expects the Messiah to come at the end of the 70 years, but offers the possiblity that it may not be fulfilled in that way by changing from kings to kingdoms. In Daniel 8 there is more of a leaning away from the Messiah coming at the end of the 70 years, however it still holds the possibility open. By Daniel 9 the conditions were not fulfilled and chapters 9-12 are a return to the land and how to re-apply Deuteronomy 4 now that the exile was not going to be the last days.

In this context, and where Daniel still had hope (although fading) of the exile being the last days we get the 2300 evenings-mornings. Now if Daniel wanted to say days there is a perfectly good Hebrew word for that. If Daniel wanted to say years he had a perfectly good word for that. Instead he uses evenings-mornings.

[Kevin H]

Now some not knowing the context of Daniel 8 and thinking that Belshazzar was a fictional character and wanting Daniel to be talking about Antiochus said that Daniel meant to say "mornings and evenings" which was the phrase for the sacrificial service, two sacrifices a day or 1150 days. Conservative commentaries holding this view tend to avoid talking about the next part, but the liberals point out that neither the 1150 nor the 2300 days fit Antiochus, and say that it does not need to fit because the author of Daniel was only doing wishful thinking. However we now know that Belshazzar was a real person. And that the terms "evening-morning" is a cyclic term 2300 cycles and the evening-morning is the daily cycle of Genesis 1.

The ancient world believed that cycles were interchageable. For further study seen Henri Frankfort and others "Before Philosophy" 1946 University of Chicago press. An example that "Before Philosophy" points out is that a "Day" in ancient Egypt was either the cycle of day and night with the sun, or the cycle between the annual flood of the Nile (year-day).

Of course we are in the Bible and not ancient Egypt so we cannot impose the Egyptian's cycle on the text. We find the Hebrew cycles in Leviticus 25 and also in the book of Deuteronomy. The cycle is given in terms of a Hebrew week. There were 6 days and the Sabbath. Then the growing seasons were 6 months with Passover/Yom Kippur. Six years and the Sabbatical year, and 6 sabatical years and the jublee. Thus the evening-morning cycle would be days, half years, years or sabbatical years. However Daniel was a Deuteronomist and Duteronomys cycles do not include the Jublee thus making the Deuteronomic cycle equal days, half years or full years. Any of these could fulfill.

Realizing that Belshazzar was a real person, and that Daniel was open to the possiblity of the exile ending with the Messiah coming back, the third year of Belshazzar happened to be 1150 days from business as usual. However 2300 days from the third year of Belshazzar brings us to the year that Belshazzar had his feast recorded in Daniel 5. Now we do not know ezactly what day of Belshazzar's third year that Daniel had the vision, but 2300 days would bring us to one of three events, the Meds and Persians breating down Beshazzar's neck, the night of Belshazzar's feast and the fall of Babylon, and the early months of Persian rule.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Good that someone was able to turn to a place to quote, however how about some discussion looking at the evidence from the Bible as presented in books such as "Sanctuary and the Atonement" and "Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation" and other books from this time period by the Biblical Research Committee.

Now I will admit that I am not impressed with ALL the chapters in these books. Some do appear to me to have the conclusion first then trying to create the evidence to fit their conclusions. However other articles do appear to go for an honest reading of the text and continued study and let the facts fall as they will. Of course my 3 favorite chapters are from "Sanctuary and the Atonement" tited "The Mighty Opposits: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2, and "We Must All Appear: The Investigative Judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White" But critics do not show any evidence that they have read these chapters. Granted these 3 chapters are study in the thought of Mrs. White, but other texts such as in "Selected Studies" and another book looking at Daniel at the time look at literary structure of the text.

These books are written by people who have been able to study it full time, and despite some of them having what I understand to be weak arguments, some have quite strong arguments, but the critics want to listen to us part time students of the topic rather than show that they read these studies and give critiques that show their weaknesses.

Are you saying that this doctrine is sooooooooooooooo complex that the average pew sitter in the SDA Church .org cannot by reading the Bible and the Bible only understand this doctrine? Only the highest of scholars are able to know this truth?

Is this God's plan for the world to know this by only listening the SDA Church .org scholars and by "faith" accept what they say?

Kevin I am sorry but God does not work this way. The uneducated disciples and the common people of Jesus Christ's day fully understood what He was talking about. Even Mary, the sister of Martha, and uneducated woman sat the feet of Jesus and learned the Truth.

Surely your not asserting that this doctrine is only for the "elite" because it is soooooooo nuanced and complex? It sounds like this is what you are saying.

I also detect a note of interest here also. In that it appears the only way to prove this doctrine is to go to Ellen White. You could shorten the discussion by just admitting that Ellen White is actually the reason SDA and the SDA Church .org believe in the IJ. First Sky, and now Kevin are injecting this idea.

I actually think there is excuse making here because those who hold to the IJ are running out things to show their case.

Unfortunately we still have not gotten by the "year/day" because the proponents cannot show from the Bible and the Bible only that such a principle exists. The year/day is only the first step and they have nothing.

The Bible was written in the context of the culture who wrote and first read the Bible. We have lost sight of the context. Someone learning about the historical context and literary context and literary structures that was part of the everyday life of Daniel and his original audience would see it.