Is the Investigative Judgment in the Bible?

[skyblue888]

Amen Lysi. Right on.

sky :)

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

5th principle – one can only receive that which was given prima facie, with the understanding that its ultimate unveiling is sealed until...

6th, 7th, 8th, etc...

>>Not all of Daniel was sealed<<

That was addressed by the 5th principle. Examp: Protestantism has been teaching that the image, which Nabuchadnezzar raised and commanded that all should worship – was an image to himself. However, the stated cubits given are not proportionate to man. We are left with the conundrum of ‘what was the dimension of the base’? What should we think if the base dimension of the golden image was a 150 cubits to the side totaling 600 cubits? We’d then have been told that the image of gold were two geometrics – whose numbers totaled 666... I’d guess a pyramid with a circle (sphere?) of 6 cubits atop it – as the same is found within Egyptian glyphs – many times with wings attached to the circle (sphere?) – indicating flight.

Likewise, with the image of various metals, the 70-weeks passage, etc... Their exposition was meant for a later time; that is, “the end of time” – and sealed unto that very time.

The complete understanding of the seemingly obvious were not provided – as Gd had sealed the book; that is, the book in its entirety – and not just a portion of it here and there...

Quote:

Quote:

The book that was sealed is not the Revelation, but that portion of the prophecy of Daniel relating to the last days. The angel commanded, “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.” Daniel 12:4. {AA 585.1}

Well then, if the author of AA truly believed that which was written in the above quote – he or she refutes Gd, by adding to the words of the book – shreds of a very subjective whole cloth.

Here again are the proscriptive words as recorded in Holy Writ as referenced above – before the author of AA elected to exegete extraBiblically:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

One sees that the entire – words and book – were sealed on order by Gd – until a two-fold occurrence... at the “time of the end”.

I suggest that it is only now that we may be in “the time of the end” – and even this may prove questionable; however, it cannot have been before the fact that ‘men run to and fro and knowledge is increased’ – significantly.

Perhaps, that is why there is confusion as to whether the book of Daniel belongs with the Prophets or with the Writings in the Jewish Tanakh (our OT).

[Nic Samojluk]

Lysimachus wrote:

“You're interpreting the angel in your own distorted light. The way you choose to interpret what the angel is saying is wrong.”

Perhaps we both are interpreting the prophecy incorrectly. I believe that your interpretation if wrong. It is like forcing a square into a circle, what you get is a squarcle. Listen to what the angel said:

19He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.b

20The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.

21The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king.

22The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

23“In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise.

24He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people.

25He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

I have some questions for you:

1. Who is the angel talking about?

2. Who is causing the “astounding devastation?

3. Who is destroying the mighty men and the holy people?

4. Who is deceiving and prospering?

5. Who is predicted as destroying many?

6. Who will be destroyed?

With your interpretation, you ignore all these details described by the angel, you ignore the context, and you tell me that the victim—the saints—are the ones to be judged?

This distorted interpretation we Adventists have invented out of thin air reminds me of how some Moslem extremists misuse their Sharia Law.

When a girl is sexually violated, they stone the victim instead of the criminal.

[BobRyan]

It also seems tough for you to admit that what happened in 1844 was predicted in Daniel 8. It was the terminus of the 2300 years. I proved this already to you, and you ignored it. I proved to you exegetically, from scripture, that the 2300 cannot commence at the battle of Granicus, but during Persia's existence before Grecia invaded. It commenced while Persia was fully established and conquering the world.

If your starting date is wrong, and the starting date for the 2300 years must begin before the year that Alexander invaded, then 457 B.C. is right, and that means 1844 is correct.

All true.

And the evidence from Dan 7 is abundantly clear that the IJ takes place after he division of pagan Rome into 10 kingdoms -- and just before the 2nd coming.

In fact - according to the chapter - the IJ ending brings on the judgment of the little horn.

It is indeed "good news" for the saints.

But the saints are judged in it as well as we see in vs 22 where "judgment is passed in favor of the saints".

in Christ,

Bob

[Lysimachus]

But remember BobRyan, the above argument may not work well for Nic, because you see....

He puts the starting date of the 2300 days/years at the Battle of Granicus between Alexander the Great and Medo-Persia in 334 BC. and ends it at the victory of Israel over the Arabs in 1967.

So Nic's version of the 2300 days/years = 334 B.C. - 1967 A.D.

What say you Bob?

[phkrause]

But remember BobRyan, the above argument may not work well for Nic, because you see....

He puts the starting date of the 2300 days/years at the Battle of Granicus between Alexander the Great and Medo-Persia in 334 BC. and ends it at the victory of Israel over the Arabs in 1967.

So Nic's version of the 2300 days/years = 334 B.C. - 1967 A.D.

What say you Bob?

Its an interesting idea, but the prophecy has to do with Jesus going from the holy to the most holy! Modern Israel has nothing to do with prophecy after Stephens' death and after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. If I'm not mistaken itself will no longer be involved in any prophecies? Of course we know that many Jews will again accept Jesus as there Savior

[jasd]

QR frame

It startles me that anyone seeking to function as an apologetic for the IJ can so blithely subscribe to as premises – questionable dogmas wrested from the sealed book of Daniel. Better should one revisit the book of Daniel with the thought that perhaps Gd now reveals that which He’d previously sealed – as we dwell at or nearer “the times of the end” of verse 4 Daniel 12, than those who lived centuries ago.

Surely one cannot so cavalierly attach one’s credibility to rewound confabulations of past centuries...

Hasn’t such practices been asserted as those of the Roman Church?

One supposes and hopes for a certain candor brought to the study of Holy Writ. After all, dogmas developed when travel was primarily a labor by mare’s shank or buggy, and before scientists conceived ‘germ theory’ – cannot conceivably be thought to simultaneously represent as ‘running to and fro’ and ‘knowledge increased’ – indicating the unsealing of the book of Daniel.

I mean, isn’t it elementary?-that a thing sealed by Gd is sealed?

[Gibs]

SD,

When we understand these verses and the time to start the days then it can be disciphered,

Da 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Da 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The prophecy is by the Jubilee calendar, each day a year and it has to start on a Jubilee year as it is a new beginning, and BC 457 is that date. The 70 weeks of yrs. alloted to the jews then are "determined" from the same starting time.

"determined" means cut off.

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

And the 70 weeks were fulfilled perfectly as prophecied so by that we know the time for the remaing of the 2300 forward is the correct time for the full 2300 perfectly to come to pass also.

SD. Advemtism don't have this wrong, you just need to get with a real well read SDA to show you how it fits together. I would be one to do that with you but not in these forums as I am a slow and unaccomplished typer and very un prolific in expanation because of that. I think there is some here on the forums that could do that if they took the time and patience.

The prophecy foretold in the verses above have nothing to do with what you are referring to.

You just need a good civil discussion with one who is a good teacher of this subject.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That was addressed by the 5th principle. Examp: Protestantism has been teaching that the image, which Nabuchadnezzar raised and commanded that all should worship – was an image to himself. However, the stated cubits given are not proportionate to man. We are left with the conundrum of ‘what was the dimension of the base’? What should we think if the base dimension of the golden image was a 150 cubits to the side totaling 600 cubits? We’d then have been told that the image of gold were two geometrics – whose numbers totaled 666... I’d guess a pyramid with a circle (sphere?) of 6 cubits atop it – as the same is found within Egyptian glyphs – many times with wings attached to the circle (sphere?) – indicating flight.

Oo-laaa!—a facsimile exists of the two geometrics that has seemingly come down through the ages via Egypt and Babylon. It is found on the obverse of the dollar bill with an encircled all-seeing eye atop a pyramid. Yumpin’ yiminy!

And per a relationship between 666 and gold in Holy Writ – it is on the wires throughout Europe that:

Goldman Sachs rules the world.

Hyperbole?—don’t know; however, hadn’t someone previously posted on these boards that the ‘name of the beast’ may likely be Gold or a variation thereof?—which elicited the question, “Are you serious?”

Does Gd utilize the esoteric of geometry as signifiers? Mebbe, mebbe not. However, we know that He uses Zodiacal and pure forms of astrology as signifiers in Writ...

[Nic Samojluk]

pkrause wrote:

“It’s an interesting idea, but the prophecy has to do with Jesus going from the holy to the most holy!”

The original Adventist explanation was based on the theory that Jesus on his ascension remained in the Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary for 1800 years, and this theory was supported by Ellen White. Do you still hold to this unbiblical view? Does our church still believe this? Do our scholars believe this?

“Modern Israel has nothing to do with prophecy after Stephens' death and after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. If I'm not mistaken itself will no longer be involved in any prophecies? Of course we know that many Jews will again accept Jesus as there Savior”

I will rather stick to Paul’s view that the Jews would be eventually grafted into the vine from which they were cut off. Paul’s explanation fits the prophetical prediction found in Ezekiel 37 to a T.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gibs wrote:

“"determined" means cut off.”

The word “determined” is not a synonym of “cut off.” The word “determined” is one of the connotations of the original Hebrew term and another meaning is “cut off.” Daniel 8 must be read and interpreted within its proper context. The context is the Battle between Alexander the Great and the military forces of Medo-Persia.

The unbiblical explanation we came out with was the result of our unwillingness to admit that we blew it in 1844, and it was predicted in the book of Revelation that we would have a bitter experience as a result of our study of Daniel. The experience would be bitter, the angel said—not bitter sweet as we rationalized.

It is hard to be humble and admit that the angel was right. With our convoluted explanation we tried to make the world believe that our experience had been bitter-sweet—and that we had been right on the date but only wrong on the event.

Jesus did not spend 1800 years in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary; he went straight to the immediate presence of God the Father.

Trying to defend our original theory forces us to hold to the erroneous idea that Jesus did not present to his Father his blood until 1800 years after his ascension; this explanation is no longer held by Adventist scholars.

[skyblue888]

Jesus did NOT have to wait 1800 some years to present the merits of His shed blood to the Father in our behalf thus making atonement for our transgressions. That is not Adventist teaching and never has been.

"The Intercession of Christ in our behalf is that of presenting His divine merits in the offereing of Himself to the Father as our substitute and surety; for He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." Faith & Works,105.

After He entered the Most Holy place in 1844 He continued to plead the merits of His sacrifice (as He had done for 1810 years) in behalf of all but especially those who believe and when the misson of the Gospel shall have been completed, He will make the final atonement and begin His descent to the earth. Probation will have closed and the people of God will enter the time of Jacob's trouble.

sky

[Lysimachus]

People need to learn the difference between "Atonement", and the "Day OF Atonement".

Atonement went on from the beginning of the year, to the end of the year. But the Day of Atonement was a special day that raised the bar to a more intense level of corporate judgment.

[Nic Samojluk]

skyblue888 wrote:

“Jesus did NOT have to wait 1800 some years to present the merits of His shed blood to the Father in our behalf thus making atonement for our transgressions. That is not Adventist teaching and never has been.”

I don’t know how old you are, but I am almost 80 now and I am the product of Adventist education and I can testify that the doctrine that Jesus presented his blood to the Father in 1844 has been the traditional teaching of the Adventist Church.

Said doctrine is based on the idea that the ministration of Jesus in the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary did not begin until 1844. This matches what we find in the Old Testament where the High Priest entered the most holy place only on the Day of Atonement to present the blood there in God’s presence.

Said doctrine received the blessing of Ellen White writings in her book “The Great Controversy.” This is found in the chapter entitled “In the Holy of Holies.” It reads as follow:

“So when Christ entered the holy of holies to perform the closing work of the atonement, He ceased His ministration in the first apartment. But when the ministration in the first apartment ended, the ministration in the second apartment began. When in the typical service the high priest left the holy on the Day of Atonement, he went in before God to present the blood of the sin offering in behalf of all Israel who truly repented of their sins. So Christ had only completed one part of his work as our intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work, and he still pleaded His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners.”

If you deny this, then our doctrine of the sanctuary looses its original meaning. We have always taught that what took place in the sanctuary service in the wilderness is the pattern for the service of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. The High Priest entered the most holy place only on the Day of Atonement to present the blood in God’s presence. I see no way we can twist this now to negate what we always taught.

Desmond Ford is the one who showed that this teaching is unbiblical and that Jesus went into the immediate presence of God the Father following his ascension.

[skyblue888]

skyblue888 wrote:

“Jesus did NOT have to wait 1800 some years to present the merits of His shed blood to the Father in our behalf thus making atonement for our transgressions. That is not Adventist teaching and never has been.”

I don’t know how old you are, but I am almost 80 now and I am the product of Adventist education and I can testify that the doctrine that Jesus presented his blood to the Father in 1844 has been the traditional teaching of the Adventist Church.

Said doctrine is based on the idea that the ministration of Jesus in the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary did not begin until 1844. This matches what we find in the Old Testament where the High Priest entered the most holy place only on the Day of Atonement to present the blood there in God’s presence.

________________________

It was not the Day of Atonement but the Great Day of Atonement otherwise known as the final atonement, the cleansing of the sanctuary. There is a difference. Are you saying that no atonement took place in the first apartment?

sky

_________________________

Said doctrine received the blessing of Ellen White writings in her book “The Great Controversy.” This is found in the chapter entitled “In the Holy of Holies.” It reads as follow:

“So when Christ entered the holy of holies to perform the closing work of the atonement, He ceased His ministration in the first apartment. But when the ministration in the first apartment ended, the ministration in the second apartment began. When in the typical service the high priest left the holy on the Day of Atonement, he went in before God to present the blood of the sin offering in behalf of all Israel who truly repented of their sins. So Christ had only completed one part of his work as our intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work, and he still pleaded His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners.”

_______________________

I have never denied this. How did you get the idea that I did? On the contrary.

sky

_______________________

If you deny this, then our doctrine of the sanctuary looses its original meaning. We have always taught that what took place in the sanctuary service in the wilderness is the pattern for the service of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. The High Priest entered the most holy place only on the Day of Atonement to present the blood in God’s presence. I see no way we can twist this now to negate what we always taught.

_______________________

Again it was not the day of Atonement but the Great day of atonement. By saying that it was the day of atonement, it's like you are implying that no atonement took place until Christ entered the Most Holy place in 1844. But we know that Christ began making atonement as soon as He began His priestly ministry in the first apartment after His ascension on High and in 1844 He entered the Most Holy place to begin the work of Ivestigative Jusgment prior to making the final atonement. The final atonement will be made when the mission of the Gospel is completed at the end of the loud cry at the time of the great final test coinciding with the judgment of the living.

sky

______________________

Desmond Ford is the one who showed that this teaching is unbiblical and that Jesus went into the immediate presence of God the Father following his ascension.

______________________

Well, I for one certainly disagree with his theories.

sky

[Lysimachus]

Desmond Ford's theories are well outdated now--especially since books like "The Silencing of Satan" by Bradley R. Williams, "The Case for the Investigative Judgment" by Marvin Moore, "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies" by Goldstein, and numerous Study Notes by Pastor Stephen Bohr have come out.

There is a truck-load of material now that completely shows the fallacies of Ford's arguments. Interestingly, Ford has made no effort to refute these latest works. Instead, he goes on to "piously" preach about Jesus, but does not give much attention anymore to those Adventists who have posed a truckload of challenges to him since he made his challenges to the SDA Church. Now it's his turn to answer our challenges.

[skyblue888]

People need to learn the difference between "Atonement", and the "Day OF Atonement".

Atonement went on from the beginning of the year, to the end of the year. But the Day of Atonement was a special day that raised the bar to a more intense level of corporate judgment.

Do some of us really believe that when Jesus entered the most holy place He began to make atonement for the first time? What was He doing all this time for 1810 years if He was not making atonement? He did not begin to make atonement in 1844 for He had been making atonement for transgression for 1810 years by pleading the merits of His shed blood before the Father.

But in 1844 He entered the Most Holy Place to begin the final phase of the atonement. 1844 is not the day of atonement but the Great Day of Atonement. It means that in 1844 He began the work of investigative judgment of the professed people of God, first of the dead beginning with Adam and then followed by the living, (and by the way the judgment of the living cannot take place until the mission of the Gospel is completed) and then He will make the final atonement and then human probation will close.

Before He can make the final atonement His people must successfully pass the great final test and receive the second and final seal.

That, to my understanding, is adventist teaching.

Evidence that Christ began making atonement after His ascension is clearly stated here:

"The Intercession of Christ in our behalf is that of presenting His divine merits in the offereing of Himself to the Father as our substitute and surety; for He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." Faith & Works,105.

sky

[Lysimachus]

Well stated Sky. When I was using the expression "Day of Atonement", my mind was interpreting it as you are as "The Great Day of Atonement". Sometimes terminology can throw our minds for a spin if we're not careful.

[skyblue888]

Well stated Sky. When I was using the expression "Day of Atonement", my mind was interpreting it as you are as "The Great Day of Atonement". Sometimes terminology can throw our minds for a spin if we're not careful.

Amen Lysi.

sky

[Nic Samojluk]

skyblue888 wroter:

“It was not the Day of Atonement but the Great Day of Atonement otherwise known as the final atonement, the cleansing of the sanctuary. There is a difference. Are you saying that no atonement took place in the first apartment?”

What biblical texts do you use to establish the difference between the Day of Atonement and the Great Day of Atonement?

Since you agree with me that Ellen White did teach that Jesus moved into the Most Holy place to present his blood to his Father in 1844, then do you accept that as a fact? Isn’t this contrary to what the Bible teaches?

[Nic Samojluk]

Lysimachus wrote:

“Desmond Ford's theories are well outdated now--especially since books like "The Silencing of Satan" by Bradley R. Williams, "The Case for the Investigative Judgment" by Marvin Moore, "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies" by Goldstein, and numerous Study Notes by Pastor Stephen Bohr have come out.”

I am not in the business of defending Ford’s theories. He was wrong on several doctrines. One of them is evolution and the other one is his doctrine of the atonement.

Nevertheless, he did open my eyes to the fact that the belief supported by Ellen White regarding Jesus moving from the first apartment into the Most Holy Place in 1844 to present his blood to his Father is not biblical.

[skyblue888]

skyblue888 wroter:

“It was not the Day of Atonement but the Great Day of Atonement otherwise known as the final atonement, the cleansing of the sanctuary. There is a difference. Are you saying that no atonement took place in the first apartment?”

What biblical texts do you use to establish the difference between the Day of Atonement and the Great Day of Atonement?

Since you agree with me that Ellen White did teach that Jesus moved into the Most Holy place to present his blood to his Father in 1844, then do you accept that as a fact? Isn’t this contrary to what the Bible teaches?

He had been presenting the merits of His blood before the Father for 1810 years and when He entered the Most Holy place in 1844 He did not stop doing that but at the same time He began the work of investigative judgment.

Far from being contrary to what the Bible teaches, it is, rather, in perfect harmony with what the Bible teaches.

As one studies the type in the Old Testatement sanctuary he finds that there was the daily atonement and the great day of atonement at the end of the year.

sky

[Lysimachus]

Lysimachus wrote:

“Desmond Ford's theories are well outdated now--especially since books like "The Silencing of Satan" by Bradley R. Williams, "The Case for the Investigative Judgment" by Marvin Moore, "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies" by Goldstein, and numerous Study Notes by Pastor Stephen Bohr have come out.”

I am not in the business of defending Ford’s theories. He was wrong on several doctrines. One of them is evolution and the other one is his doctrine of the atonement.

Nevertheless, he did open my eyes to the fact that the belief supported by Ellen White regarding Jesus moving from the first apartment into the Most Holy Place in 1844 to present his blood to his Father is not biblical.

But you see Nic, it is Biblical. And it was not invented by Ellen White either. The Lord did show her in vision, however, that the conclusion of the Pioneers was correct. Hiram Edson's mind did not open up to these glorious truths in the cornfield for naught. God was in the movement.

Have you read Dr. Froom's Volume 4, of Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers? In that book, he provides a chart of approximately 75 expositors the world over who put the terminus of the 2300 days in the 1840s. What blew my mind when reading some of the works of these expositors was that some of them actually believed that the termination of the 1840s did not mark the commencement of the Second Advent, but rather marked the beginning of a "revival and restoration back to apostolic times, and a cleansing of God's people".

In this respect, some of their conclusions were even more accurate than William Miller. Many of these men had no connection with Miller nor knew who he was, as they were writing their conclusions from different continents and different countries in Europe. It was a world-wide impression concerning the 2300 days.

Keep in mind that Christ going into the Most Holy Place in 1844 does not "lock" Him in the first apartment. Christ walks about everywhere. But, His "ministration" is a "Most Holy Place ministration", regardless of where He's standing. The ministration He is doing is intrinsically tied to the spiritual significance of the Most Holy Place.

Thus, we can rightly state that He is in the Most Holy Place performing a work of Investigative Judgment. For simplistic purposes, this terminology is a healthy way to look at it, regardless of the details.

[jasd]

>> What blew my mind when reading some of the works of these expositors was that some of them actually believed that the termination of the 1840s did not mark the commencement of the Second Advent, but rather marked the beginning of a "revival and restoration back to apostolic times, and a cleansing of God's people".<< [ed.jasd]

Indeed, as the Niphal stem verb tense (perfect aspect) – of tsadag requires. Expositors generally fail to factor the verb tense of tsadag, which, again, is in the Niphal – therefore proscribing the standard interpretation of the text as indicating an inorganic thing, ie, a physical Temple or parts thereof. The particular Niphal factor leads the expositor – necessarilly – to a cleansing of an organic sanctuary, that is, people.

In the case of which people – Psalms 114:2 provides the answer: “Judah was his sanctuary, [and] Israel his dominion.”

Daniel 8:14 speaks to a cleansing of the people of Judah.

>>Keep in mind that Christ going into the Most Holy Place in 1844 does not "lock" Him in the first apartment.<<

And let’s keep in mind that there is no conclusion in Writ that a wall, curtain, or other – separated the room where Jesus Christ was into ‘apartments’, except in the loosest sense. Thereby, providing the whole cloth of

>>Christ walks about everywhere. But, His "ministration" is a "Most Holy Place ministration", regardless of where He's standing. The ministration He is doing is intrinsically tied to the spiritual significance of the Most Holy Place.<<

any substance it deserves.

>>Thus, we can rightly state that He is in the Most Holy Place performing a work of Investigative Judgment.<<

Let’s not forget that Jesus Christ, when telling the parable of the good stewards, informed us in its telling that there is a ‘summary judgement’, unneedful of Investigation.

>>For simplistic purposes, this terminology is a healthy way to look at it, regardless of the details.<<

It is dubious that untruths are healthy.

[Gibs]

SD, GE,

The term investigative judgment is a coined term, like rapture. The cleansing of the Sanctuary is what SDA's see as the investigative judgment. It is said He goes in at the termination of those 2300, Dan 8:14 and separates the sheep from the goates In other words He has two files for the cases colected there, the lost, goats, the saved, sheep in the Heavenly Sanctuary that have collected there from Adam on. At some point in time as He ministers there it begins for the living and some feel we have been into the living for some time.

You'll have to explain your thesis of the IJ of Dan. 7, as that one is a new one on me and I think most of us SDA's

Like I say I'd rather some who are prolific at explaining this matter of SDA theology and prolific at typing out things as at 80+ the fingers are not responsive and sensitive enough.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.