Is the Investigative Judgment in the Bible?

[cheddar]

Simple.

Daniel says 70 weeks and 2300 days.

Jews and Christians have changed the word days into years.

A lie which is told often enough is soon believed to be the truth. I think Ellen White said that.

[Lysimachus]

Simple.

Daniel says 70 weeks and 2300 days.

Jews and Christians have changed the word days into years.

A lie which is told often enough is soon believed to be the truth. I think Ellen White said that.

Oh, I see, so there was some time in history where a literal 490 days were cut off the end of a literal 2300 days.

Oh please do enlighten me to the history to back this up! I want exact dates, and all the events revolving those dates.

[Lysimachus]

It's truly amazing Cheddar how so many of you who are opposed to the Sanctuary Doctrine as taught by Adventism are all in disunity with one another. You're all espousing different, erroneous arguments, to try and destroy these sacred truths, but none of you are on the same footing. That in itself is a sign that you are all on the wrong side. All your interpretations are completely contradictory to one another, yet to each and everyone of you they apparently are "proof" why Adventism's version is wrong.

This is truly a manifestation of what Paul was talking about when He said that every wind of doctrine would be flying to and fro in the last days.

Your above posts are a classic example of what "confusion" (Babylon) really looks like.

[phkrause]

It's truly amazing Cheddar how so many of you who are opposed to the Sanctuary Doctrine as taught by Adventism are all in disunity with one another. You're all espousing different, erroneous arguments, to try and destroy these sacred truths, but none of you are on the same footing. That in itself is a sign that you are all on the wrong side. All your interpretations are completely contradictory to one another, yet to each and everyone of you they apparently are "proof" why Adventism's version is wrong.

This is truly a manifestation of what Paul was talking about when He said that every wind of doctrine would be flying to and fro in the last days.

Your above posts are a classic example of what "confusion" (Babylon) really looks like.

And on top of that, they actually try to talk for the Jews. If you think about it, they knew about the day for a year principle, because they knew pretty much when the Messiah was to come. They just misunderstood what was to happen, at least must of them did. At this point in history the majority are still looking but Messianic Jews know exactly who the Messiah is.

[cheddar]

Oh, I see, so there was some time in history where a literal 490 days were cut off the end of a literal 2300 days.

Oh please do enlighten me to the history to back this up! I want exact dates, and all the events revolving those dates.

You have history on the brain and could never see anything else.

I'm not trying to convince you, just like you'll never convince me that the word prophecy means to foretell the past.

Besides that is very humbling and humiliating to admit that one is wrong.

You can't even admit that the trumpets are in the future. There are many adventists who see the trumpets in the future, so I'm not all by my little lonesome in that category.

The trumpets precede the judgment so that just means more and more of Daniel and Revelation are future.

[jasd]

>>And that is precisely one of the many reasons the trumpets cannot be future,<<

‘Trumpets’ do not necessarily share the same reference – one may be unlike the other; for instance, the events described as following each of the trumpets cannot be said to have already occurred. By the fact that they’ve not yet occurred – disassociates them from the year 1844 – let alone they having preceded 1844. So, it remains that

until one may make an acceptable argument for the ‘Tishri 1 Feast of Trumpets’ having saliently occurred prior to 1844 – it remains that only chutzpah can pontificate upon 1844 and the Day of Atonement/Judgement.

>>What happened in 1844 then? Something else? What was significant about the termination of the 2300 years?

I look forward to any alternative explanations of what might have taken place at the terminus of the 2300 years.<<

That’s just it – the honest expositor has to assume that nothing happened other than what happened this past May 21, 2011 when the end of the world according to Camping was to occur. A lot of people – got it wrong then, as well in 1843-4-5 and ‘51!—because of faulty reckoning and because of premature wresting of a book Gd had sealed. THAT, of itself speaks to the error, which followed – as one cannot gainsay Gd – goes to basic exegesis.

[Gibs]

Lysimachus,

Well you need to know determined there in Dan 9:24 is "cut off", but what you need to know further is that the 70 wks. are cut off and then but the 2300 goes on to our yr. 1844. and the 70 weeks do prove that then the termination of the full 2300 is for sure the proper interpretation. Why? Because the 70'th week was fulfilled perfectly as prophecied. You see it went 490 + 1810 more to make the full 2300, simple math.

a 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.

chathak khaw-thak'

a primitive root; properly, to cut off, i.e. (figuratively) to decree:--determine.

Yes it was also decreed. All SDA's should all see this the same, but stragely don't.

I should say more but I don't see much use to do so.

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.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Oh, I see, so there was some time in history where a literal 490 days were cut off the end of a literal 2300 days.

Oh please do enlighten me to the history to back this up! I want exact dates, and all the events revolving those dates.

You have history on the brain and could never see anything else.

I'm not trying to convince you, just like you'll never convince me that the word prophecy means to foretell the past.

Besides that is very humbling and humiliating to admit that one is wrong.

You can't even admit that the trumpets are in the future. There are many adventists who see the trumpets in the future, so I'm not all by my little lonesome in that category.

The trumpets precede the judgment so that just means more and more of Daniel and Revelation are future.

The trumpets are all future only in the sense that they over-arch into the 7 last plagues. The 7 last plagues are like the judgment pronounced from the 7 trumpets announced in the past. The past judgments were announcements of future judgments.

Once you look at it like this, then there is no problem.

[Lysimachus]

Gibs,

I do believe the 70 weeks being "cut off" is a central proof for proving that the 2300 days commence in 457 B.C. and are the first part of it. But, all I'm saying is that we now have proofs to indicate that the 2300 commences in 457 besides the word "chathak" (cut off). 2300 evening-mornings represent time of sanctuary operation. 457 B.C. is when the Jewish Sanctuary was fully operational with a functioning priesthood according to Ezra 7.

[jasd]

>>I already went over this in the previous thread, and yet you went on as though it was never addressed. Critics I notice tend to do this. [...] You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face, but they keep bringing up the same old argument and act as though you never addressed it.<<

The above seems to best define ‘self-indicting’ – for the number of times I’ve brought to everyone’s attention Gd’s sealing of the book of Daniel (Dan 12:4) – and yet, for those who advance soothsaying inventions re 1844 et al – it is as though Gd’s sealing of a book holds no meaning at all – as they keep repeating, repeating, repeating – whole cloth suppositions.

One wonders at either the sanity or the honesty of the expositor who willfully bases and advances arguments derived from a sealed book – as though an actual sealing of the book hadn’t, in fact, occurred.

It behooves the expositors to revisit their arguments, as they are prematurely wrested from a sealed book.

It may be that it is only now as we are no longer constrained to go hither and yon by mare’s shank or horse and buggy – and we’ve since – traveled to other heavenly bodies and discovered such as germ theory – the expositor is obliged to revisit Daniel with Gd’s blessing.

>>we know that the vision "mareh" portion of Daniel 8 was not yet understood. What was "sealed" in Daniel 8 was not the "mareh", or time element of the vision, but the "chazon" itself. In all previous visions to Daniel 8, Daniel "understood". Sealed or not, it has to be understood. Period!<<

Disabuse me should I err, but I understand chazon to be the ecstatic experience whilst mareh is the contents or the appearance of that ‘dream/revelation’. (In this, I am of a like mind with Desmond Ford, for what it’s worth)

Whereas..., Gd spoke, “Seal up the book (cepher).”

Should mareh and chazon consist in part the book of Daniel – the understanding of them were sealed, as was, unless incontrovertibly laid open to understanding, the rest of the book – without exceptions.

Even though the mareh was explained to Daniel – he admitted that he could not understand it – but we should?—circa centuries past?—when an unwashed and soiled blade was the tool of surgery, sans anesthesia?—and most people lived and died within a twenty mile radius?

Do you disagree?—show me the text that says, “Herein lies the exception to the sealing of the book by Gd.”

[Gibs]

All the scrolls or books of prophecy were sealed up until the time they were to be understood. Then in every apocalyptic prophecy there is a given starting and ending time given and sometimes pretty well hidden but can be found. All scrolls of prophedy are now opened to be understood but only the right interpretation will be had when guided by the Holy Spirit. All prophecy is not yet fulfilled. People need to get them out and pray for guidance and study them out without the opinions of the past to lead away from the truth of them.

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.

[cheddar]

The above seems to best define ‘self-indicting’ – for the number of times I’ve brought to everyone’s attention Gd’s sealing of the book of Daniel (Dan 12:4) – and yet, for those who advance soothsaying inventions re 1844 et al – it is as though Gd’s sealing of a book holds no meaning at all – as they keep repeating, repeating, repeating – whole cloth suppositions.

One wonders at either the sanity or the honesty of the expositor who willfully bases and advances arguments derived from a sealed book – as though an actual sealing of the book hadn’t, in fact, occurred.

It behooves the expositors to revisit their arguments, as they are prematurely wrested from a sealed book.

It may be that it is only now as we are no longer constrained to go hither and yon by mare’s shank or horse and buggy – and we’ve since – traveled to other heavenly bodies and discovered such as germ theory – the expositor is obliged to revisit Daniel with Gd’s blessing.

I agree.

The question I have is how could God seal a book that everyone can read? Normally if something is sealed you can't even read it but with Daniel all the words are known. So the only way to seal something known is to put a false interpretation on top of it.

Hmmmmmm...the day for a year principle, maybe God inspired the book of Daniel to be written so this appears true but upon closer examination the falsehood emerges.

And of course it has to be the ‘time of the end’, no one can understand it until then. The final battle between the king of the north and south happens at the time of the end and he builds his capital in Jerusalem. Dan 11:40-45 We may not have reached it yet.

[Nic Samojluk]

Lysimachus wrote:

“When one evaluates this word from the original Hebrew dictionaries, the amount of usage in Hebrew writings outside the Bible, the primary use of this word means to sever or to cut something off of something, and especially amputation of limbs.”

Thanks for taking the time to explain your understanding of this prophecy. You did a superb job of defending your position. You believe that the primary meaning of the original Hebrew term is “cut off.” I don’t get this from what I have investigated. I believe that this might be our Adventist problem. Consider the following comments from some experts:

"Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. (NASB: Lockman)

Amplified: Seventy weeks [of years, or 490 years] are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city [Jerusalem], to finish and put an end to transgression, to seal up and make full the measure of sin, to purge away and make expiation and reconciliation for sin, to bring in everlasting righteousness (permanent moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation) to seal up vision and prophecy and prophet, and to anoint a Holy of Holies. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

KJV: 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.

NLT: A period of seventy sets of seven has been decreed for your people and your holy city to put down rebellion, to bring an end to sin, to atone for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to confirm the prophetic vision, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. (NLT - Tyndale House)

Young's Literal: Seventy weeks are determined for thy people, and for thy holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in righteousness age-during, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies."

Here are the comments of another expert:

“The word 'determined' is the Hebrew word 'chathak' (Strong's #2852). According to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon, it means: "to divide, to determine; to be determined, to be decreed, to be settled, to be marked out." The idea is a definate predetermined period of time, marked out to accomplish some purpose. The purpose is clearly stated in the prophecy. It concerns the accomplishments of Christ at both His first and second comings.”

Notice that these experts do not assign the primary meaning you give to the Hebrew term 'chathak'. Are they wrong, or perhaps we Adventists are mistaken? Could it be that we are so settled into this peculiar interpretation that we refuse to consider other alternatives? We are so enamored with our unique understanding of this prophecy that no amount of reasoning will force us to abandon our pet views. We will rather write voluminous books to prove that we were right on the date than admit that we blew it.

“A secondary definition was to "determine", simply for the fact that when you divide something in half, that other half is "determined" for whoever gets it.”

Secondary definition? According to which experts? Most experts seem to disagree with you on this!

”Then we have the Spirit of Prophecy that comes along and affirms that these interpretations were correct all along.”

Here lies our main problem. We have assigned to Ellen White a role she did reject more than once. This is the main reason we are so adamant in rejecting any other alternative. We believe that Ellen is the final and absolute interpreter of Scripture forgetting that she herself insisted that we give the Bible primacy in everything.

”Don't go blaming Ellen White for being deluded. Don't you dare. She was right. Your interpretations are wrong Nic.”

Here is the evidence for what I am saying. You will not admit that the prophecy can be understood in any other manner simply because this would suggest that Ellen White made a mistake. Do you believe that Ellen was infallible? Didn’t she say that only God is infallible? Are we supposed to study the Bible simply to prove that Ellen never erred? How about the shut door doctrine which she espoused following the great disappointment?

“Revelation 10 never says anything about the prophecy being wrong.”

What was bitter about the Adventist experience? Had we been right about our study of this prophecy, the result would have ended with a sweet experience instead of bitter. The bitterness resulted from our erroneous interpretation.

If we were really right on the date and only wrong on the event, then the result would have been bittersweet instead of bitter. All these years since 1844 we have been trying to sweeten what was in fact bitter—not bittersweet. This will never work.

[Lysimachus]

Nic,

There's no use in trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Even if the word "chathak" was not meant to be used as "cut off" in Daniel 9:24, the expression...

70 weeks are "marked out" of the 2300 days...

70 weeks are "determined" out of the 2300 days...

70 weeks are "decreed" out of the 2300 days...

70 weeks are "portioned out" of the 2300 days...

...the message is still there. It's still talking about the same vision in Daniel 8.

In Daniel 9, there is no vision. It's an auditory explanation. An aural explanation. In Daniel 2 and 7, there is a vision, then an auditory explanation, then understanding. The explanation given by the Angel Gabriel in Daniel 9:21-27 is picking up from the explanation given in Daniel 8. Understanding does not come until Chapter 10 and verse 1.

Daniel 2: Has a dream or vision and an auditory explanation

Daniel 7: Has a dream and an auditory explanation

Daniel 8: Has a vision and an auditory explanation

Daniel 9: Has only an auditory explanation

Daniel 10-12: Have only auditory explanations but no new vision

If the 70 weeks were separate from the 2300 days, it would have been a new vision before an auditory explanation.

It's very simple to see.

If you can't see it, it's because you don't want to see it.

The so called "experts" you cite are western definitions. The actual Hebrew dictionaries differ, and put "chathak" as primarily meaning, "cut off".

But either way you look at it, even if it is just "determined", "decreed", "portioned", or "marked out", the message and point that the 70 weeks are a part of the 2300 days is still readily seen in the overall "big picture" of what is transpiring in the chapters.

For a full detailed explanation on all of this, see Pastor Bohr's paper entitled:

Stephen P. Bohr's Notes on Daniel 9

God bless.

[Lysimachus]

I believe Christ Jesus is 'The Heavenly Sanctuary' and 'Most Holy Place'. The Scriptures say so IN SO MANY WORDS.

[Nic Samojluk]

Lysimachus wrote:

“Even if the word "chathak" was not meant to be used as "cut off" in Daniel 9:24, the expression...70 weeks are "marked out" of the 2300 days...70 weeks are "determined" out of the 2300 days...70 weeks are "decreed" out of the 2300 days...70 weeks are "portioned out" of the 2300 days... the message is still there. It's still talking about the same vision in Daniel 8.”

Out of the 2300 days? Said who? Did the angel say this? Do most scholars, except Adventists, say that? We are stuck with the Adventist interpretation which was born from our desperate attempt to save face.

“In Daniel 9, there is no vision.”

There is no vision? Read Daniel 9:21:

“21while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.”

Earlier vision does not negate the present vision. Otherwise, how did Daniel converse with the angel Gabriel? Are you suggesting that what is described in Daniel 9 is not a visionary experience? Was this a physical encounter with the angel instead of a vision?

“It's an auditory explanation.”

You seem to be grasping at straws! Daniel describes his experience as follows:

“Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight”

And you say that this was an auditory experience? Daniel actually saw the angel flying to his aid. How can you say that it as an auditory experience? If it was an auditory experience, he would not have seen him lying to his aid. The context suggests that you are definitely wrong. This was in fact a new visionary experience.

“For a full detailed explanation on all of this, see Pastor Bohr's paper entitled:

Stephen P. Bohr's Notes on Daniel 9”

You are relying on Bohr and repeating his mistake. There is no way of supporting the view that chapter 9 represents an auditory experience. The context does not allow this type of face saving device. Bohr admits what is our problem:

“Almost all Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars fail to link Daniel 8 with Daniel 9.”

They fail to see the connection because the connection does not exist. We invented it as a face saving deice.

[Lysimachus]

Out of the 2300 days? Said who? Did the angel say this? Do most scholars, except Adventists, say that? We are stuck with the Adventist interpretation which was born from our desperate attempt to save face.

[phkrause]

Out of the 2300 days? Said who? Did the angel say this? Do most scholars, except Adventists, say that? We are stuck with the Adventist interpretation which was born from our desperate attempt to save face.

Save face from what???

[Lysimachus]

He thinks that in order to explain away our disappointment of Jesus not coming, we had to "face save" ourselves by "inventing" the notion that Christ commenced a work of Investigative Judgment in the Holy of Holies in heaven.

He simply does not see the big picture here.

His argument that we "face saved" ourselves is no different than accusing the Apostles of "face saving" themselves that Christ went to heaven, and that's why He was no longer walking on the earth. Yet the critics continued to believe Jesus died and never rose. To them, His resurrection and ascension was a myth, and could not be "proven".

It was not until after Christ ascended to heaven that their understanding of the scriptures opened.

The same it was after Christ moved into the Most Holy Place. The Advent believers were illuminated by the Holy Spirit and "understood the scriptures".

The parallels are so striking, it brings tears to your eyes.

[jasd]

>>All the scrolls or books of prophecy were sealed up until the time they were to be understood.<<

Sorry, I’m at a disadvantage here in that I cannot find equally corresponding text(s) such as that I've proffered - to substantiate the above position except in the abstract. Perhaps, you’d post them?

>>Then in every apocalyptic prophecy there is a given starting and ending time given and sometimes pretty well hidden but can be found.<<

Like the terminus a quo of the prophecies in Genesis 49 “[that] which shall befall you in the last days"? But what distinguishes the date(s) certain? They remains elusive and even there, there is no proscription re a sealing of any book...

>>All scrolls of prophedy are now opened to be understood but only the right interpretation will be had when guided by the Holy Spirit.<<

Re “All scrolls of prophecy are now opened...”: I agree; however, what of the book of Daniel as pertains interpretations developed centuries ago?—the text avows to premature wresting until such and such times..., which cannot be said of - say the 19th century?

>>All prophecy is not yet fulfilled. People need to get them out and pray for guidance and study them out without the opinions of the past to lead away from the truth of them.<<

Agreed.

[Nic Samojluk]

Lysimachus,

You have presented your views and I have presented mine. There is no point for me to do a lot of repetition in answer to your latest post. I will limit myself, therefore, to a few observations:

You insist with Pastor Bohr that in Daniel 9 we have no visionary experience but simply an auditory one. Please, read the following one more time and tell me:

“21while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.”

Doesn’t the “earlier vision” phrase imply that we have in Daniel 9 also a vision?

You state that in Daniel 9 what we have is a physical encounter with the angel. If this is the case, then how can we argue that it was an auditory experience? For me an auditory experience would negate sight, and the text clearly indicates that Daniel saw the angel flying to his aid. How can you insist that it was an auditory experience and then admit that Daniel did see the angel flying?

Then you have the problem with the Revelation text found in chapter 10 which describes our Adventist experience as bitter. The result is bitter—not bitter sweet. The sweetness at the beginning was the result of the error in understanding, while the net result was bitter after the little scroll was digested. Did the angel suggest that the taste was bittersweet in the stomach? Did any sweetness remain after the scroll was digested?

Can’t you see that we have used a ton of ink in our attempt at convincing ourselves and the world that the net result of swallowing the scroll was—not really bitter but—bittersweet?

If we were correct on the date, but only wrong on the event, then I conclude that the end result of digesting the little scroll was not bitter, as the angel said, but rather bittersweet.

I have chosen to believe what the angel said instead of relying on tradition and the words of Pastor Bohr!

[Nic Samojluk]

pkrause asked:

“Save face from what???”

Save face from shame and derision by those who had rejected the erroneous interpretation of William Miller’s prediction. Do not forget that those who rejected Miller’s interpretation did so on the basis of what Jesus had stated: that only God the Father knew the date of Jesus return.

Most of Miller’s followers and Miller himself did admit that he had misinterpreted the prophetic vision found in Daniel. We, on the other hand, insisted that Miller was right on the date, but only wrong on the event, thus contradicting what the angel had predicted in Rev. 10:9-11.

Not only we did refuse to admit our error, but we concluded that those who had chosen to rely on the words of Jesus--who had stated that only God knew the dated of Jesus return--were beyond any hope of salvation because they had rejected our erroneous interpretation of the prophecy. For them the door of salvation was shut. Even Ellen White did believe in the shut doctrine for some time.

When we realized that time continued and children were being born who had not rejected our peculiar understanding of Daniel 8, then we reversed course and admitted that the door of salvation was still open for human beings and we began to preach again thus fulfilling the mandate to preach again found in Rev. 10.

It is high time that we make a full admission that we were—not partially right and partially wrong in 1844—but rather totally wrong—both in the date and the event. The end result in Rev. 10 is bitter—not bitter sweet as Lysimachus claims.

[Lysimachus]

Lysimachus,

You have presented your views and I have presented mine. There is no point for me to do a lot of repetition in answer to your latest post. I will limit myself, therefore, to a few observations:

You insist with Pastor Bohr that in Daniel 9 we have no visionary experience but simply an auditory one. Please, read the following one more time and tell me:

“21while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.”

Doesn’t the “earlier vision” phrase imply that we have in Daniel 9 also a vision?

You state that in Daniel 9 what we have is a physical encounter with the angel. If this is the case, then how can we argue that it was an auditory experience? For me an auditory experience would negate sight, and the text clearly indicates that Daniel saw the angel flying to his aid. How can you insist that it was an auditory experience and then admit that Daniel did see the angel flying?

[Lysimachus]

SD,

Nobody buys your spiritualizing away the literal temple in heaven. We take the scriptures just as they say. I don't want to keep arguing with you on this point. St. Augustine of Hippo sure has ruined many minds. If you can't see the three-fold aspect of the sanctuary---the body of Christ, the Church, and the literal temple in heaven, then I cannot help you.

Not made with hands simply means human hands. But God literally made a literal earth with literal human beings. Look around you.

Likewise, God made a literal New Jerusalem, with a literal Temple in it.

None of your words convince me.

Satan wants people to think there is no literal sanctuary in heaven, because he knows this perfidious doctrine is what will eclipse people's ability to discern the judgment that is going on in heave, and destroy the Adventist sanctuary doctrines.

But we are not going to budge. These doctrine are established on the Word of God, and they cannot be torn down. The critics have lost, and will continue to lose.

[BobRyan]

I believe Christ Jesus is 'The Heavenly Sanctuary' and 'Most Holy Place'. The Scriptures say so IN SO MANY WORDS.