Is there life beyond Daniel and Revelation?

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

I can find no evidence of the existence of such a book in the NYCL nor in any other library or private holdings anywhere in the world.

Oh, man I just barely finished saying the book's name and you circled the world to find it and could not! Good heavens, can I turn to you to find some of the fine books I cannot find, like "Fletcher's theory on Acoustics"? Now that would be boss if you could find me that book???

So, what part of "tightly guarded" did you not understand?

Dennis

[Gustave]

I was a little surprised at Gustave's Graceology. That is so unlike the RCs. But they are moving around all the time, adjusting their doctrines as per need to find resonance and compel into subjugation.

[Lysimachus]

Gustave, can you show some respect for a change and let Dennis catchup to your previous posts?

It is very rude and disrespectful to keep bombarding with rabbit trail posts when he said he would come back to what you said previously.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

You stand corrected Dennis, Catholicism does not change it's Doctrines...

...The Doctrines "Develop" as they are more deeply understood.

...But they never "change" ( mutate ).

Adventist doctrines have been proven "to mutate" Dennis...

...You do realize that back when the SDA Church was OPENLY anti-Trinitarian.

...That they were claiming to be THE remnant.

Gustave,

You make up your own reality as you talk. It does not reflect the real world, but you believe that what you say is real and when I confront you with reality you just run away and start to build a new reality.

The RC church is known to forge and alter documents to change history an position themselves in a favorable light. This is no news to any deep scholar. And they are aware that time erases everything. The Popes sing songs to the Othodox church and compromise all sorts of things in order to bring them in. The ecumenical movement was designed to make a bridge and it required all sorts of compromises.

What are you talking about? This is not worth my time.

So, that is why I say that you are making up your own reality as many young people do until they grow up and realize the value of sobriety.

Quote:

I don't think the Jesuits spend any time at all dwelling on what the SDA's are doing....

....They have bigger fish to fry Dennis.

The Jesuits are not concerned with SDAs only. That is for sure. And frankly I could not care less what they do any more. The Bible has my attention and people will do what they must. And then the Judgement. So, I'm not interested in a tug of war over the Jesuits. Some of them are well learned and I've had occasion to discuss some very interesting subjects with a few. And you would be surprised how honest some of them could be about the doings of the church and their activities. I think that you would be rather surprised how much more honest they are than your idealism allows you to be.

Quote:

Are you suggesting that the Jesuits "planted" the well known contradictory SDA teaching....

...That Christ "could have" sinned & been eternally annihilated by "God" had Christ sinned.

...So that several generations down the road from the plant.

...The Jesuit agents could make hay with the heretical SDA teaching?

One thing I would agree you got right there, & that's...

...Claiming that God can be utterly trusted to fulfill the purposes He told the Prophets.

...Then claiming Christ could have failed - IS A CONTRADICTION!

...In fact there isn't a bigger contradiction to be found.

Man, Gustave, you live in a small world. How in the world do you relate to others in this tight closet in which you live? I don't know what to say about this concoction! I'm speechless. What did you drink to brew this up??? You cannot get away from you being in the center of rightness and righteousness. Can you? You do not recognize it but this is delusional. Don't work so hard to get even.

I believe with all my heart without EGW's help that the Savior was at risk and proved it to you. And you have no way out. You lost that engagement when I first posted that post on power versus love. And you have been running away from it ever since, with every distraction you could think of. And now that you have no comeback you brew up this wishful conundrum? Wow! Is this some contorted attempt at self redemption? I'm busy, but I had to reply on this. Wake up, Gustave.

Quote:

One thing I would agree you got right there, & that's...

...Claiming that God can be utterly trusted to fulfill the purposes He told the Prophets.

...Then claiming Christ could have failed - IS A CONTRADICTION!

...In fact there isn't a bigger contradiction to be found.

I showed you why the scroll was sealed, from the first post, Gustave. The point was that if the Savior had lost the engagement no one could have opened that scroll. But the Savior being in a struggle with Lucifer prevailed!

Quote:

Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

But if it was all predestined, then there would be no talk of PREVAILING, Gustave!!! A victory is not one which is arranged ahead of time? That is cheating!

Yes, it is clear that you cannot understand this, now. It is impossible for you to understand these things. Your religious convictions do not allow you to perceive this reality that without risk God could not show His love for man. You assert God to be some machine which will punch our the letter 5 at 5 O'clock. But God is a living Being, one who is able to adjust to the incoming reality. God forbid that God was like a machine. Lucifer would love that. That would be easy to outmaneuver. So, your predestination is a pointless course to take.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,"

If there was no risk, then God has not given His Son for us in any sense of these words. But try as I may, this does not penetrate your perceptions. One could just as well say that God has given his chariot but since He knew that He was going to get it back, then it was never given to begin with??? What has God given to us about His Son??? The Son was our God to begin with? You have no answers to that either. But God allowed His Son to risk His life to save us and that very RISK is the superlative gift ever given!!!

And even the very words of the Savior dying and not knowing if the Father has accepted His sacrifice, saying, "...why have you forsaken me" is not enough to wake you up. He did not know if He was going to be resurrected when life was fading and the fear set in. "What if I failed somehow?" Only a real risk could have discovered the nature and character of God. And rather than reach for power to save His soul, He gives up His life into His Father's hands. Man, who can but love Him? How dull are the senses which cannot perceive this greatness?

Gustave, you think that you are losing a petty battle if you concede to this reality. But you are trashing the noblest aspect of God by this denial and you have no clue what you are really doing. And that is what we Adventists contend over with your faith's perspective. There is no recognition of God's character of love. You imagine that reason is at play, but it is wisdom, not reason, which is needed here.

Dennis

[Lysimachus]

The fact that Jesus asked to let this cup pass Him by showed that He realized there was a great risk, and if at all possible, He wondered if He could bypass it.

This alone destroys Gustave's entire premise.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

The fact that Jesus asked to let this cup pass Him by showed that He realized there was a great risk, and if at all possible, He wondered if He could bypass it.

This alone destroys Gustave's entire premise.

Marcos,

Thank you for stating it. I mean what more can one say? Gustave and Jasd imagine that if they keep pressing their inane rationalizations, it will confuse someone! That is bordering way beyond dishonesty and near malice!

Gustave lost the engagement before he even replied to my first post and he knows it. But he has to put up a front to confuse others to think that maybe, since he is still not acknowledging that which is beyond dispute, some may buy that he must have some valid point. Else why would he still be complaining. This is how arguments which are lost can be rescued, but at the price of truth. The public's ignorance assists the dishonesty of the debater too often, else this sort of debate would end rather quickly.

So, that is his only refuge and covering on which he tries to lean. But you snapped that weak stick in half and that should make for great entertainment when he realizes it.

As always, another SDA position is vindicated and those who recognize it need to make it clear that they understand it, as you have done, so Gustave will see that the scheme is not working.

But I keep humoring him with replies because I am interested in breaking every single objection he offers on that central front. However, Gustave is not offering any replies there! He stays far away from these points and tries to lure me into some side issues which are not ascertainable to hopefully trip me into an error and walk away with a grin, "I won". That's not happening, Gustave. And I can talk about my strategy openly as you can see. Honesty allows me this luxury!

The gravity of Gustave's error is that he is unable to see the beauty of God's love and the magnitude of His Gift to us. And this face saving entrenchment is keeping him blind to it. Such a loss is a great tragedy for him. But truth must be honored else error will bind you into the inability to see the simplest of truths.

So, I'm waiting for Gustave to dare and reply on these central points, so I can find even more clarity in explaining this inescapable truth to him.

Thank you Marcos. You set an example which Adventists need to follow to stop this never ending harassment.

Jasd's turn is coming next. I just need to find time to address his self indulging convolutions.

Dennis

[Gustave]

The fact that Jesus asked to let this cup pass Him by showed that He realized there was a great risk, and if at all possible, He wondered if He could bypass it.

This alone destroys Gustave's entire premise.

No, that changes absoutely nothing about what I said Lysimachus...

...Jesus was SENT;

John 7,28

Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am NOT come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

And like the Scripture says; Jesus unto death, did the Will of The Father...

...Of course this is a contradiction to Ellen White's prophetic utterance.

...That Jesus came forward and begged the Father to send Him.

...But you guys already know this.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

And like the Scripture says; Jesus unto death, did the Will of The Father...

...Of course this is a contradiction to Ellen White's prophetic utterance.

...That Jesus came forward and begged the Father to send Him.

...But you guys already know this.

Let's say that He did beg the Father to come.

Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Mat_26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

That's no argument, Gustave and you know it. And thank you for mentioning it, because this argument enhances our position.

[Lysimachus]

Let's say that He did beg the Father to come.

Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Mat_26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

That's no argument, Gustave and you know it. And thank you for mentioning it, because this argument enhances our position.

::

[jasd]

>>Gustave and Jasd imagine that if they keep pressing their inane rationalizations, it will confuse someone! That is bordering way beyond dishonesty and near malice!<<

I proffered text. Mine used the active subjunctive, which translates to a simple WWJD. While you've proffered a text using the passive infinitive, which translates to, "Say what!?" --Pogo

Don't refute me. When you do, you refute my words. Nothing gained. Refute text. When you do, you refute Jesus Christ. Rotsa ruck.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

>>Gustave and Jasd imagine that if they keep pressing their inane rationalizations, it will confuse someone! That is bordering way beyond dishonesty and near malice!<<

I proffered text. Mine used the active subjunctive, which translates to a simple WWJD. While you've proffered a text using the passive infinitive, which translates to, "Say what!?" --Pogo

Don't refute me. When you do, you refute my words. Nothing gained. Refute text. When you do, you refute Jesus Christ. Rotsa ruck.

And again, like Gustave, you start from the point of you being able to correctly interpret the text! You just forgot that your assumptions are not my assumptions. So more options are available!

But this comment betrays your pomposity if anything, Jasd. And I thought that you were a humble guy...

Dennis

[jasd]

>>And again, like Gustave, you start from the point of you being able to correctly interpret the text!<<

What's to interpret? Call it declarative, imperative, whatever..., it is plain text.

>>You just forgot that your assumptions are not my assumptions.<<

Hoo-ah! Right back at you...

>>So more options are available!<<

I'll bet.

>>But this comment betrays your pomposity if anything, Jasd.<<

What's pompous about the reading of plain text?--without the overburden of subjective accoutrements...

>>And I thought that you were a humble guy...<<

I am. Ain not nobody more humble. So, what..., a humble guy ain not allowed the iteration of facts?

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

What's pompous about the reading of plain text?--without the overburden of subjective accoutrements...

What is pompous about it is that you therewith asserted only two options. The first one declares your infallibility and the second one that of God! I accept the second one, but not the first one.

However, you continue to charge as if you were in the right all along. But that is exactly what I wanted to show about you. You will not pull back even when you are dead wrong. So, your judgement is unreliable. And here it is under the microscope:

Quote:

What's pompous about the reading of plain text?--without the overburden of subjective accoutrements...

That constitutes deception. You know that you asserted your infallibility and here you render it as just reading plain text. Reading is not all that goes into understanding a text and you are no novice to that insight.

There are more than one ways to skin a cat, Jasd! And you have been skinned!

You guys are just too easy. Keep charging Jasd. Go on, there is more of who you are that I would like to show to the forum. So far you have been able to meander between the legs unfettered. But situations change at random and auspicious times.

And your turn is coming up as soon as I can catch a few free moments. ::

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

And an excellent example of that is found in the book of Jonah the fish-bait prophet.

Let's see what God calls all those IFs as you have so illustriously pointed out, Gerry.

Quote:

Jon 3:1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

Jon 3:2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.

Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

Jon 3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

Jon 3:6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

Jon 3:7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:

Jon 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

So, did God call Jonah to prophesy or did He call him to PREACH! (Clue: the option with the all capitalized letters)

And why was Jonah upset? Jomah did not want to preach. He wanted his words to be a finality, that would be prophecy!

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

The prophets prophesied all kinds of wonderful things for literal Israel that were never fulfilled because Israel failed to comply with the conditions.

If you want to jump through hoops to explain away the unfulfilled prophecies without recognizing the conditional nature of some prophecies, be my guest.

Posted by John317

Yep, God never takes people's ability to choose away from them. That's what Christ's death is all about: it guarantees people the right and ability to choose whether to serve God or to serve the Devil. No one will be forced into heaven. It's a choice that we make every day of our lives.

That is for sure, and may I say that it is an astute analysis. If God would prophesy something adverse and it concerns a specific individual, then should God's prophecies be 100%,... that individual would most certainly have to fail.

Yet, strangely enough, God did not notice this contradiction and let it slide by??? WOW!! What is Dennis saying here??? This man is totally mad, guys! Take it from me I'm him. But God did say this:

Quote:

Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

That is double scarey man! What is wrong with this theory, guys??? Maybe it is not Dennis, you know???

The problem is that God uses WARNINGS, PROMISES for specific individuals and NEVER prophecies, unless the individual represents a larger idea, in which case it is not a prophecy against the individual. Then the individual stands as a parabolic symbol. (Parable, you know) An example of that is the use of Esau as a parabolic reference for those who will be lost eternally. Don't believe me??? Read Obadiah! It speaks for itself. A wonderful and concise prophecy and a clear example of allegory in a prophecy.

So, for a social trend such as the behavior of Nations, people sold to the devils and other unspecific entities, for them God uses prophecies. The point is to inform the people on what behavior God does not like and how He will deal with those who embrace that type of behavior. It is among the many benefits of prophecies a deterrent to ill behavior.

God's sure prophecies do not infringe on people's free will as you put it John317. Why??? Because God never selects literal targets for prophecies. Prophecies are parabolic by nature. So it is impossible to corner anyone specifically into a predestined behavior.

Warnings, however, ARE specific. Israel, if you obey my voice and do...then I will do this and... But if you forsake the Lord and do this and ... this will befall you. That is a warning to specific targets.

Therefore, Promises and Prophecies, by definition do not target the same genre! Reflect on that for a moment.

So, John317, you are right about the free will. But you are wrong as to what you call a prophecy. Prophecies do not apply to a situation where free will is in jeopardy. God uses Warnings and Promises to deal with individuals.

But your point is a very good one and thank you for mentioning it. It helped to bring light to this important subject. Excellent contribution, Brother John317.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

At least you agree Ellen said she was INFALLIBLE....

...Had you not agreed with that I had a mountain of quotes from her.

...That said she was.

I made a mistake and meant to correct it. I meant to say that EGW said she was NOT infallible. I apologize to the forum for this mistake. And I am surprised that no one peeped a word. Maybe everyone read what I meant to say.

So feel free to list your mountain, Gustave. Knock yourself out!

Dennis

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

What's pompous about the reading of plain text?--without the overburden of subjective accoutrements...

>>What is pompous about it is that you therewith asserted only two options. The first one declares your infallibility<<

Never declared my infallibility, just the infallibility of plain text -- without assorted .org dogmas attached.

>>and the second one that of God! I accept the second one, but not the first one.<<

Aye, and right ye are. However, what you are arguing is that Gd endued John 20:23 with subtext, which mine eyes ain not seen the glory(?) of it yet.

>>However, you continue to charge as if you were in the right all along.<<

No charging, just standing -- upon a firm foundation.

>>But that is exactly what I wanted to show about you.<<

Thanks, but I thought that it was I who was all about 'showing' me.

>>You will not pull back even when you are dead wrong.<<

But you've not established that I am wrong. It does not do to simply assert. What you've instead argued is ad hominem; that is, you've argued to the person rather than to the text.

>>So, your judgement is unreliable.<<

Whatever my judgement may be -- text is irrefutable and reliable.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

What's pompous about the reading of plain text?--without the overburden of subjective accoutrements...

>>That constitutes deception. You know that you asserted your infallibility and here you render it as just reading plain text. Reading is not all that goes into understanding a text and you are no novice to that insight.<<

Then you'd have to take up the matter of reading plain text with a higher authority than my [deceptively infallible] self.

>>There are more than one ways to skin a cat, Jasd! And you have been skinned!<<

Okaayyy...

>>You guys are just too easy.<<

Tha's what I said, "I'm easy."

>>Keep charging Jasd.<<

Am standing. And it's a firm foundation.

>>Go on, there is more of who you are that I would like to show to the forum.<<

Be my guest. Show and tell. Skin me. Don't care.

>>So far you have been able to meander between the legs unfettered.<<

Well, I'll be fettered!

>>But situations change at random and auspicious times.<<

Generally does, good fella, generally does. Buy ammo. (Oops, darn! Early onset and all that...) Anyways, auspicious is better than inauspicious, yes?

You're OK, DennisKean. Don't let anythebody tells yous different.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Re: choice

Unless given a choice, one cannot choose.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Never declared my infallibility, just the infallibility of plain text -- without assorted .org dogmas attached.

You can play coy all you want. Insight does not come from reading alone. Insight comes from understanding what is being read. Understanding, however, sits between the letters on the paper and the perceptions of the mind, if I must clarify this to you in such detail. And understanding is a personal engagement which is frequently known with the potential of erring. So, you can try to obfuscate this, but I will filter it out and shed more light on it until you come face to face with your disposition.

And concerning the Bible there is much disagreement, JASD. So, deflecting this plainly demonstrated pomposity in limiting the choices to your understanding and God is AT LEAST pompous. You can wiggle, scratch and bite, but to no avail.

It is time you realize already that the gig is up. So, feel free to spice it with some Latin and your convoluted constructs, but I will enjoy debunking them. Think of me as a persistent self regenerating enzyme. I think that you will get the picture that way...

And for the record, please notice how far you are attempting to go to evade this "faux pas" on your part. This will be useful when I start to deal with your other tenacity to assert what is simply not true. So, come back at me again and I will gladly give you more clarifications. Then we will notice how far you are willing to go even when you are as wrong as could be, but you are still hanging on. It is not paying off for you, but you cannot give in. Can you? And I will remind you again about this, JASD.

Clarity of mind is a precious thing, my friend. Don't destroy yours for such a low interest return.

Dennis

[Gerr]

So Jonah was a false prophet?

&#8206;ESV &#8206;&#8206;Je 18:7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, &#8206;&#8206;8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. &#8206;&#8206;9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, &#8206;&#8206;10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

But you've not established that I am wrong. It does not do to simply assert. What you've instead argued is ad hominem; that is, you've argued to the person rather than to the text.

That is patently false, but I definitely am interested in you and how you handle yourself under heat. I'm testing your competence to reason honestly. What point is there to reason with someone who like a pit bull will not release the bite when found to be unreasonable? Please tell me if there is any point in discussing with folks like that? I've lost track of the number of people I met to date who were born being right and use tenacity instead of intellect to prevail.

I make mistakes all the time. I just misquoted EGW with Gustave. But I learn from them. Do you? That is what I want to know about you, Jasd. And you are helping me figure you out. Thank you for that. So far you are unable to release no matter what.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

So Jonah was a false prophet?

Is that your conclusion, or are you trying to impute this conclusion on me. I thought that my post had great clarity.

Did you fail to read this???

Quote:

Jon 3:2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

So, prophets are allowed to preach?? Oh, my! How could that be? Impossible, but true!

Like you, Jonah was not correct about how God implements prophecies. He sought for austerity and power. And God never confided a prophecy to him that we know of. Yet, Isaiah was eager to do God's bidding and he received a wallop like none other. 66 chapters of some of the finest poetic and clear prophecies without competition.

It is important to read and weigh these ideas until great clarity comes to the reader. And it will if you persist.

Dennis

[Gerr]

You are saying that his prediction was preaching and NOT prophecy? Perhaps you missed my post about the definition of prophecy?

4394. &#960;&#961;&#959;&#966;&#951;&#964;&#949;&#943;&#945; proph&#275;teía; gen. proph&#275;teías, fem. noun from proph&#275;teú&#333; (4395), to prophesy. A prophesying or prophecy.

(I) Particularly prediction, the foretelling of future events, including the declarations, exhortations, and warnings uttered by the prophets while acting under divine influence; of the prophecies of the OT (Matt. 13:14; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21); the revelations and warnings of the Book of Revelation (Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19, equal to marturía [3141], witness, as in Rev. 19:10. See also Sept.: 2 Chr. 15:8). In 1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14, proph&#275;teía refers either to the prophetic revelations or directions of the Holy Spirit by which persons were designated as officers and teachers in the primitive church (cf. Acts 13:2; 20:28; 1 Cor. 12:4–8ff.; 14:24, 30, 31), or to the authoritative declaration made by the presbytery of the fitness for ministry of one whom they are ordaining.

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

You are saying that his prediction was preaching and NOT prophecy?

I am not saying that, Gerry, I read it in the Bible and more specifically in the book of Jonah!

Quote:

Jon 3:2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

[Lysimachus]

I can see what you're saying, Dennis, that a prophecy and a promise can be different, but I must confess, it is hard to completely separate the two in every case.

Prophecy foretold the falling of the Babylonian empire, yet God through Daniel gave Belshazzar every opportunity to repent.

• With bated breath the people waited as Daniel announced their meaning: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin:” “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it;” “thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting;” “thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” [Daniel 5:25-28.] {CTBH 21.1}

To be "weighed in the balances" means that Babylon had an opportunity to repent. The result of not repenting was the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and the Persians. There are other statements from Sister White how she says that each nation had a chance to turn and repent and be saved, and would have been spared from destruction.

So while these were prophecies, they were also promises.

While the following is from Ellen White, her argument comes from scripture:

• In that last night of mad folly, Belshazzar and his lords had filled up the measure of their guilt and the guilt of the Chaldean kingdom. No longer could God's restraining hand ward off the impending evil. Through manifold providences, God had sought to teach them reverence for His law. "We would have healed Babylon," He declared of those whose judgment was now reaching unto heaven, "but she is not healed." Jeremiah 51:9. Because of the strange perversity of the human heart, God had at last found it necessary to pass the irrevocable sentence. Belshazzar was to fall, and his kingdom was to pass into other hands. {PK 530.3}

  As the prophet ceased speaking, the king commanded that he be awarded the promised honors; and in harmony with this, "they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom." {PK 530.4}

And if you keep reading, she continues to quote how the prophets predicted the fall of Babylon, yet we see that even with this "prophecy" (not a promise alone), she would have been "healed".

• Every nation that has come upon the stage of action has been permitted to occupy its place on the earth, that the fact might be determined whether it would fulfill the purposes of the Watcher and the Holy One. Prophecy has traced the rise and progress of the world's great empires--Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. With each of these, as with the nations of less power, history has repeated itself. Each has had its period of test; each has failed, its glory faded, its power departed. {PK 535.1}

If their failure was unconditional, it could not be considered a "test". Thus we see that each nation could have repented.