David Koot Posted May 6, 2006 Posted May 6, 2006 Now, there, not so quick! Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Quote
Moderators Bravus Posted May 6, 2006 Moderators Posted May 6, 2006 Well, very gentle sarcasm with a huge wink... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Quote Truth is important
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 6, 2006 Moderators Posted May 6, 2006 Bravus, I really do not consider your response to be sarcastic. Rather, I will suggest that you have raised an issue that is deserving of a response, and is a valid question. NOTE: When I say it is a valid question, I am not taking a position in regard to what the valid response is. The question as to why one should jump from a 24hour period to a 365 (or 360) day period is foundational to this question. It deserves a response that is Biblical. Quote Gregory
bevin Posted May 6, 2006 Posted May 6, 2006 Quote: Because it is prophetic time--day for a year principle (a) It doesn't say 'day', it says 'evening morning' - and just to save time, it is NOT the same phrase as used in Genesis. ( Show biblical evidence of a day=year principal. And just to save time, don't use the '70 weeks' because the original phrase is 70 7's and the 7 can refer directly to a 7 year cycle, so this prophecy does NOT support the day-year principle. Quote: Because of the sanctuary service Which part of the sanctuary service teaches God investigating the lives of long dead saints? /Bevin Quote
Robert Posted May 6, 2006 Author Posted May 6, 2006 Quote: bevin said: It doesn't say 'day', it says 'evening morning' - and just to save time, it is NOT the same phrase as used in Genesis. Jack says, "For further support that 2,300 is equal to years, the 'evening morning' is singular: the 2,300th Day of Atonement." So from 457 BC you have 2,300 yearly "Day of Atonements" that ends in the year 1844 AD. That is the point where God began to restore the truth of the Sanctuary, [i.e., the truth as it is "in Christ"] from the perversion of the gospel caused by the little horn power. Now some common sense: Prior to 1844 what were the Protestant Churches teaching regarding the gospel? Simply a modified version of The Immaculate Conception! Where did they get this heresy? "The little horn power" that had polluted the gospel through the Immaculate Conception*. Hence their link to the anti-Christ: “Every spirit [living human] that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [Greek: Sarx – sinful human flesh] is from God; and every spirit [living human] that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is of the antichrist , of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.” [1 John 4:2,3] So 1844 marks the beginning of the restoration of the gospel. Who did God bring up for such a work? Answer: The SDA Church. Yes, especially after 1888, the SDA church as a whole has failed miserably to present the restored gospel, but within it ogrinal teaching is "the gospel". Notes * "The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin." [Catholic Encyclopedia] Quote
David Koot Posted May 6, 2006 Posted May 6, 2006 Quote: Gregory Matthews said: Bravus, I really do not consider your response to be sarcastic. Come now, Gregory, don't be so serious. I have a pleasant time dialoguing with Bravus. Best sometimes to leave things alone. Quote
Robert Posted May 6, 2006 Author Posted May 6, 2006 Quote: Robert said: Prior to 1844 what were the Protestant Churches teaching regarding the gospel? Simply a modified version of The Immaculate Conception! Okay...let's look at the current teaching of the incarnation from the "Baptist" perspective: "Humanity was spoiled and corrupted by the sin of Adam and Eve. Consequently, we are not true human beings, but impaired, broken down vestiges of essential humanity, and it is difficult to imagine this kind of humanity united with deity. But when we say that in the incarnation Jesus took on humanity, we are not talking about this kind of humanity. [:"Red"] For the humanity of Jesus was not the humanity of sinful beings, but the humanity possessed by Adam and Eve from their creation and before their fall.[/]...." [baptist Beliefs, Doctrine & Theology] See www.baptiststart.com Clearly the Baptist Denomination is teaching a perverted gospel. Shall we try another to prove my point? This gives more evidence that God began to restore the "sanctuary" [the truth as it is "in Christ"] in 1844. This message must be first preached to our Christian brothers and sisters, whom, by no fault of their own, have been taught from tradition instead of the word of God concerning the gospel. Sad to say many of our own people are in the same boat! Rob Quote
bevin Posted May 6, 2006 Posted May 6, 2006 Quote: "For further support that 2,300 is equal to years, the 'evening morning' is singular: the 2,300th Day of Atonement." Give one other place in the scripture where this phrase is used to mean the day of atonement. The day of atonement is referred to many times. There is a perfectly adequate vocabulary for it. Why is it not used here? /Bevin Quote
Robert Posted May 6, 2006 Author Posted May 6, 2006 Quote: bevin said: Quote: "For further support that 2,300 is equal to years, the 'evening morning' is singular: the 2,300th Day of Atonement." Give one other place in the scripture where this phrase is used to mean the day of atonement. The day of atonement is referred to many times. There is a perfectly adequate vocabulary for it. Why is it not used here? /Bevin You'll have to speak with Jack on that one. However, common sense tells you something changed around that time concerning the everlasting gospel. Rob Quote
Robert Posted May 6, 2006 Author Posted May 6, 2006 "Unto two thousand and three hundred [evening-morning]; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Is this 2,300 evening-morning [singular] days or years. If we look at the immediate context, the answer can ONLY be 2,300 years. Here's why: Dan 9:22 O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. 23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. 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. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem [457BC] unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks [A total of 7 weeks + 62 weeks = 69 weeks].... Okay...457 BC is the starting point. Christ was to be on the scene 69 weeks after that point. Is this number literal? Well, (69 weeks)x(1 year/52 weeks) = 1.33 years. Did Christ begin His ministry in 455.67 BC? NO! Okay since it is not literal lets try the day/year principle: 69 weeks = 483 days. Using the above principle we get 483 years. Starting from 457 BC and going 483 years into the future we arrive at 27 AD right at the TIME OF CHRIST. So this principle is true for the 2,300 days. It is years! Quote
melvin mccarty Posted May 6, 2006 Posted May 6, 2006 The weak link in the chain is the starting point of the 2300 whatevers. It can only be assumed as it is nowhere stated. mel Quote
Robert Posted May 6, 2006 Author Posted May 6, 2006 Quote: melvin mccarty said: The weak link in the chain is the starting point of the 2300 whatevers. It can only be assumed as it is nowhere stated. mel Now follow this: Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. 15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning [of the 2,300 day vision], then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard a man’s voice [God?] between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Dan 8:26 Said the angel: And the vision of the evening and the morning [i.e., 2,300 day vision] which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days [it's about the future]. 27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the [2,300 day] vision, but none understood it. If you look at the context the only vision that was not explained by the angel was the 2,300 vision!!!! Dan 9:22 Said the angel : O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. Understanding of what? Again, the 2,300 day vision! 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem [457BC] unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks [483 years]…. BTW, you need to do the following: Quote
melvin mccarty Posted May 6, 2006 Posted May 6, 2006 Possibly ...... Notice that it is still an assumption and should be labelled as such One might also assume that since the actual antitypical day of atonement was the crucifiction day, (thousnds of years of sacrificial animals attest to this) that both periods end together. Right or wrong is not the issue I am addressing. You arrive at a conclusion based on an assumption of a starting point which is not stated in scripture. Could we possibly tone it down to something less than a certaity? mel Quote
Robert Posted May 7, 2006 Author Posted May 7, 2006 Quote: melvin mccarty said: Possibly ...... Notice that it is still an assumption and should be labelled as such For course I was kidding with you using the icons..... Seriously, what is not an assumption is that something happened in 1844. I believe it was the beggining of the restoration of the gospel. That part might be an assumption.... Quote
bevin Posted May 7, 2006 Posted May 7, 2006 This "seventy weeks" stuff is a direct consequence of using English translations and not looking into the original text. The word is NOT "weeks", it is "sevens". And in the original it does not necessarily mean seven DAYS. It is also used to mean seven YEARS. Using this meaning, no day-year principle is needed or supported by the 70 7's. And all this stuff is thoroughly documented already in studies of the 1844 date - it is sad to see mistakes that have been identified for decades being repeated by people who are trying know Scripture - it shows the SDA church is not doing a good job of teaching this stuff. /Bevin Quote
Robert Posted May 7, 2006 Author Posted May 7, 2006 Quote: bevin said: This "seventy weeks" stuff is a direct consequence of using English translations and not looking into the original text. Go back and re-read my posts. "Seventy weeks" didn't even enter into my calculation! Refute my calculations...if you can. Quote: And all this stuff is thoroughly documented already in studies of the 1844 date - it is sad to see mistakes that have been identified for decades being repeated by people who are trying know Scripture - it shows the SDA church is not doing a good job of teaching this stuff. And your teachings of evolution are scriptural? 1844 is correct....What happened that year is up for debate. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.