Daniel Revisited

[Gregory Matthews]

This will challenge you:

https://atoday.org/will-adventism-ever-come-to-terms-with-the-book-of-daniel/

The following is a challenge to the above:

https://atoday.org/response-to-cyrus-or-artaxerxes-decree-issues-in-dating-the-70-week-prophecy/

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

Sounds like so many other non-Adventist churches as they try to explain away the book of Daniel. If the "errors" were so far off base, perhaps they would have been corrected over a hundred fifty years ago. Of course, you have to really believe that EGW was actually receiving visions from God.  I am aware that much understanding of Daniel did not come from visions. I tend to agree with one pastor who said three times in this earth's history God raised up a movement and his third movement was the Seventh-day Adventist church.

The author of this article seems to want to kick out the legs of one of our most important prophetic beliefs. As one pastor said, "The Seventh-day Adventist faith claims one verse as our own." No one pays much attention to Daniel 8:14 And to deny the seventy week prophecy as being related to the ministry and death of Jesus?!

Another prophecy that people may not believe is one that in the end times people would be deceived by seducing doctrines. So, I think I will stick with the historical (as laid out by the pioneers of the SDA church) Adventist approach to prophecy. 

[BlessedMan]

the author of said article must have been too busy listing his credentials and name-dropping of "scholarly" references to say anything new or substantial. I find it hard to believe that anyone with his "education" could miss the fact that Christ is in every single chapter of scripture, and that Daniel is NOT about predictions; its about Jesus.

This article didn't "challenge" me at all. Not even a little bit.

Quote

"Stay close to the biblical text and follow what I’d call a “low presuppositional threshold,” i.e., have as few external biases about Scripture as possible. This “threshold” looks something like this: favor respect for the authorial intention as laid out in the text, written in a dead language and not primarily to us, but to an audience vastly removed from our historical-religious reality."

All he has to do is be as "careful" as he tells others to be and his problems would be solved.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Greg,

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2020 at 12:35 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

This will challenge you:

A few comments on why I do not accept the article.

Daniel 8:

Consider, for example, Adventism’s crux interpretum, Daniel 8:13–14 (over which many have been figuratively cruxed) from which we derived the investigative judgment beginning in 1844.

I hold a different view as to the start and finish of the 2300 years. I believe that it starts in BC333-334 and terminates in AD 1967.

Rome is nowhere to be seen, textually or contextually.  …a “little horn” comes up. Despite the perpetual protestations of Adventists, ancient Jews and modern scholars have long agreed that the best match for this Greek “little horn” was Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid king who subjugated Jerusalem in the second century BCE, set up the “abomination of desolation” in the temple and oppressed faithful Jews.

The little horn depicts the growth of the military aspect of Rome, when in BC133 Attalos III of Pergamon bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans and it became the Roman province of Asia in BC 129. Antiochus was not a little horn, but one of the four horns. The little horn power did stand up against “the prince of the host”, Jesus and removed the daily sacrifice in AD 70 Daniel 8:11-12. Jesus alludes to and quotes Daniel 8:11-14 in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20-24 and applies this to the Romans in AD 70 and the ongoing treading down of Jerusalem for a period of time after this.  

 

Daniel 7:

Here again, Greece––and not Rome––is the natural candidate.

The fourth kingdom is Roman, and Daniel 7 is parallel with Daniel 2, the fourth kingdom of iron. The little horn is the Papacy. Both prophecies conclude with the return of Jesus and the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the earth to replace the kingdoms of men. Daniel 7 ties in with the beast prophecies of Revelation, and these are Roman, not Greek.

 

Daniel 9: I support the view that 70 weeks represent 490 years and speaks of the sufferings of the Messiah.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[Gustave]

Has anyone with a negative view of the article considered that the individuals who noodled out the Investigative Judgement Doctrine were the same folks who also taught that God the Father had a body of flesh, bone and functional human organs & also that the Trinity Doctrine subscribed to by the Methodist, Lutheran & Baptist Church was nothing more than "the wine of Babylon"? 

Moreover, Herb Douglas (a fairly renown Seventh-day Adventist) explained that SDA Theology can not be explained or "defended" without understanding "The Great Controversy Theme". 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBY1-MRgMjA

I needed to do some digging into the archives to get my head wrapped around what this meant so I went to work on it. What I discovered was that the theme Herb was referring to was essentially Ellen White's unique take on what happened to cause the Son of God to come to this planet. The Cliff Note version: 

Lucifer had been (in secret) positioning himself against the Government of God and after the Original Sin of Adam & Eve Lucifer leveled the charge against God that His commandments were too difficult for men to keep. This legal charge Lucifer made against God was proclaimed throughout the Government of heaven AND throughout the Universe to "millions" of Alien Civilizations referred to by Ellen White as as "the un-fallen worlds". God was now in a real pickle and all the angels and aliens were looking at God (presumably for an answer). A plan was quickly formulated to "vindicate God's holy law" whereas Michael the archangel would "risk his eternal existence on the outcome" & come to planet earth and battle Lucifer to prove that man could actually keep God's holy law.  Thus, all heaven (God the Father and Angels)  and the Alien's on millions of planets watched this reality show between Christ and Satan with "intense interest" because there was the possibility that Lucifer would become the ruler of the Universe - thus, A LOT was riding on this controversy.  This collection of teachings was known as The Great Controversy Theme or the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. 

Ellen White developed a science of study into alien intelligence's. I am now looking for more information on this specific teaching so if anyone knows about this I'd appreciate a pointer. 

This kind of specific detailed information about the happenings of heaven prior to Noah and Enoch would seem to require specialized communication. I mean you simply CAN'T get this stuff from reading the Bible Only. And I'm not a Bible Only guy anyway but the Pioneers obviously weren't either!

Herb Douglas, in the video I posted above, claimed that the SDA men who were dealing with Walter Martin and other Evangelicals over the book Questions on Doctrines in 1957 were unable to present or defend Adventist Doctrines because they didn't fully grasp this Great Controversy Theme and because of this ignorance the Adventists working on the book Q.O.D. were forced or shoe-horned into making concessions to Walter Martin and thereby betrayed the SDA Faith. 

The point I'm making is that would it not be reasonable to admit that the Doctrines the SDA Pioneer's formulated and Ellen White affirmed pertaining to the Book of Daniel were the result of good intentions but also error? Would it not be logical if someone wanted to double down on the SDA Pioneer's view of the Book of Daniel they would also defend the "The Great Controversy Theme" teaching as well? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlessedMan]

9 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Would it not be logical if someone wanted to double down on the SDA Pioneer's view of the Book of Daniel they would also defend the "The Great Controversy Theme" teaching as well? 

I would need to hear more on what you mean here by "double-down" before I could comment intelligently on that. But as far as "defending" the great controversy teaching," there's no real need to "defend" the idea at all. Its everywhere in scripture, and certainly is not unique to Adventists. I have noticed that Popes don't talk much about it. Additionally, I would suggest a clarification on what YOU mean by "great controversy teaching."

[Gustave]

13 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

I would need to hear more on what you mean here by "double-down" before I could comment intelligently on that. But as far as "defending" the great controversy teaching," there's no real need to "defend" the idea at all. Its everywhere in scripture, and certainly is not unique to Adventists. I have noticed that Popes don't talk much about it. Additionally, I would suggest a clarification on what YOU mean by "great controversy teaching."

I meant looking at the article with an open mind and weighing the evidence put forth. One of the things I noticed was that the article states that there were some translation errors (well acknowledged) in the KJV that contributed to the SDA Doctrine drawn out of that section of the Book of Daniel. That would be one thing. When I said double down I meant that some SDA's will defend the teaching no matter what is presented to them - they are in for a penny, in  for a pound.

 

By Great Controversy teaching I meant Ellen's unique teaching on the mechanics of why Jesus came to planet earth (to vindicate the Father & prove that His holy law wasn't too difficult to keep). I'm not kidding or stretching things when I say I've never heard anywhere else that Lucifer put God in-between a rock and a hard place by leveling a legal charge against Him which God had to react to satisfy angels in heaven ( and aliens living on countless planets throughout the galaxy ). This is a very unique take on things. 

Impassibility would prevent such ideas / teachings. 

[Gregory Matthews]

The so called Great Controversy theme is a foundational theme of the writings of EGW.  One may argue that Gustave has not correctly stated it.  If so that may be due to his simplified summation of it.  In any case he has gotten the major parts of it correct.  Any valid issues of his statement involves issues of wording.

 

I will take a position on the Great Conttoversy theme.  It has a root in some Biblical passages.  But that root is loose and it is not well grounded.  In short as expanded by Ellen White she has gone beyond what can be clsimed to be taught in the Bible.  That does not make it wrong.  But it does tell us that it should not be a required belief.  It is not a required SDA belief

 

 

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

I meant looking at the article with an open mind and weighing the evidence put forth. One of the things I noticed was that the article states that there were some translation errors (well acknowledged) in the KJV that contributed to the SDA Doctrine drawn out of that section of the Book of Daniel. That would be one thing. When I said double down I meant that some SDA's will defend the teaching no matter what is presented to them - they are in for a penny, in  for a pound.

OK, I'll say this as nicely as I can here my friend. IMO, your statements in this topic are essentially comparing apples with oranges, and then wondering why they dont all "taste" the same. While you have touched on quite a few items within this topic, you have missed a number of essential points about "the great controversy."  I would suggest that your posts, for this topic, are reflecting confusion. 

One thing I could mention regarding my point on that is that I am trying to figure out, "does he want to discuss EGW or the article, or the "great controversy" teaching?"  It seems you are mixing in at least three different things here.

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

By Great Controversy teaching I meant Ellen's unique teaching on the mechanics of why Jesus came to planet earth (to vindicate the Father & prove that His holy law wasn't too difficult to keep). I'm not kidding or stretching things when I say I've never heard anywhere else that Lucifer put God in-between a rock and a hard place by leveling a legal charge against Him

This is an example. It is not an accurate statement of the official belief. Of course, its not "wrong" to want to examine the items you state there, which we can do. It would not be fair to say that this is what EGW teaches.

IMO Gregory completely mistates the subject when he says things like

43 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

It has a root in some Biblical passages.  But that root is loose and it is not well grounded.

That is just simply not true at all. Id be happy to discuss the topic anytime without EGW. She did not form that doctrine for the church, although, as Gregory stated, she did comment a lot about it.

As always, when people want to stray away from the actual facts, it becomes relatively easy to state it in the preferred angles and project things about it that just are not there.

This is the official doctrine. No EGW needed (but we can of course discuss her input).

Quote

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. -The Great Controversy, Fundamental Belief 8

As we see, there is not a single word from her writings in this official belief, nor is her name even mentioned. This is a very important point because I used that very point in evangelism I was involved in. Many people are uncomfortable with studying anything but the Bible for source information, so I would often not discuss EGW at all for this subject. people appreciate the fact that God has got everything under control, and that God is just; which is the core of the official GC teaching.

The writer of the article made the following statement:

Quote

I recognize that it may sound blasphemous to some to suggest that Daniel 9 may not even predict Jesus. It was to me at first, as well, but it is not insignificant that no New Testament authors used Daniel’s prophecies to prove Jesus was the Messiah.

This reflects a very mixed up belief about the Bible itself. And a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of Bible prophecy. The point of "prophecy" is not to predict. While it has just a few predictions, it is never THE focus of most prophecy. When there is a "prediction"  the Bible still makes Jesus the focal point of said "prophecy." I believe this is what the Adventist teaching on the GC does teach.

Edited February 24, 2020 by BlessedMan

[Gustave]

I looked up this (Controversy Theme) after I watched Herb Douglas attribute the General Conference President and other prominent SDA's inability to defend and present historic SDA Doctrines to Walter Martin in 1957 to their lack of knowledge of it. This would appear to default into historic SDA Doctrine requiring somewhat of an intimate knowledge of Ellen White's writings (at least according to Herb Douglas). Granted, this was the position of one man who didn't like elements of Questions on Doctrines. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In your (BlessedMan?) reference to sn officisl belief please cite a source.

[BlessedMan]

29 minutes ago, Gustave said:

prominent SDA's inability to defend and present historic SDA Doctrines to Walter Martin in 1957

Im finding that your posts are wandering into quite a few different ideas/topics, and this makes it really hard to discuss and get somewhere. Its hard to know exactly what you want to discuss.

36 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. -The Great Controversy, Fundamental Belief 8

This fundamental belief,  is what I thought was under discussion??

Below, I have listed the different ideas contained therein; perhaps this will help to narrow the focus to what you are interested in discussing?

1/ All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe.

2/ This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels

3/ He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin.

4/ This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood.

5/ Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated.

6/ To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. -The Great Controversy, Fundamental Belief 8

Are there any of these you are more interested in?

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

OK, I'll say this as nicely as I can here my friend. IMO, your statements in this topic are essentially comparing apples with oranges, and then wondering why they dont all "taste" the same. While you have touched on quite a few items within this topic, you have missed a number of essential points about "the great controversy."  I would suggest that your posts, for this topic, are reflecting confusion. 

One thing I could mention regarding my point on that is that I am trying to figure out, "does he want to discuss EGW or the article, or the "great controversy" teaching?"  It seems you are mixing in at least three different things here.

This is an example. It is not an accurate statement of the official belief. Of course, its not "wrong" to want to examine the items you state there, which we can do. It would not be fair to say that this is what EGW teaches.

IMO Gregory completely mistates the subject when he says things like

That is just simply not true at all. Id be happy to discuss the topic anytime without EGW. She did not form that doctrine for the church, although, as Gregory stated, she did comment a lot about it.

As always, when people want to stray away from the actual facts, it becomes relatively easy to state it in the preferred angles and project things about it that just are not there.

This is the official doctrine. No EGW needed (but we can of course discuss her input).

As we see, there is not a single word from her writings in this official belief, nor is her name even mentioned. This is a very important point because I used that very point in evangelism I was involved in. Many people are uncomfortable with studying anything but the Bible for source information, so I would often not discuss EGW at all for this subject. people appreciate the fact that God has got everything under control, and that God is just; which is the core of the official GC teaching.

The writer of the article made the following statement:

This reflects a very mixed up belief about the Bible itself. And a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of Bible prophecy. The point of "prophecy" is not to predict. While it has just a few predictions, it is never THE focus of most prophecy. When there is a "prediction"  the Bible still makes Jesus the focal point of said "prophecy." I believe this is what the Adventist teaching on the GC does teach.

 

My point was one directed at those who discounted the article Gregory posted BECAUSE of the bias of things Ellen White said that are not spelled out in the "Official Beliefs". An official belief is worthless if the practice wasn't there. The article Gregory posted relies on whats actually in the Bible and its buttressed by history that Jewish and Christian Scholars say supports the position historic Adventists reject. 

My point is that the Controversy Theme is very specific in that "Christ came to vindicate the law" because Lucifer charged God with creating a law that was too difficult for men to follow. 

Ellen White
The sum and substance of the arguments of Satan is that sin may be immortalized, that Christ abolished the law, and that evil doers may be in favor with God. But the death of Christ tells a different story; for he died to vindicate the claims of the law, to give to the world and to angels an unanswerable argument of the immutability of the law of Jehovah. {ST, February 5, 1894 par. 11}

Ellen White
To be redeemed means to cease from sin. No heart that is stirred to rebellion against the law of God has any union with Christ, who died to vindicate the law and exalt it before all nations, tongues, and peoples.

Ellen White R&H August 13, 1895, paragraph 6
Representing the law of God in its true character arouses the enmity of Satan. Those who love God with all the heart, will love the law of his kingdom. They will not only profess to be guided by its principles, but they will actually live them out, even in a world that is no more favorable to the development of Christian principles than were the inhabitants of the world before the flood, of whom it is written that the thoughts and imaginations of their hearts were evil, and only evil continually. A similar condition of society exists in our world today, and if those who claim to be God's commandment-keeping people do not put in practice the principles of the law which Christ came to our world to vindicate, pronouncing it holy, just, and good, they misrepresent the character and mission of their professed Master

Interestingly enough Ellen White also believed that she was also sent to vindicate the law of God.....

Ellen White
Satan will continue to bring in his erroneous theories and to claim that his sentiments are true. Seducing spirits are at work. I am to meet the danger positively, denying the right of anyone to use my writings to serve the devil's purpose to allure and deceive the people of God. God has spared my life that I may present the testimonies given me, to vindicate that which God vindicates, and to denounce every sophistry [intended] to deceive if possible the very elect.--Ms 126, 1905, pp. 3, 7. ("A Warning Against Present Dangers," typed December 29, 1905.) {5MR 144.1}

The above is part of the Theme that Herb Douglas said was VITAL and necessary to defend or present historic Adventist Doctrine. The reason Walter Martin went to the SDA's was because the SDA's official belief was found wanting when it came to Orthodoxy - this is why there were months of meetings with SDA theologians. 

 

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Im finding that your posts are wandering into quite a few different ideas/topics, and this makes it really hard to discuss and get somewhere. Its hard to know exactly what you want to discuss.

This fundamental belief,  is what I thought was under discussion??

Below, I have listed the different ideas contained therein; perhaps this will help to narrow the focus to what you are interested in discussing?

1/ All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe.

2/ This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels

3/ He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin.

4/ This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood.

5/ Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated.

6/ To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. -The Great Controversy, Fundamental Belief 8

Are there any of these you are more interested in?

Fundamental Belief 8 is saying the same thing I posted - "GOD will be vindicated"

Vindicated from what? 

The answer to the above question is "The Great Controversy Theme":

Lucifer put God in a legal pickle and forced God hand - God had to defend His Character.

Look at the 1st sentence of the FB you quoted:

"All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe". 

Ellen said Satan COULD HAVE WON and had this happened God would have no longer be sovereign over the universe. This concept should be dwelt upon until such time an individual recognizes the problem of it. 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As I read the posts that Gustave is making, I am picking up on a theme that I had not previously understood him to be making.  I refer to his comments that EGW taught that the Great Controversy theme involved the vindication of God's  law.  I will not comment on that.

The Great Controversy theme, as I understand it, and as I understand others to understand it, differs from what I understand Gustave to be saying.  It is not understood to involve a vindication of God's law.  Rather it is understood to involve whether or not God had created beings (angels and other  intelligent life) with an actual freedom of  choice.

SDAs generally see a rebellion that took place in heaven in which 1/3 of the angelic beings rebelled against God and joined in following the angel Lucifer.  That angel then charged that if God actually gave created, intelligent life, the freedom to chose, those created  beings would chose to follow Lucifer.

As the next step in this rebellion against God, SDAs disagree on various parts of what happened next.  But, the central part of that is that humanity, in the persons of Adam and of Eve could decide whether  to follow God or Lucifer (AKA Satan) by  their decision whether or not to eat of the so-called tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As to other intelligent life and the relationship of that life to this question of free will, SDAs differ of several aspects of that issue.  However, I will state several points on which there is common agreement:

*  In this solar system, the Earth is the only planet that has intelligent life.

*  Intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the cosmos.

*  That intelligent life probably  has some relationship to the form of life that was created on Earth in the persons of Adam and Eve.

*  That intelligent life has some manner of awareness of the rebellion that first occurred in heaven and in some manner the choice that Adam and Eve made to include the plan of Salvation with the consequent death of God in the person of Christ on the Cross.

With this common understanding, SDAs would  commonly state their beliefs in some different words than Gustave used in his description of how he understood SDA beliefs.  But, this is just an argument as to wording.

As to where the Bible is as to the above common SDA beliefs:    The common SDA beliefs, as I have stated them, are expanded beyond what is clearly stated in the Bible.  Therefore,  SDAs are not required to believe as I have stated above.   It should be noted that I have not included some aspects of belief on which common agreement does not exist. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kevin H]

Gregory: Usually we are in more agreement. Here I found a couple of points were we are in more disagreement. The first is the original post saying that it will challenge us. No it doesn't. It is just the typical "Daniel is about Antiochus" and "Daniel 8:14 means 1150 days, not 2300." Theories that were developed prior to the rediscovery of the ancient world through archaeology. 

I can add more to this. But Daniel's errors support being written shortly after his time (by his disciples) and would have more serious errors if it was about Antiochus. The book shows more knowledge of Babylon and early Persia, that would have been forgotten by Antiochus' time and has only been rediscovered by 20th century archaeology. 

Back when these theories were developed people did not know that Belshazzar was a real person, much less when his third year was. One principle that we tend to over look when study is the principle of exegesis/analogy. The Bible has first a local application, then reapplications by analogy of the principles over history. (A very useful tool is the chapter in the SDABC "The Role of Israel in OT prophecy, which gives a general overview. We can re-write it very specifically to different time periods in both the Bible and history.) In Deuteronomy 4 (and I recently learned of a text in Leviticus but have not memorized yet) teaches that the exile was to have been the last days. It should have ended by a second great exodus lead by the Messiah. Keeping this in mind, if we start with the third year of Belshazzar and add 1150 literal days to it, granted we don't know what day during his third year the vision was given on, but looking at that whole year we have business as usual. But if you take the third year of Belshazzar, and add 2300 literal days, granted we don't know the specific day but you get a year that includes Persia breathing down Babylon's neck, Belshazzar's feast and the early days of the Persian empire. If the Hebrews had spread the gospel to their neighbors this could have been time for the second great exodus lead by the Messiah.   

Thus if we draw an analogy based on 1150 days we have nothing happening or potentially happening and thus don't have information for a correct analogy. But if we draw it on 2300 evenings-mornings, we have the analogies we can do on the cycles and one of these would point to Yom Kippur 1844 when a sabbatical year ends and a jubilee year starts (based on the early date of the exodus) and the dawning of the age of exegesis and the recent exploration and publication of the exploration of Biblical geography by Robinson. 

And as for the Great Controversy being in the Bible, yes, reading the Bible from our 21 century culture and Greek thinking mindset it is not that clear. But as we learn more about the ancient culture and ideas that were in the minds of the writers and readers in the ancient world, they had many of the ideas that Mrs. White points out as part of their culture. So we cannot say that it is not in the Bible, it is there in ancient assumptions and we miss it due to our assumptions. Mrs. White fills that gap to get us closer to what the Bible is actually teaching on this point. 

[BlessedMan]

5 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

So we cannot say that it is not in the Bible, it is there in ancient assumptions and we miss it due to our assumptions. Mrs. White fills that gap to get us closer to what the Bible is actually teaching on this point. 

good post, Kevin. I agree 100% with this. I once made a fairly comprehensive list of all of the main scripture texts/passages that refer to the "great controversy," and there are a number of them not even a little bit ambiguous. I'll post that here whenever I can find it. Its buried somewhere in my books and papers. I think we are too often glued to pet theories and denominated "prophecy" not always based upon reality.

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin, I find the following to be challenging:

In his article

“The Sanctuary Doctrine: Asset or Liability?” Raymond Cottrell, assistant editor of the SDA Bible Commentary, points out how translation at least four errors in the KJV translation of Daniel 9 led the Adventist pioneers astray:

1. The KJV mistranslates the indefinite article “an anointed, a leader/prince” as the Messiah, the Prince, with capital letters (v. 25);
2. It incorrectly joins the “seven sevens” with “sixty-two sevens [or weeks]” as a single 69-week period before “the Messiah, the Prince” rises (v. 25);
3. It agains renders the indefinite article “an anointed” as “the Messiah” in v. 26;
4. Because of the erroneously capitalized “the Messiah”, it translates the Hebrew accusative of time “and for half of one seven” as “in the middle of the seven” in v. 27

[BlessedMan]

On 2/24/2020 at 11:29 PM, Gustave said:

Fundamental Belief 8 is saying the same thing I posted - "GOD will be vindicated"

Correctly understood in context He is "vindicated in our minds - not that He needs that but we do:

Quote

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Rom 3:26)

If scripture talks about we should too.

[BlessedMan]

On 2/25/2020 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

As to where the Bible is as to the above common SDA beliefs:    The common SDA beliefs, as I have stated them, are expanded beyond what is clearly stated in the Bible.  Therefore,  SDAs are not required to believe as I have stated above.

 

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

“The Sanctuary Doctrine: Asset or Liability?” Raymond Cottrell, assistant editor of the SDA Bible Commentary

This is a murky statement, at best. He  didnt write much in those commentaries, dozens of others contributed much more than he did; I think he left the church and became a staunch anti-Adventist, which is his right, but it did flavor his "eisegesis." SDAs are not bound to believe or disbelieve what you write. The official beliefs are pretty clear. I see that your preference is to stray outside those core beliefs when you do the "I gotcha" thing.

I would likely talk about this differently if there was some substance to your last post that gave us specific references we could verify the context.

[Gregory Matthews]

Raymond F. Cottrell:  I believe that he was a SDA member and a retired SDA clergyperson to the day of his death.

He was a former missionary, I believe in China, and editor of major SDA publications.

He was one of the founders of Adventist Today and assisted Spectrum in its early days.

He had differences with the SDA position on the so-called Sanctuary doctrine.

An index of his many writings runs to 38 pages in length and may be assessed at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100601230720/http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/collection/C/Cottrell, Raymond F.pdf

 

 

[JoeMo]

Dr. Cottrell was an amazing Bible scholar.  Some of his opinions got him crosswise with the Church higher-ups; but to my knowledge he never gave up his SDA faith.

I'm confident that some of my opinions would get me crosswise with the Church if I was as influential a person as Dr Cottrell was in the organization.

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Dr. Cottrell was an amazing Bible scholar.  Some of his opinions got him crosswise with the Church higher-ups; but to my knowledge he never gave up his SDA faith.

I'm confident that some of my opinions would get me crosswise with the Church if I was as influential a person as Dr Cottrell was in the organization.

Well, Satan was/is a very good "Bible scholar" too. He seemingly can quote it better than most of us. I dont mean to judge Cottrell; but we corresponded a bit years ago and it ended up a sour experience. Seems whenever someone has "Doctor" attached to their name we just go for whatever they say because of their "qualifications."  He actually did write some good stuff, Im just stating my opinion on the over-all picture I got. I have something that he wrote which I find quite good. Ill try to find it and post a little more on that.

[BlessedMan]

16 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

“The Sanctuary Doctrine: Asset or Liability?” Raymond Cottrell, assistant editor of the SDA Bible Commentary, points out how translation at least four errors in the KJV translation of Daniel 9 led the Adventist pioneers astray:

I guess I could stand somewhat corrected on my one post above. I did not realize how much Cottrell has actually written. When I corresponded with him 20 some years ago it was in relation to an article he had written in a Signs magazine. We exchanged, I think three times over that. But I think the reason I have not been aware of how much he has written, or co-written, is because of some ancient software I have which contains the SDABC, as well as a few other things. That software is no longer available from "Libronix" but his name is not on most of the SDABC in that program, so I think thats why I have been thinking that he has not written a lot.

If you have anything in mind that you would class as really important that he wrote, regarding the book of Daniel, I would be interested to give it a read, if you have a link? Your comment above, I felt, was kind of sparse on where it was taken from. If you had a specific document or book he wrote with those things in it, I would be interested.

16 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

• The KJV mistranslates the indefinite article “an anointed, a leader/prince” as the Messiah, the Prince, with capital letters (v. 25);
• It incorrectly joins the “seven sevens” with “sixty-two sevens [or weeks]” as a single 69-week period before “the Messiah, the Prince” rises (v. 25);
• It agains renders the indefinite article “an anointed” as “the Messiah” in v. 26;
• Because of the erroneously capitalized “the Messiah”, it translates the Hebrew accusative of time “and for half of one seven” as “in the middle of the seven” in v. 27

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by BlessedMan

[Kevin H]

I knew Elder Cottrell the last few years of his life, out in Loma Linda. He was a frequent speaker and very faithful to the church. While he said that he liked to give the benefit of the doubt towards the Investigative Judgement, he was sympathetic towards Desmond Ford. While I was not too sympathetic towards Ford and had a stronger acceptance of the Investigative Judgement and he was more forensic than I am,  we were in agreement with concerns over  the growth of fundamentalism in the church, concerns about the Adventist Theological Society,  and of course I admire that he wrote that most important chapter in the SDABC "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy". (In our discussions on Ford I was able to turn to some of his writings against his support.)