| Author | Message | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 98 Registered: 3-2008 |
Another issue from Dan 8, is that in at least 3 places it states that the vision relates to "the time of the end", or "to the very end of time" and "none of these things will happen for a long time". So the question is thrown at me, if the little horn in Dan 8 is Antiochus Ephiphanes, how can that be the time of the end? Or they put it this way, the 2300 day prophecy can't be literal days - they must be prophetic days (years) - otherwise, how can it relate to the end of time? So again, anybody have any insights on this issue? What am I missing here? | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2967 Registered: 5-2007  |
To begin with this prophecy is about a temple here on earth. The shed blood of Christ was without sin and could never have defiled the ‘heavenly sanctuary’. Only the earthly sanctuary was ever defiled or in the ‘end times’ will there be a future rebuilt temple which is will be again defiled. In Daniel chapter eight the span of time is indicated by the sacrifices. There were two sacrifices (morning and evening) a day as outlined in Exodus 29:38-39 & Numbers 28:3-4. Taken literally the reference to ‘2300 evenings and mornings’ would translate to a span of time of 1150 days. To argue that this prophecy is about ‘prophetic years’ is without justification. Antiochus Epiphanies historically defiled the temple and 1150 days later the temple service was restored. At the very least this shows that a span of years is not built into the prophecy. This prophecy certainly does have implications for the ‘time of the end’ but to do so there must first be a rebuilt temple that does not now yet exist. Assuming ‘end times’ this rebuilt temple will be become defiled and subsequently cleansed and restored. Since other prophecy does speak of such a temple, including its defilement, Daniel’s prophecy fits in very well with all the other ‘end times’ prophecies. As I see it, the only ones with a problem are those who hold to Adventist eschatology, especially where it has to do with justifying Oct. 22, 1844. Fearless Phil (Message edited by philharris on December 05, 2013) | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 3260 Registered: 7-2007 |
In the September '12 "Levitt Letter" between half-way and two-thirds down in the "letters to the editor" part, it says that the 2300 day prophecy refers to literal days and is precisely the historical period when Antiochus persecuted the Jews; from September 6, 171 B.C. to December 25, 165 B.C. After the evil tyrant died, Jews celebrated the cleansing of the temple with the feast of Hannakah - also called the feast of lights and the feast of dedication. The New Testament also refers to this feast in John 10:22. http://www.levitt.com/newsletters/2012-09.pdf | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 3261 Registered: 7-2007 |
Also SDAs assume that Jesus' blood defiled the Heavenly Sanctuary so that God, Who's very Presence DESTROYS sin, is sitting in a sin filled sanctuary until Satan can take away the sins of the world! A couple verses that refute that are: "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." 1st John 1:7. So Jesus blood doesn't defile anything! It cleanses! "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29. So Jesus takes away sin, not Satan! No, the SAD religion doesn't give life - let alone "abundantly." That religion is a theif that steals people's salvation right out from under them! The "Bible Gateway" website's verse of the day is really appropriate: So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." John 10:7, 9-10 SDAs err by assuming that "the time of the end" means the end of the world. When people take the whold passage in context, it's obvious it's talking about "the latter end of the indignation" - Daniel 8:19. They're also ignoring Daniel 8:23 which goes on to say: "And at the latter end of their kingdom" which is Greece. They're twisting the whole thing out of context to try to make Ellen White appear to be right! | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2968 Registered: 5-2007 |
Since I am familiar with and trust Zola Levitt Ministries it would appear I'm somewhat in error in part of my post. However, I could not make the dates come out to 2300 days as claimed in the ZLM letter. I wish Zola was still alive so I could contact him for more information. Fearless Phil | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 761 Registered: 2-2003  |
As far as I am aware, Daniel 8 is usually applied to the Greek empire and Antiochus Epiphanes. I have heard the two possibilities that the number 2300 either refers to full days, and this would cover the whole period that Antiochus made war on Jerusalem, or to sacrifices, i.e. 1250 days between the time the temple was defiled when Antiochus sacrificed a pig to Zeus in the holy of holies, and the time the temple was rededicated following the success of the Macchabean revolt. Because the verse (in Hebrew) says "evenings-mornings" and not "days", and the context refers to daily sacrifices (e.g. 8:13), and the 1250 day period actually fits the length of time that the sacrifices were stopped, I think the latter explanation is more probable. As to the end of time problem, that is rather difficult. When it says the end of the age, or the time of the end, what "end" is being referred to? Is it the end of the Greek empire, or the end of the Jewish temple worship in 70 AD, or the Roman Empire, or the very end of time which is yet to come? All of these were in the future for Daniel, and various apocalyptic symbols have been applied to all of these depending on the interpretation of different commentators. Although I would say that Daniel 8 most certainly does not refer to any sort of Investigative Judgement starting in 1844, as there is absolutely no basis for this, there is a problem with getting into arguments about eschatology. Some things are sure, like the physical, visible return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the last judgement and the eternal states. When we go beyond that to the detailed order of events that haven't happened yet based on the interpretation of unrelated verses and obscure apocalyptic symbols in accordance with the presuppositions of distinctive theological systems - well, as things haven't happened yet, no-one can prove absolutely that they are right. Not that I want to tell you what to do, I'm just saying the arguing about eschatology may leave everyone frustrated :-) | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2969 Registered: 5-2007 |
Doc, Thanks for your insight and clarifying what is sure from what will be understood as prophecy is fulfilled. You are another 'voice' I value in my own search for godly founded truth. Fearless Phil | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 762 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thanks Phil :-) Adrian | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 2065 Registered: 7-2004  |
Very wise words-
| ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14669 Registered: 12-2003  |
Thank you, Adrian. Like Phil, I always value your theological insights. Your assessment is wise. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 1044 Registered: 8-2008 |
The Antiochus Epiphanes schema is one of many possible interpretations of the text. In fact, there are many, many possible interpretations of the prophecies of Daniel, and the scholarly debates often get into extremely technical issues like when the book of Revelation was written or how to translate the extremely difficult Hebrew in Daniel 9. Simply because we do not have a strident interpretation of our own, doesn't change the undeniable fact that the SDA interpretation is plain old wrong. One can show that something is wrong, without having to bear the burden of showing the correct answer. The SDA interpretation is wrong because there is no basis in the text, in history, or most importantly in the clear didactic portions of Scripture. For instance, if the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9 is true, then there is NO reason for the book of Romans (or really any of the Pauline texts) to be in the Bible, since everything in the IJ is in direct contradiction to Paul's masterful and inspired exposition of the Gospel. In addition, we would have to tear Heb 6-10 clear out of our Bibles to retain their interpretation. So my point is, don't let them try to require you to give a perfect alternative interpretation. Instead, require them to deal with the obvious flaws in their own interpretation. That's counter-cult apologetics 101. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14670 Registered: 12-2003 |
Very good point, Bskillet! Colleen |
