| Author | Message | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 101 Registered: 4-2014 |
Every ex-Adventist is well-aware that the Church was founded on the failed prophecy of Christ's return in 1844. Dale Ratzlaff proved that the "2300 Days" prophecy of Daniel 8:14 was fulfilled hundreds of years before Christ's birth, in a recent Proclamation article. Ratzlaff demonstrated the prophecy was fulfilled in a literal 2300 Days, not years as the Millerites had believed: http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2014/1/antiochusiv.html The story is a far greater comedy of errors than is usually thought. There were four prominent Bible Commentaries that were widely available well-before 1844 that had spelled out Ratzlaff's same basic theme. The four commentaries and their exegesis of Daniel 8:14 are available at the following links: Mathrew Poole http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/daniel/8.htm John Gill http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/daniel-8-14.html Matthew Henry http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/daniel/8.html http://www.websitesonadime.com/ffwic/bookofdaniel.htm Albert Barnes http://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/barnes/dan008.htm William Miller was a Baptist minister. The cited John Gill Commentary was the recommended Bible Commentary for all Baptist ministers at the time, and was published prior to 1800. The only question that remains is: was the 1844 debacle the result of the worst, most oblivious Bible study in history? How could William Miller have possibly missed 4 prestigious Bible Commentaries that spelled out the exact years of the reign of Antioch Epiphanes during which the "2300 Days" prophecy was fulfilled in a literal 2300 days? This is a prophecy that was so accurate, the Book of Daniel has been accused of having been written after the fact!: http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php http://www.websitesonadime.com/ffwic/bookofdaniel.htm http://www.ucg.org/booklet/middle-east-bible-prophecy/four-empires-daniels-prophecies/ When the Daniel 8:14 prophecy is interpreted as being fulfilled in a literal 2300 days, it adds massive credibility to the reliability of the Scriptures. So what is added when it is wrongly-interpreted as 2300 "years?" The "need" for a subsequent "Prophet" to wiggle past the difficulty of a failed prophecy with a bizarre doctrine of the Investigative Judgment? I was unable to find a single respectable commentary available to William Miller at or before 1844 that supported his theory that a "day" equals a "year" in the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 (Message edited by Resjudicata on June 16, 2014) | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 3043 Registered: 5-2007  |
I am not aware of William Miller being 'overly educated'. It is my understanding that many theologians his day did confront him with his historically-flawed non-biblical illogical logic. Just like the charm of present day ‘televangelist snake oil salesmen’, many people believed William Miller because they were fools who didn’t know the word of God through their own study of Scripture. Fearless Phil | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 102 Registered: 4-2014 |
Phil, I join with your understanding that many respectable theologians of the day denounced Millerism. Additionally, I have no doubt that many of those who denounced Millerism used the above-impeccable sources to buttress their opinions. Which begs a question: Was Miller not under some ethical duty to present the respectable opinion that strongly disagreed with his conclusions? | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 3044 Registered: 5-2007 |
Resjudicata, You are talking more like a lawyer than a student of God's word. What I mean is how does one determine what his 'ethical duty' was? Afterwards, he confessed he was wrong and had no part in the development of the cultic system we were a part of. PS You may have a good point here but I would rather see you explore your thought by what Scripture say regarding 'ethical duty'. Fearless Phil | ||
| Islander Registered user Username: Islander Post Number: 11 Registered: 4-2014 |
I personally know several current SDA's who have no idea about the SDA IJ doctrine. Yeah, they don't have a clue what their own religion teaches or it's official dictrines. They are stuck on The Sabbath and clean vs. unclean meats and that's it. Frankly, I think it's more that they have a legal excuse to get off work on Saturdays. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14847 Registered: 12-2003  |
I believe the early Adventists (not just the early SDAs but the Millerites who spawned all the advent movements) failed in upholding ethical standards because they did not view Scripture as "enough". If they had known and BELIEVED the Bible, they couldn't have taught what they taught. I'm reading a really good book by Kevin DeYoung entitled, "Taking God At His Word". It's short and very well-written. In it DeYoung emphasizes that the characteristics of Scripture can be summarized by the acronym SCAN. Scripture is: Sufficient, Clear, Authoritative, and Necessary. DeYoung further asserts that the attribute of Scripture that the liberals tend to discount is its authority. Postmoderns question its clarity (or its "understandable-ness"); and atheists and agnostics question its necessity. Evangelicals, however, have their biggest problem with its sufficiency. They tend to want "something more"...they want to hear directly from God themselves. The only way we can honor Scripture's sufficiency, clarity, authority, and necessity is to know its Author. He enlightens us to understand His own word. And when we read Scripture, we are hearing directly from God. It's an amazing gift He gave us: His own word! Colleen | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 1475 Registered: 2-2011  |
Exactly!!! (responding to your last paragraph, Colleen!). ~mj~ | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 103 Registered: 4-2014 |
"I personally know several current SDA's who have no idea about the SDA IJ doctrine. Yeah, they don't have a clue what their own religion teaches or it's official doctrines." Without the IJ, 1844 is nothing but another false prediction of Christ's return. As horrible and ubiblical as it is, at least the IJ gives SOME explanation of 1844. Without an emphasis on the IJ, Seventh Day Adventism unintentionally-acknowledges to itself that it has no reason to exist and it admits to itself that it is not the Remnant Church. If it is not the Remnant Church, then the Sabbath is not the seal of salvation. If the Sabbath is not the seal of Salvaton, then all of the other Old Testament Laws - including dietary - are meaningless after the Resurrection. The IJ is the centerpiece of Adventism's "another Gospel." The Church leadership realized a long time ago that their entire doctrinal structure hinges on it. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14853 Registered: 12-2003 |
Exactly so. Colleen |
