| Author | Message | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 96 Registered: 1-2007 |
I'm currently studying Daniel 8 in a non denom bible study, and for the first time, get to compare some interpretations of prophecy. I'm curious to know if any of you have studied this yet since leaving sdaism. 8:9 - talks about the little horn rising out of the four horns...at least this is how it reads to me, and to the non denom folks, they tell us the horn most likely symbolizes Antiochus Epiphines...as he was a direct descendent of one of the four kingdoms (four horns) that the little horn came out of. However....I do have an sda commentary and an sda pastors notes on a Daniel seminar that was given. Both state that the little horn comes from the four winds due to the original hebrew and masculine/feminine usage...now that get way too nit picky for me, and imho, a bit twisted. You see, if they can say the horn came from the winds, they can say it came from the direction of the west, and therefore is Rome. IN FACT, the sda commentary says this...straight out...that if they say the little horn comes from the winds it much better fits the Rome theory than the traditional interpretation that it came from one of the four horns (or four kingdoms). Further down in chapter 8 (pardon me I don't have my bible with me at the computer and I wanted to post this before going to bed) it talks of the 2300 evenings and mornings. Of course in sdaism, that is interpreted as 2300 days. And of course to this they apply their day = year principle. HOWEVER in this non denom study, they claim it is evening and morning sacrifices, making it only 1150 full days. Using this number, it lines up perfectly with the reign of Antiochus Epiphenes and his destruction. Of course, the sda commentary refutes this, claiming the evenings and mornings has "days" in the original (how am I supposed to know?)...and that it can't be Epiphenes because he doesn't fit 2300 days, and the 1150 was just made up so he can fit it. Arrrgggh. Interestingly, even another commentary I have...Clarke's (?) also claimed Rome and the wind theory...however I have no idea the origin or influence of the Clarkes commentary other than I wanted to look at something that didn't have sda stamped on it. Now, the reason I'm curious is because I don't trust the sda interpretation and am looking for faults in it...more evidence than my "it just seems like twisted scripture" Have any of you studied this particular passage and can shed some light? | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 408 Registered: 2-2008 |
one quick observation: Dan 8:9 Out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. The little horn grew exceedingly toward the south, east and toward the Beautiful land. If you look at a map of the Roman empire, it's easy to see that the Romans conquered as far north as Engand. This little horn could not represent Rome because this verse doesn't say that the little horn grew toward the north. ~vivian | ||
| Sunnimoreno Registered user Username: Sunnimoreno Post Number: 18 Registered: 10-2008 |
Daniel is consistent with the horns and the animals in his dream. A horn always grew out from the head of an animal. Ram = 2 horns, Goat = 1 horn "As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west... The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. Out of one of them came another horn (little horn), which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land." v5,8,9 The Bible is clear - the little horn did not grow out from the wind, it grew out from the head of the goat. First the goat had one horn. This horn broke off and was replaced by 4 horns. One of the 4 horns broke off and from its place grew the little horn. Many horns but all from one animal, the goat - Greece. | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 211 Registered: 1-2007  |
The correct translation of the 2300 is evenings and mornings not days. Daniel 8:14 KJV translated days but the Hebrew is ereb (eh-reb) and boqer (bo-ker) which is translated Evenings and Mornings. The Hebrew word for day is yom (Yome) which is not used in Daniel 8:14. Now since Daniel is talking about sacrifices and the Sanctuary this should be which were we get our context. There were two sacrifices performed a day, one in the morning and one in the evening. Num 28:3 And thou shalt say unto them, This is the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the LORD; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering. Num 28:4 The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even; Num 28:8 And the other lamb shalt thou offer at even: as the meat offering of the morning, and as the drink offering thereof, thou shalt offer it, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. So if Daniel is told that the sanctuary will be profaned, or desacrated and he wants to know how long until it is restored. Speaking in Sacrificial context he is told until 2300 evening and morning sacrifices and then the Sanctuary will be restored. So you would take 2300 and divide that by 2 (sacrifices) and you come up with 1150 literal days. Which is in par with the timing of Antiochus Ephipanes. Hope this helps Paul | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 208 Registered: 8-2008 |
Of course, the sda commentary refutes this, claiming the evenings and mornings has "days" in the original (how am I supposed to know?) This is a bald-faced lie. The original Hebrew says "ereb-boqer," as Paul points out: "Evening-mornings." Maybe they mean the original KJV renders it "days," but this is one of the many translation errors in the KJV (not that the KJV is evil, just that it has some errors based on the incomplete scholarship of the time). EDIT: Here's a good question to ask Adventists on Dan. 8 and 9. "What was trampled in 457 BC that was un-trampled in 1844?" This was the question that got Dale Ratzlaff to question the IJ. (Message edited by bskillet on February 20, 2009) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4214 Registered: 9-2006  |
When I first came into contact with Adventist, and as this association progressed I found it quite remarkable that they had so much invested in the book of Danial. Of course I later came to see why. Over a period of years of church going and bible studies there was never any emphasis placed on the book of Danial accept in a study of Bible Prophecy so I was not used to so much emphasis being placed on Danial. Even still later I began to look at their theology in the micro, then the macro. Now I stand looking at Adventism as if looking at Mt. Hood from my location, you can't see the individual rocks so the mountain gives its shape. If you look at the very outlines of Adventism its seems to me that all I see is the 2300 days of Danial. If they are wrong about 2300 days, then Adventism just disintegrates, a mirage with no substance. They are really placing all their eggs in one basket seems to me like. If they were wrong about the 2300 days, Adventism never happened. As John Steinbeck put it, just an old graveyard ghost. The religion is not about what happened on Calvary, it about 1844 and the 2300 days. Ellen G White walks among the tombs and prattles like an old grave yard ghost, a wisp in the fog of 1844. The Adventist of today enters that graveyard and prattles with the old graveyard ghost of Ellen G White as if there was something there. They continue to try to build a life on an old grave yard ghost. 1844 came and passed with no great significance, a blip in the history of time as Christians wait for the return of the Lord Jesus while placing emphasis on the cross, later the states found itself embroiled in a bitter civil war, brother against brother. No doubt Adventist looked to see significance in that war as pertaining to their old grave yard Ghost, ignoring the fact that Jesus warned that there would be wars and rumors of wars. Ignoring the warning that no man knows the day nor the hour. Instead of admitting being wrong and repenting, they advanced into even more heresy. The few Adventist living and participating and living in heresy today, consider themselves as being significant in the scheme of things, yet they hardly make a blip on the radar of time, a splash in the pond of history, only a small gathering of fools, an old grave yard ghost. All they are consist of only a wisp of a gathering of fools among a gathering of fools who have failed to place proper significance on the death, burial and resurrection of our savior and Lord. A group of fools among a history of fools who meet to prattle and titter in a grave yard of old grave yard ghost. The Christian who has been brought up in the admonitions of Christ, are not even aware of a wisp of fog as it wisp around in a in a gathering of old grave yard ghost. You tell them about Adventism and they say "Oh?". When your eyes are on Jesus the significant one, its pretty hard to see an old grave yard ghost. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1712 Registered: 10-2002  |
Additionally, take a look at the first half of 1st Maccabees sometime. The Jews understood that this prophecy referred to Antiochus IV and the reign of terror he brought upon them and the Sanctuary. When they fought and reconsecrated the Sanctuary, they celebrated it with a festival called "Hanukah", sometimes called "The Feast of Lights" or "The Feast of Dedication". If you look in the book of John, you can see Jesus attending the Feast of Dedication -- Hanukah. Jesus didn't say they got it wrong, did they? Going beyond what you'd asked (and heading off a possible SDA objection), the "abomination that causes desolation" finds mention in two separate prophecies in Daniel, however. And then Jesus made mention of it in parallel passages in Matthew & Mark which referred to two things -- the coming destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70, and the end of the world. When Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in A.D.70, however, there was apparently no literal "abomination" as when Antiochus IV desecrated the Temple (however, I've read one Orthodox commentary that said Titus erected a statue of himself there before destroying the Temple, however, I haven't yet seen this corroborated anywhere). Jesus described two different ages that had different literal events but that had the same spiritual conditions & conflict. Motivations in the hearts were the same, even though the literal physical events were different. By speaking of Daniel and the "abomination that causes desolation", Jesus actually referred to three events in three different ages. Firstly, to Antiochus IV, secondly to the coming A.D.70 destruction, and finally to the end of the present world. The common denominator in each age is the the spiritual condition. An example of this can be seen in John the Baptist, the "Elijah who was to come". The original Elijah, the prophet, was sent to the northern kingdom of Israel as it was ruled by Ahab (who was supported--not controlled--by Jezebel). It was a time of incredible idolatry, so much so that Scripture says he did worse than all the other idolatrous kings before him. Challenging him, Elijah stood atop Mt.Caramel and called the people "back to the Lord", and through his ministry God was turning their hearts back to Him. Years later through Malachi, God said that He would "send Elijah" before He came. Jesus identified "Elijah who was to come" as John the Baptist (even though John himself didn't care if he was recognized or not -- he cared only for Christ's recognition!!), and the angel Gabriel said likewise to Zechariah, John's father, echoing Malachi's words by saying that John would turn hearts back to God and prepare the way of the Lord's coming. Now, if we look at the surface (the "literal", physical or "natural"), the situation in Elijah's time was very, very, very different from the situation in John's time. Most obviously, Israel was idolatrous beyond belief in Ahab's time. But in John's time, Israel was incredibly zealous about obeying the Law of God. On the surface, things were completely opposite in the two ages! Yet God saw it necessary to send "Elijah" in both ages "to turn hearts". The reason is because spiritually the conditions of hearts was the same in both ages. John blasted many of the "religious" in his day because they looked religious but were vipers inside. Jesus continued and exposed this even more, calling people white-washed sepulchres, and their converts "twice the sons of hell" as they were. Walter Martin summarized this by saying, "If you have pure doctrine and a corrupt life, you are condemned for it. If you have a pure life and a corrupt doctrine, you are condemned for it." In the age of John the Baptist, peoples' hearts (especially that of the leaders) were just as idolatrous as in the days of Ahab, only there were no "physical idols". Instead they served the idols of their hearts -- greed, pride, corruption, lust, control, etc. The people in both ages had wandered and been led away from God, and needed to be "turned back" to Him (and to one another, which is the meaning of "fathers to sons", particularly talking about shepherds and sheep). I've cited this example at length because it is a good illustration of how different outer circumcstances can yet have the same spiritual condition underneath. In the same way, the "abomination that causes desolation" is something that was prophesied about for at least three different ages. First with Antiochus IV, second with Jerusalem in A.D.70, and third with the end of the world. The first prophecy in Daniel mentioning this seems to be mainly for the Antiochus IV situation (which, by the way, began on the altar of Israel's hearts before it appeared on the Temple's altar), and the second mention seems to include all three ages or perhaps focus on the final fulfillment. (As a side-note to this big side-note, to understand what the "abomination" was in A.D.70, it's necessary to look earlier than that date, because the Christians would not have had time to exit Jerusalem after Titus set siege to it, and definitely not after Titus had entered the city and began to destroy the Temple! Rather, in the years preceding A.D.70, they came to understand what Jesus meant when He referred to Daniel's prophecy, and they understood that the spiritual state of Israel & Jerusalem were ones which had put an "abomination" on the altars of their hearts, and that "desolation" was coming as a result. To understand this "abomination", it is good to take a quick look at the first part of 2nd Maccabees [but not get too heavily distracted there] and you will see commonalities with Caiaphas and the decisions of the leaders that condemned Christ to the cross... remember that "the abomination that causes desolation" is a "sacrifice" on the altar, or replaces the godly sacrifice.) Sorry for going way beyond what you'd asked! Bless you in Jesus! Ramone P.S. I want to shout these things: http://reconsecrating-eschatology.blogspot.com/2009/01/truth.html !!! | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 209 Registered: 8-2008 |
I'm not a preterist (don't know what "ist" I am honestly), but this page is interesting: Preterest Archive: Timeline of the Roman-Jewish War In AD 66, the Roman Procurator Florus demanded the Jews pay him gold out of the Temple Treasury. A possible abomination. More likely, however, is the Zealots' capture of the Temple mount, and the ensuing battles within the Temple complex. Also, the revolt was likely sparked, according to Josephus, by Greeks sacrificing birds in front of a synagogue in Caesarea. Really, in reading the timelines, there are many things that could be taken as "the abomination of desolation." | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1713 Registered: 10-2002 |
River, that is what this picture is about: http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/01/letting-go.html But it's also a picture of that terrible ache that comes from realizing that nothing I have, nothing I've done, none of the "propheices I've worked out" are right or worth anything in His sight. It's letting go of the "works" in my "heritage" that I couldn't let go of... the calculations, the efforts, the feeling that you almost got there and were just on the verge, and it can't all have been wrong, it can't all have been for nothing... It's a cross that God brings each and every one of to, a place of confronting us with the works in our lives that we're holding onto to please Him (which, mind you, we never think of as "works"). With Adventism, it's a very big heritage, and is actually easier to see than with people or Christians who have not made such obvious errors. The errors of the heart are harder to detect when there is correct doctrine. But even in the case of Adventism, when incorrect doctrine is easy to point out, it is hard to let go of because it is rooted in the strongholds of the heart. Please do remember that it is these "fools" that Jesus Christ died for. And I was one of them, and now am simply a different kind of "fool" (for Christ, thank God). But my heart is broken for these "fools" in Adventism. I have tasted His ache for them and I can never be the same or simply talk about how blind or foolish they are. Bless you in Jesus, my beloved brother. Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1714 Registered: 10-2002 |
Bskillet: I'm sure there's several things to look at, but I'll tell you briefly what I've found after much prayer and oddly enough feeling led by the Spirit to look into this subject. (Mind you, it is not my idea of "fun" to look through Daniel's prophecies!!!) I began to look at 1st and 2nd Maccabees, but the books dry up and it's hard to explain, but I just can't TASTE the inspiration there. They contain a good record of things that transpired around the time of Antiochus IV and the Hasmoneans, but there are odd things here and there, or other insertations. Most palpably, however, the Voice of God is missing. This is where it differentiates from the books of Kings & Chronicles and indeed the whole Old Testament. The prophetic voice is absent, and that is why conclusions about God's actions or what was right/proper are just not completely impacting, and are a few times questionable. Goodness, I'm digressing already. Sorry. I then began to look at Josephus and search for anything "abominable" in the years prior to A.D.70, but it was then that the Spirit seemed to dry up even more in me. Gradually, I came "home", so to speak. Somehow I had wandered out, and though I couldn't understand, God was re-impressing in me that the Bible is all you need -- everything is in there! Even without 1st and 2nd Maccabees! That said, 1&2 Maccabees are useful when they are compared to what happened in the gospels. There can be nothing more "abominable" in God's sight than the sacrifice of His Son. I had heard this stated somewhere, but I eventually returned here (to the Gospels) because the truth of it just hit me so hard in my spirit. The first fulfillment is important in any prophecy that may have more than one fulfillment, just like the first mention of a term in Scripture will tell us invariably valuable things about how it is used later on. In the same way, the Antiochus IV story in 1&2 Maccabees lended some valuable things and helped me see particular parallels in the Gospels: Antiochus IV didn't just randomly begin attacking the Jews and desecrating the Temple -- he was let in. There were movements among some leaders prior who wanted to Hellenize everything more. And as 2nd Maccabees describes, there was a lot of in-fighting for control of the priesthood, which was bought at one point, and other things along that line. In order to secure the priesthood, some individuals went to the dominating foreign power to get support, and in this way they secured the priesthood and their power. What this shows is a spiritual pattern of: 1) Disregarding the holy God & His commands 2) Coveting power & position 3) Seeking these things in His name 4) Going to a foreign power to attain them 5) Finally sacrificing God's truth and love The priests coveted power, and went to the Selucids (Antiochus IV came from them) to secure their power. At this point, to secure a position that God is alone supposed to appoint, they have gone to the enemy. They attempt to secure God's Kingdom by enemy means. Does that make sense? And in the process, of course they throw His truth to the ground. And when Jews resisted these leaders, they were persecuted. Further, what ended up then happening is what always happens when you give the enemy a doorway to come through: he takes more than you asked for! Antiochus IV did more than they'd intended. He started taking more and more from the Jews. Because they'd received their power from the Selucids, they wanted to keep their power. So they kept "crossing the line" and doing worse things, violating the Law more and more, and urging fellow Jews to do so & persecuting those who didn't. Truth was sacrificed, and so were innocent Jews who stood with God and His truth. The leaders not only turned against God, they also turned against their own flesh & blood people. Truth and love were sacrificed. This is what I mean when I say that the "abomination that causes desolation" was already on the altar of their hearts before Antiochus IV erected it in the Temple. When Antiochus put it in the Temple, it was just a literal manifestation of what was already spiritually happening in the hearts of the priests. This is the truth of the reality of the spiritual realm in operation -- that is, what happens in the natural is a manifestation of what happens first in the spiritual. The abomination was first in their hearts, and then on their altar. They let the enemy into their hearts, and then this manifested in the natural with Antiochus IV. It's easy to think of the "outside power" as being the problem or source of "the abomination", but that is the enemy's (Satan's) trick -- to keep us looking outward, externally, outside of ourselves. This is one of the biggest messages in Jesus' preaching, in the gospel, that the things which defile us come from inside of us, not from the outside. That which defiled the Temple (in the Hasmonean era) was something that came from the inside, not merely from the outside (from Antiochus IV). That which caused the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70 was a defiling that started on the inside. I'm going into too much detail, sorry! Now, with Christ, can we see the same pattern? Threatened by the following that Jesus was gathering (as well as by His condemning words for them), the leaders sought to keep "their nation and place (temple)" by seeking to sacrifice Him. They disregarding the holy God & His commands by doing so [the Zealots had the same goal--nation & Temple--and sacrificed foreign lives & God's commands to be subservient to authorities]. The leaders coveted power & position, and justified their actions in God's name. They went to a foreign power to attain this goal (this time Rome), and succeeded in having Christ crucified by the foreign power. Truth and Love Himself was sacrificed to the idols of their hearts. And the sacrifice didn't end there. But I'll parenthetically mention that this kind of "abominable sacrifice" is one that cannot stand godly sacrifice. Antiochus IV (and the corrupt priests) put an end to the required sacrifices of God's Law. In the same way, the leaders in Christ's day could not stand people following Him or giving Him the sacrifices of praise and thanks. When Pentecost came and the Church began to grow afterward, they persecuted the Church who were giving godly sacrifices -- not only sacrifices of praise, but also sacrifices of love to the poor of Jerusalem and elsewhere. In turning against the Church, the Jewish leaders turned against God Himself and against their own flesh & blood people who were not doing anything wrong. The abomination continued... they couldn't stand the godly sacrifices of His people, and they continued to sacrifice their brothers (and the truth) on the altar of their hearts (even shedding the blood of Christians). [See also 1st Thessalonians 2:14-16] Anyway, I hope this explains things. I've wanted to write up about it, and have suddenly done it now and have probably forgotten some things from my notes, but... oh well. Someday! I will add that this is not complete because the future fulfillment is still ahead of us. But if we pray and ingest these things, asking God to give us His sight---seeing through the truth of His gospel and the love He calls us to---I believe we will begin to discern the tremors of the coming fulfillment in our world today. And like in the previous fulfillments, it is not something that "starts outside" with foreign powers, governments, or rampant "sinners" or "liberals", but rather it begins in the hearts of the house that professes God's name first. The double-edged sword is one that cuts into us, too. And that cutting must come first before the "world" is condemned. That is why when the "two witnesses" prophesy in power, they are "clothed in sackcloth" -- the garments of repentance for sins we have done. Bless you in Jesus' name and love, Ramone (Message edited by agapetos on February 20, 2009) | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 97 Registered: 1-2007 |
Thank you all for your input! I really really appreciate it. Like I said, my life does not depend on prophecy, but on Jesus....I just find a need to discover how many errors I may have been taught, and how that has affected my understanding of the bible as a whole. I knew my gut feeling about twisted scripture when I read the sda commentary was right...but it a gut feeling does not do much to produce a defense. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1352 Registered: 6-2006  |
I go along with what Ramone says. It was a prophesy given to a Jew about a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. All throughout history the Jews believed that the prophesy was about Antiochus Epiphanes, and celebrate Hanukkah as a result (even Jesus celebrated Hanukkah). If the Jews believe it, I'm not sure how the Adventist church can take over the prophesy and own it. Here's a good resource I've used regarding the subject ~ www.jewishencyclopedia.com River, excellent observations as usual! It used to bug the heck out of me that my husband was required to take a "Daniel & Revelation" class in college. All I could think of is "Where's Jesus? Where's the gospel?" Now I know... This is yet another example (IMO) of the SDA church twisting scripture to make it apply to itself.  Leigh Anne | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 411 Registered: 2-2008 |
You probably already know this also TKmommy, the little horn from chapter 7 arises from the 4th beast which is the Roman empire. There are 10 horns, 3 fall away and the little horn arises. The little horn in chapter 8 arises from the shaggy goat which Daniel wrote represents Greece. There is the large horn which breaks off, the 4 horns, then the little horn (which a complete different description than the horns from chap. 7. What... could God not get His horns straight from one vision to the next?). In Dan. 8:23, Daniel wrote that the little horn arises during the "latter part of their reign", which means the latter part of the 4 horns reign. Antiochus fits that description also. I also agree with Ramone about Jesus attending the feast of Lights/Dedication. If the Jews had misinterpreted Dan. 8 and were celebrating that that prophecy had been fulfilled.... and it wasn't to be fulfilled until 1844 ;-P ... I believe Jesus would have corrected their interpretation. Dan 8:21 "The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Dan 8:22 "The broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation, although not with his power. Dan 8:23 "In the latter period of their rule, When the transgressors have run their course, A king will arise, Insolent and skilled in intrigue. (NASB) ~vivian | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4215 Registered: 9-2006 |
Ramone, I hope my using the word fools did not offend you or sting you or anybody else, I use the word in the context of Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Or considering themselves elite they become foolish. I know very well the stubbornness of the typical Adventist. Yes, I feel for them, but also remember that these are people who claim to know God, yet still cling to the foolishness of works and religion and worse still, propagate that. Sorry Bub, for the rough language, I will try to tone it down in future. River | ||
| Gcfrankie Registered user Username: Gcfrankie Post Number: 333 Registered: 1-2007 |
Tkmommy, First let me say get rid of the sda commentaries as they will only confuse you as you learn and get a good abridged or unabridged commentary. We know how egw hated Rome and the catholics and almost everything she wrote was either wrong or slanted and laid at their feet. I have the NLT bible and an abridged commentary and they are not written by the same writers but do say the same. I went to a used book store and bought a used bible with the apocrypha in it so I could read the MacCabees and found it really interesting as to the history of that time. I know as sda we were discouraged from reading it. Everyone especially what Ramone wrote did a good job of answering your question that there is nothing more I can add except to pray with and for you as you study Daniel. My study group is doing the study on Daniel by Beth Moore and also our Pastor is devoting his sermons on Daniel. They are both coming from it from different angles. Tk, I don't know if you were on here when I mentioned a while back when our Pastor started doing Daniel that it is not written in order as the chapters are numbered. He said the chapters should be read as follows:1-4;7-8;5;9;11;6;10;12. When I got home from church that day I started reading Daniel the way he suggested and it sure made more sense to me and got things in order. May God bless you as you study. Gail | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 98 Registered: 1-2007 |
Gail, yes, with our study, even though we are reading it in order, they point out at the beginning of each chapter where it falls chronologically so we know the correct order of events, although I have not read it that way as it would be out of order for the study...I wonder why they don't do it that way? Hmm.. Also, how do we know that Jesus attended the festival of lights and this is what it represents...I'm assuming this is in the bible and I've probably glossed over it... and do any of you recommend an "amplified" bible...? They mentioned this in the study. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 789 Registered: 7-2005  |
I've had an Amplified Bible for years, since way before I was an Adventist, and I love it. It helps me understand all the various nuances of a concept. My SDA husband never liked it, because it made it easy for me to see Adventist errors. Honestwitness | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1353 Registered: 6-2006 |
Tkmommy, it was John 10:22-23 from Biblegateway.com 22Then came the Feast of Dedication[a] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. Footnotes: a.John 10:22 That is, Hanukkah Also, here's an explanation of the Feast of Dedication, or Hanukkah (or Chanukkah) at about.com ~ http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefeastsandholidays/p/feastofdedicati.htm We also had a good discussion about the subject earlier... http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/8185.html?1231130808 Leigh Anne | ||
| Mommamayi Registered user Username: Mommamayi Post Number: 745 Registered: 12-2007  |
Tkmommy, is your spouse doing the study with you?! | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 413 Registered: 2-2008 |
Hi Tkmommy, About the feast of Dedication/lights. Sondra just explained this all to me. All of the feasts that were given to Israel in Leviticus were either in the spring or the fall. So in John 10:22 when it mentions the feast of lights "in the winter" you know it is not talking about the other feasts. The only feast in the winter is Hanukkah which is about the re"dedication" of the temple. John doesn't actually write that Jesus was attending the feast, he just mentions that it was that time of year. However, I believe that if the Jews had misinterpreted the prophecy of Dan. 8 and it actually was meant to be fulfilled in 1844... I believe that Jesus would have corrected their interpretation of Daniel 8. Hope this helps. ~vivian | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 99 Registered: 1-2007 |
Thanks Leigh Anne and Vivian. That helps. And Diana, no he's not...its a womens study, but we have been discussing it. It seems he came across the same discrepencies a few years ago. But the thing is he is perfectly comfortable knowing that the interpretaion of many things by the sda church is wrong, and be able to freely say it is wrong, focus on Jesus and still be a part of an sda church. I think the clincher is we found a progressive church where there are alot of people who have varying issues with doctrine, so it feels like a safe place to him. He also says he could never denounce the sabbath as it to much a constant in the bible...he read Dale's book and said that he felt he was trying to hard and reading in between thelines to prove that the sabbath rest is in christ. However, I brought up the other day what would we have done if there had not been a progressive type sda church near us, but only historical legalistic ones...he got a bit snippy and said he's not a "what if" person. I think he is just comfortable. He knows all the stuff I have been studying...but he is happy where he is at. | ||
| Mommamayi Registered user Username: Mommamayi Post Number: 747 Registered: 12-2007 |
Bummer Bob. I hear ya. Some day woman. Some day! Hugs, D | ||
| Jody Registered user Username: Jody Post Number: 73 Registered: 7-2007 |
Not sure if its worth mentioning or not but this was discussed not long ago under the title investigative judgement again. Just in case there is something more there anyone interested mite want to check it out. | ||
| Mrsbrian3 Registered user Username: Mrsbrian3 Post Number: 117 Registered: 8-2005 |
Clay Peck is another great source on Daniel. He did a series on the book of Daniel back in the Fall of '08. They are all on-line at graceplace dot org in their media library. They are all very good and he goes into great detail explaining his interpretation of all the horns and the winds, while at the same time stressing that it is okay to disagree with him on this non-salvational issue. Kim |
