| Author | Message | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 23 Registered: 3-2008 |
I just finished reading George Knight's latest book "The Neutering of Adventism" (actually had a longer title, but that's what sticks in my mind for some reason!). His basic premise is that if the Adventist Church is to survive, it needs to get back to its apocalyptic roots. Lord help us. But what got me troubled is his position on the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14 and that it couldn't just be 2300 literal days because later on in Daniel 8, when the angel is explaining it to Daniel, the angel says the vision is for the end of time, the time of the end and a very long time into the future. Knight argues that means the year-day principle must apply because otherwise it doesn't make any sense. I need some help here. As someone living in the 21st century, when I read in Daniel 8 that the vision is for the end of time, I naturally think of the time I'm living in or at least some time in the future from now. And so I am looking at Daniel 8 not only through my 21st century glasses but also my Adventist eyeglasses. But when Daniel or any of his comrades heard the phrase "the end of time", how would they have interpreted it? Would they have something else in mind? I hope someone can help me on this, because I thought I had it settled that Dan 8:14 referred to the literal time that Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the temple. Now I'm troubled again. Maybe I should stop reading Adventist publications!! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9617 Registered: 12-2003  |
Freedom55, Yes, Antiochus Epiphanes does fit the fulfillment of this prophecy. Daniel 8:19-22 clearly identifies the horn as growing out of the Greek empire. That was the future to Daniel. Jesus, in Matthew 24:15, said, "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Danilelet the reader understandthen let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains " This prophecy shows that there were successive fulfillments of Daniel's prophecy. Antiochus Epiphanes couldn't have been the ONLY fulfillment of this prophecy or Jesus wouldn't have said to look for it. Titus, in AD 70, seems to be another fulfillment. In Romans 11 Paul talks about the full number of Gentiles coming in at which time there would come a harvest of Jewish believers. This is one of those prophecies which likely has multiple fulfillments. And yes--I encourage you to stop reading SDA publications for a time! It's terribly confusing in the old "darkness" sort of way. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1819 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi Freedom55, It's interesting that George Knight uses an "it can't be" in Daniel in order to arrive at validating Adventism's "apocalyptic roots". What I mean is that Knight is using this question about Daniel in order to point to 1844! Nevermind the inconsistencies in Miller's calculations and his complete disregard of reading the Scriptures in context. Nevermind the fruit of 1843/44 (people going crazy selling things, some elderly dying out in the cold that night, etc.). Nevermind that it contradicted Jesus' orders not to go running out after the kingdom because it is rather "within us". Nevermind that He said no one knows the day or hour. The whole premise that Adventism began on is one of setting aside the gospel. This is the first and foremost problem. Secondly, contextually speaking, the angel Gabriel in Daniel 8 explicity refers to the kings of Media, Persia and Greece (verses 20-21). We have no reason to doubt that Gabriel didn't mean "Greece" when he said "Greece", you know? Further, Gabriel said this right after he said "the appointed time of the end" (verse 19). Therefore, the "time of the end" refers to the time Gabriel is speaking about -- during the time of the Greek empire. Thirdly, as John 10:22 says, Jesus was in Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication -- that is, Hanukah, which is a festival specifically made to commemorate the the re-consecrating of the Sanctuary after Antiochus IV descrated it with the abomination of desolation (according to 1st Maccabees). While it doesn't say Jesus was there "to observe" the festival, we do notice that He wasn't telling people not to observe it, either. Fourthly, as Desmond Ford pointed out (and ended up being defrocked for it), the number 2,300 in verse 14 refers to the evening & morning sacrifices (which are in verses 12-13) -- in other words, not to 2,300 days but rather to 1,150 days. Fifthly, as Cherry Brandstater pointed out in her study on the Sanctuary & Investigative Judgment, there is a problem so laughably big in the "year for day" principle that it is hard to believe we all missed it: ***** I hope all that helps dispel Knight's apparent logic -- which is built on faulty premesis. Basically, he's still stuck at avoiding coming to the place that the guy in this picture I painted is at: http://sogentlybroken.blogspot.com/2008/09/faith-or-fear.html ...Read the story on that link about the picture. It's about coming to terms with asking God if all the calculation, theology, missions & institution & everything can really be wrong... and the difficulty of letting go of it, the need to find something still of worth in it: "But we must've gotten something right", we protest to the Lord! At the beginning of this year I felt the Lord urging me to look into the matter of "the abomination of desolation". I posted some of my initial thoughts & questions here on this members' thread, but there were a lot more notes which I wrote and didn't post up. About a month later, though, on the Questions on Daniel 8 thread, I did end up posting up some of the things & conclusions I'd learned from that time of studying. I also spoke of what Colleen just mentioned, as well, about "successive fulfillments" and how that works. You can read it on this post, and I wrote more after that a few posts later, too: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/8372.html#POST110334 During that time of study, I ended up doing a picture as well about these things: http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/reconsecrating-eschatology.html Finally, just for extra measure, I want to recommend looking at these two threads, which I think help chip away at the doubts & fears about parts of the Adventist eschatological scenario which had seemed to "make sense": Problems with the Sunday Blue Law Scenario - http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/8397.html?1235717949 The Commandments of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ - http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/8426.html?1236224156 Bless you in Jesus! In His love, Ramone (Message edited by agapetos on April 04, 2009) | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 252 Registered: 8-2008 |
The problem with Knight's interpretation is that even if we do accept that the 2,300 evening-mornings spoken of in Daniel 8 are a reference to something toward the end of time, that fact offers us no reason to believe that Adventism's 1844 interpretation is the correct one. In other words, the interpretation of Daniel 8 as dealing with the last days on earth does not imply that Adventism is correct. Here is a simple question Dale Ratzlaff raised when he was studying at the Andrews seminary, a question no Adventist has ever been able to answer: What was trampled in 457 B.C. that became untrampled in 1844 A.D.? | ||
| Akweavers Registered user Username: Akweavers Post Number: 120 Registered: 8-2008 |
Agapetos Thanks for the post..good "mind clearer" | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 24 Registered: 3-2008 |
Ramone, thanks for all the links. I'm checking them out one at a time. The problem for me is that the old adventist teaching is so ingrained that as soon as I see the phrase "the time of the end" I automatically conclude that has to mean the time in which we are living just before Jesus returns. So its like I have to re-train my thinking and try to figure out what period this phrase is referring to. I appreciate your comments about it referring to the time of the end of the Greek empire - at least that's what I think you were saying. |
