a. It had already been a long time....
b. but now we are at the end...the judgement.
c. It won't be much longer.
Come on Eugene, you're playing games.
I know you did not say the 4th watch quote was a case of multiple scenarios. It is given to illustrate that NONE of the watch quotes were cases of multiple scenarios. It is just an example to show that
a. there are four watches
b. she used the term simply as a descriptive measure.
Since she was quoting the respective texts in both cases it is reasonable to assume that she was relating the story in its own language.
Given that you were being a little sarcastic, why would people take encouragement from the fact that there are three scenarios? Or even more if you count in Daniel? None of them perfectly fulfilled in history?
That sounds more like Hegelian process theology where God is growing with the world, updating, changing. That is not in the least encouraging to me.
I am not trying to cause you grief Eugene, I am just pointing out what I see to be the major shortfall of the theory. If you expect your critics to take your analysis of their views constructively, you should be willing to do the same.
You could give more evidence for the probability that Jesus gave multiple scenarios in his statement of Daniel's abomination. Or you could give more rationale as to why God might intentionally obscure the message given. Both of those were specifics I had questions on.
Simply quoting an unclear statement by EGW that could imply (but not to me) multiple scenarios, seems to take the same route as those you criticize. "It must be true, because EGW says so...." I thought that was the subtle misunderstanding that you tried to avoid?
It may well be that Revelation describes three potential ending times for the world. The fact that it presented three would be a good thing in my book in that it shows God's forknowledge that it would not be the first or second. That part of your theory in my book is superior to the interpretation of Daniel, where God seemingly got it all wrong.
God's giving three ending points, and clearly knowing that it will take three , while still giving room for the individuals at the time to perhaps apply it to their own time, giving them encouragement to actually meet their appointment seems a rational idea for the book of Revelation.
But scenarios in Daniel, none of which actually seem to point out what happened does not seem like something an all knowing God would do.
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:05 pm Post subject: Do Seventh-day Adventists impugn the character of God?
How does my interpretation of one little book out of 66 impugn the character of God? How is my application of grammatical-historical exegesis in Daniel any different than the approach I take to all Old Testament prophecy?
tall73 wrote:
The encouragement was that
a. It had already been a long time....
b. but now we are at the end...the judgement.
c. It won't be much longer.
Come on Eugene, you're playing games.
Grammatical-historical exegesis can be interpreted as a game. Too bad that you refuse to play by the rules. You're not permitted to insert your own thoughts into the text.
tall73 wrote:
If you expect your critics to take your analysis of their views constructively, you should be willing to do the same.
I have judged historicism by comparing the book of Daniel with standard Adventist retrofit methodology. It doesn't measure up. You judge my view, not on the basis of what Daniel wrote, but how you think God should act.
Raymond Cottrell once asked me what my presuppositions are. I said that I didn't have any. He studied my thesis and said that it was amazingly consistent. His conclusion was that it should be rejected because it contains a bias to prove the Adventist view.
tall73 wrote:
You could give more evidence for the probability that Jesus gave multiple scenarios in his statement of Daniel's abomination.
That part of your theory in my book is superior to the interpretation of Daniel, where God seemingly got it all wrong.
If you want to color it that way, be consistent. The standard Seventh-day Adventist interpretation then is that all prophecy in the entire Bible is wrong, except for Daniel and Revelation. And even there, we need Adventist theologians to lie for God, to twist straightforward communication because Adventists insist on making these books say something other than what they seem to say.
The fact that mainstream Adventist teachers and pastors despise what Daniel appears to say is not a reflection of God but of Adventists.
It is not my view of what I think God should be. It is the view He gives of himself:
Quote:
ISA 46:9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
ISA 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please
Quote:
DT 18:21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
You are not playing your own game there Eugene, if you think that your citing multiple scenarios in EGW's quote is taking the natural grammatical sense.
As for the interpretation of Daniel, I see a few occassions where you make a reach to fit your own interpretation.
a. God obscured intentionally the meaning, allowing everyone to think it was Antiochus.
b. The concept that the sanctuary was now God's people. If it says sanctuary...maybe it means just that. And giving for evidence that it completes a chiasm is not conclusive. How do you know Daniel intended a chiasm? Is that reading what the words say, or looking for your own pattern?
c. Your belief that the word that never applied to people being the most holy now is referring to a person, with seemingly no justification (similar to your complaints about Shea in other areas), etc.
If you were really to take the straight forward reading of the text, you would not see multiple scenarios. It never said they were multiple scenarios. That in itself is you reading into the text, because you could not reconcile the facts of the three accounts to form one consistent story.
It said they were clarifications of the same vision. If you really take it just as it says, as you claim, then you would take it as three accounts of the same vision that don't seem to reconcile. You are trying to accomodate your view as much as anyone else to make sense of it.
Perhaps you need to acknowledge is doesn't make sense and then look at your options:
a. Declare the book non-cannonical as Daniel fails the test of a prophet. This could be problematic of course as Jesus quotes it, but as you have noted elsewhere other books were quoted that were not seen as cannonical.
b. Say we don't understand it yet. This is quite honestly the truth. We don't ,which is why we keep resorting to twisting it to fit the historicist method, skipping a few details to apply it to antiochus, or taking it just as it reads, but imposing a whole non-implied framework of multiple scenarios to account for why it didn't happen.
I think you will be looking for a long time to find Daniel saying, in the clear, grammatical sense, that there are multiple scanarios in his book.
You have said that you received your interpretation through divine revelation, unless I misunderstood somewhere. But then EGW had her view confirmed by vision too. And you seem to uphold her prophetic gift. I am afraid there are a few contradictions here.
If you want to apply conditionality to a prophecy in Isaiah where it is in fact dependent on the covenant that is fine. I think the same could be done in Daniel. But imposing the idea of multiple scenarios, none of which actually happened, just because the three accounts don't reconcile is not taking it just as it reads. It is reading into it your own framework.
I don't think that in the final analysis we are that far apart. I think we can agree that
a. The Old and NT both pointed to a return of Jesus around the first century.
b. It didn't happen because the Jews rejected the Messiah.
c. God might still bring about the prophecies in a new way, but not in exact detail as written.
It is then just like the other scenarios in Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. Things that should have happened but didn't. There is no need then to read into Daniel's accounts different scenarios, but simply one that didn't happen.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
