A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:12 am Post subject: Antiochus Epiphanes and Daniel 11
What Eduardo doesn't seem to realize is that truth is progressive just as some historic Adventists don't realize it either. When we are dealing with Daniel 11 the career of Antiochus ends at verse 35. The ships of Kittim were from the West, they were Roman ships which put a stop to Antiochus career, afterwards he attacked the Jews and profaned the temple etc. The Macabees later performed their heroic feats etc.
From verse 36 onward we are now dealing with the Roman Emperor who exalts and magnifies himself above every other God. Verse 38 specifically targets the Roman Emperor who worshipped the God of Forces Mars and this same verse mentions that he began honoring a foreign god whom his forefathers knew not. This was actually the coming Holy Roman Empire and the combination of Pope and Emperor. Compare this verse 38 with the precious stones and pearls which the woman who rides over the beast wears in Revelation 17?
What historic SDAs need to unlearn is the date of 538AD as being the date of the Papacy defeating the Ostrogoths in Western Europe. The true date for the Imperial Restoration is 554AD and it matches exactly with the cronological numbers given in Daniel 12, the 1290 days and the 1335 days.
Before we mention this matter, there is the time times and half a time mentioned in Daniel 12 as well. Adventists use 538AD + 1260 to bring us down to 1798. The prophecy of Revelation 13 talks about the Beast not the church or woman riding the beast, this other topic is revealed in Revelation 17.
When we take the date of 554AD + 1260 we are taken to the date of 1814. 1814 marks the end of the 5th King of the Holy Roman Empire according to the Bible. Revelation 17mentions that there were to be 7 Kings which the woman would ride over.
The first great King of the Imperial Restoration of Italy becoming a province of Rome once again was Justinian. The next King was Charlemange who was crowned in 800 AD, afterwards, Otto the Great, 963AD then Charles V around 1511 and finally the 5th was Napolean whom you may recall arrested the Pope in 1798 and he himself was defeated by the British at Waterloo in 1814.
All in all 5 came and went, these were the most powerful rulers of Europe who during their time held Europe in a sort of United fashion such as the European Union of today.
When we take the date of 554AD and plus it with the 1290 days of Daniel 12, we come to the amazing date of 1844.
554AD + 1290 =1844. Afterwards we take 554AD and plus it with the 1335 days of Daniel 12 and we arrive at 1889 the first year of the commencement of the Loud Cry based on the message of Jones and Waggoner. 1888 was not the year of the loud cry, it was the border year between the early rain and the latter rain. Blessed would be the expectant one who would reach this date of 1889.
Using the correct date of 554AD we have a clear witness which links Daniel 7 , 8, and 11 and 12.
Revelation 17:
10] they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen,
It cannot be a mere coincidence that one of two dates which relate to the history of the Roman Empire in the west and the defeat of the Ostrogoths actually takes us to 1844. 554AD does it, but not 538. This demolishes the idea that 1844 is only found in Daniel 8:14
30] For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.
[31] Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.
[32] He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.
[33] And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days.
[34] When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery;
[35] and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.
[36]
"And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done.
[37] He shall give no heed to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.
[38] He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.
[39] He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.
[40]
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject:
I do accept the obvious fact that truth is progressive. For instance, the topmost revelation of the Father is Jesus Christ, not Moses, not Aaron, and not Daniel. But "errorblaster" is indeed right that I fail to "realize" that from Dan. 11:36 onwards we are "dealing with the Roman Emperor". The main reason I fail to "realize" such a notion is that the angelic interpreter that has been explaining future events does not hint at such an interpretation. Had the angel hinted that the evil king of the north were to be replaced sometime in the future by some foreign nation or empire outside the realm of Alexander, I would have probably upheld the notion that the Romans could be involved in a leading role in the last two chapters of the book of Daniel. Unfortunately for "errorblaster", the angel never intimated such a notion, so I won't be taking errorblaster's notion seriously.
As for games with years and purported time periods using the utterly discredited year-day "principle", allow me to just ignore such nonsense. If I multiply the length of my big toe in millimetres by the number of my fingers, add the number of the beast and multiply by pi, then we add the length of the main corridor in the Great Pyramid expressed in imperial yards divided by the base of natural logarithms we also get a number close to the date of birth of my grandfather. Coincidence????
Games with 554 or any other dates are just as irrelevant for 1844 as any others daydreamers may come to devise. The year 1844 is not supported by anything at all. Miller's 15 "proofts" were utter nonsense. All his starting dates were wrong; all his purported periods were misinterpreted, and his final date of 1843 (and then 1844) was an egregious mistake. Nothing in Miller's calculations can be salvaged, not even Artaxerxes' nonexistent decree of the autumn of 457 BC (an Ellen White datum). That's a checkmate for orthodox Adventism.
And if Dan. 8:14 doesn't cut it, and it doesn't, the fortunes of the Ostrogoths, or the whimsical interregna between those supposed heads of some beast won't cut it either. I'm afraid they won't be much help for the sinking prestige of orthodox Adventism. A revisionist version of orthodox Adventism that merely tries to reach the mythical date of 1844 through a roundabout method with alternate starting points and different time periods won't help convince anyone. Those who have the perception of the utter hoax of Adventist calculations should renounce error once and for all. The pioneers' unwillingness to confess their own folly in uncritically accepting Miller's fallacious reasoning is what got us all in this mess. It's about time to jettison all such nonsense and apologise for all the evil done in the name of "present truth", when it was never true. Just an everyday, ordinary, twisted cover-up of nonsense.
If you are interested in continuing this dialogue, I suggest you address the exegetical problems of Daniel 8 as presented previously in this thread, and also expounded in my open unanswered letters to Drs Gerhard Pfandl (November 2004) and Clifford Goldstein (October 2006). You can find them by doing a Google search on my name. Perhaps the best place for you to start would be to provide some kind of a response to my observations in http://www.ellenwhite.org/457bc.htm. I'll be looking forward to your reaction.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:42 am Post subject: Sorry but it just don't cut it
Eduardo wrote
Had the angel hinted that the evil king of the north were to be replaced sometime in the future by some foreign nation or empire outside the realm of Alexander, I would have probably upheld the notion that the Romans could be involved in a leading role in the last two chapters of the book of Daniel. Unfortunately for "errorblaster", the angel never intimated such a notion, so I won't be taking errorblaster's notion seriously.
Errorblaster
If Antiochus military career was interrupted by those ships from Kittim or ships from the West and then later he vented his anger upon the Jews and right after that was the end of his career what could be further stated about Antiochus? The answer is nothing.
The next power to arise and cause problems of major proportions for the people of God whether Jews or Christians was Pagan Rome and then Holy Rome. An interpretation of verse 36 being Antiocus is not very logical thinking.
If you apply this reasoning of yours to verse 38 as being Antiochus or any Seuleucid leader after him, it doesn't make sense because they were Greeks and they worshipped Jupiter which was not a foreign god to the Greek culture. Verse 38 mentions that the King of the North begins to honor a god whom his forefathers knew not. It would have to be a god in high religious office. Revelation 17 reveals this intimate relationship between church and state and the fine stones and precious pearls which adorned the apostate woman of Revelation 17
If you were to do some further research you would find that 554AD is indeed the date of the Imperial restoration.
Steven Korsman a Catholic apologist once brought up the issue of 555AD being the date as opposed to 538AD. He was trying to discredit Adventism and little did he realize that 554AD rather than 555AD takes you to 1844.
He was one year short. Math doesn't fail 554 + 1290 = 1844 whether one choses to believe it or not.
Encyclopedia Britanica
The Eastern emperors in Constantinople regarded themselves as the legitimate rulers of the West, including Italy, after 476; both Odoacer and, for a time, Theoderic had recognized them, and they had strong links with the Roman Senate. In 533–534 Belisarius, general for the Eastern emperor, Justinian (527–565), conquered Vandal Africa; Amalasuntha's death was the necessary excuse to invade Italy. Belisarius arrived in Sicily in 535, and by 540 he had fought his way north to Ravenna.
The Ostrogothic king Witigis (536–540) surrendered to him. The Gothic armies of the north, however, elected new kings, and Totila (541–552), the most successful of them, kept the war going throughout the peninsula until his death in battle. The Gothic wars were a disaster for Italy; almost no region was untouched by them.
Together with the subsequent wars of the Lombard settlement (568–605), they mark the end of the Roman world there. In the 550s and the early 560s, however, the Eastern (thenceforth, Byzantine) Empire succeeded in reestablishing its political order in Italy, and in 554 Justinian issued a Pragmatic Sanction setting forth its terms: Italy was made a province of the Byzantine Empire, with its capital still at Ravenna (Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, however, were to remain administratively separate), and the Ostrogothic political system was to be dissolved. Indeed, the Ostrogoths virtually vanished as a people from then on; they must have been absorbed into the Roman population or into that of the Lombards
errorblaster
In other words Rome was under the control of Justinian 554AD
Obviously it is no profitable to debate this issue any further considering that this is your post, I will submit my own posts so don't worry about further interruptions.
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:22 am Post subject: Errorblaster's 554
For you to show the prophetic relevance of AD 554 you would first need to establish that the Ostrogoths play a prominent role in John's prophecy. Same thing for Justinian, etc., and that, I'm afraid, is well beyond your capabilities. Equally unproven is the pretence of a year-day "principle" somewhere in the Bible.
As for the more obscure passages of Dan. 11, they can hardly be interpreted as buttressing the Roman interpretation, for their obscurity remains. The mention of a god that the forefathers of the evil king of the north didn't know can be interpreted as resulting from Antiochus Epiphanes' sympathies for the Roman nuances of Greek religion, favouring Jupiter over Zeus, etc. Gesenius interpreted Mauzzim referred to the idol of Jupiter Olympicus Antiochus set up in the temple, and I'm not aware of the existence of a better explanation.
You are mistaken when you affirm that "Antiochus['] military career was interrupted by those ships from Kittim". Undoubtedly, Antiochus' second invasion of Egypt was interrupted by the arrival of the Roman embassy, but that didn't bring Antiochus' reign to an end. Precisely after that his viciosness against the Jews became heightened, and still later he managed to recover Armenia and Bactria for his empire (these provinces had been lost after his father's defeat at Magnesia. His military career came to a close with his unexpected, mysterious demise, which coincided in time with the cleansing of the sanctuary on the first Hanukkah.
Indeed, maths don't fail, but the Bible connection with maths is flimsy at best. Think of the three groups of 14 generations in Matthew 1:17, or of the "three days and three nights" that our Lord was in the tomb. Obviously, the maths of the Bible aren't Pythagorean, Euclidian or Newtonian, hence the folly in your proposal that the equality 554 + 1290 = 1844 will convince anyone. Do two melons plus 3 tangerines add up to five apple pies? Hey! Maths don't fail. Congratulations, mate.
As for eternity, yes, I'm sure we'll learn a lot of things then, but that expectancy shouldn't make us feel that our brain is on leave right now.
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:52 am Post subject: Jupiter, Revelation 13, Antiochus etc.
Eduardo wrote
You are mistaken when you affirm that "Antiochus['] military career was interrupted by those ships from Kittim". Undoubtedly, Antiochus' second invasion of Egypt was interrupted by the arrival of the Roman embassy, but that didn't bring Antiochus' reign to an end. Precisely after that his viciosness against the Jews became heightened, and still later he managed to recover Armenia and Bactria for his empire (these provinces had been lost after his father's defeat at Magnesia. His military career came to a close with his unexpected, mysterious demise, which coincided in time with the cleansing of the sanctuary on the first Hanukkah.
errorblaster
Whatever way you want to see it Rome was the advancing power and Antiochus still had to back off it is precisely why he attacked the Jews because of his weakness in dealing with Rome.
Eduardo Wrote
For you to show the prophetic relevance of AD 554 you would first need to establish that the Ostrogoths play a prominent role in John's prophecy. Same thing for Justinian, etc., and that, I'm afraid, is well beyond your capabilities. Equally unproven is the pretence of a year-day "principle" somewhere in the Bible.
Encyclopedia Britanica
in 554 Justinian issued a Pragmatic Sanction setting forth its terms: Italy was made a province of the Byzantine Empire, with its capital still at Ravenna (Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, however, were to remain administratively separate), and the Ostrogothic political system was to be dissolved. Indeed, the Ostrogoths virtually vanished as a people from then on; they must have been absorbed into the Roman population or into that of the Lombards.
errorblaster
You are the one who needs to prove that Daniel doesn't culminate in Rome
Chapters 2 and 7 clearly culminate with the 4th world empire as well as Revelation 13. You cannot disprove the year day principal either. It is your opinion. I read about your ideas on the 70 weeks. Most mainline Protestants believe the 70 weeks as applying to Jesus. So obviously speaking, if the year day principle works for the 70 weeks, it can work for other areas as well. The year day principle was put there for a purpose. If it doesn't serve a purpose as you say then there is nothing of prophetic significance according to your view which to me is very unprofitable.
Regarding John and Revelation 13,
The problem is that SDAs have not followed the symbols of revelaton strictly which identify Rome as the 7th head that received a fatal wound in the West in 476AD.
Weren't there 4 world empires described as beasts? Lion 1 head, bear 1 head, 4 headed leopard, and dreadful beast 1 head? Count them, they equal 7 heads. It was the 7th head or dreadful beast which was in existence when John had the vision on the isle of Patmos. When can we say that the Roman Empire received a fatal wound? It would have to be when it fell in the west in 476AD.
Later when the fatal wound healed in western Rome 554AD, the religious power which defeated the Arians in the West the last of which were the Ostrogoths regained its control of Italy. The whole Arian verses orthodox issue was all about religion.
Italy as you know was and is the stronghold of Orthodox Catholicism. The form of government represented is revealed in Revelation 17 as a woman riding over the Roman Beast which would now mount the Roman Beast in its last 7 political revivals extending down to our time in the form of the EU.
The Roman Beast was allowed to continue for 1260 years after the healing of its fatal wound in 554AD. From Justinian to Napolean there were to be 5 major political revivals. Justinian's Imperial Restoration, Charlemange, Otto the Great, Charles V and Napolean. These would be the greatest leaders or Emperors that Europe has ever had after the healing of the fatal wound in 554AD. There was no fatal wound in 1798 as historic Adventism teaches. The context of Revelation 13 mentions that one of the heads received a fatal wound, the wound was healed and then the beast was allowed to continue 42 months. The representatives of the Beast Government (Rome) were allowed to function for 42 months 1260 years ending in the reign of Napolean in 1814.
Revelation 17:10 states
10] they are also seven kings, (five of whom have fallen), one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.
Eduardo wrote:
As for the more obscure passages of Dan. 11, they can hardly be interpreted as buttressing the Roman interpretation, for their obscurity remains. The mention of a god that the forefathers of the evil king of the north didn't know can be interpreted as resulting from Antiochus Epiphanes' sympathies for the Roman nuances of Greek religion, favouring Jupiter over Zeus, etc. Gesenius interpreted Mauzzim referred to the idol of Jupiter Olympicus Antiochus set up in the temple, and I'm not aware of the existence of a better explanation.
errorblaster
Jupiter could hardly be called foreign because Roman culture as you recall borrowed heavily from the Greeks, the whole pantheon of Roman gods has their equivalent in Greek gods. The Greeks invented Roman deities. As far as Jupiter being the god of fortresses, I don't think so. Mars was considered to be the Roman god of war which would make Mars the god of fortresses. And Gesenius was just another man's opinion.
Daniel 11 :
The verses below can never have been fulfilled by Antiochus or one of his descendents. This activity below is taking us into the feudalism of the middle ages.
38] He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.
[39] He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.
[40]
Since as you say there is no angel telling Daniel that there has been a change of power structure in verse 36 how do you account for the fact that this power continues up to the end and up to the commencement of the time of trouble? Is Antiochus still around today? It makes much more sense to take this as a dual power of Emperor and Great religious leader.
Revelation
20] And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur.
[21] And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
conclusion
Keep in mind that there is a time time and half time in Daniel 12. Both chapter 12 of Daniel and chapter 13 of Revelation are talking about the same power.
Last edited by errorblaster on Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:29 am Post subject: Errorblaster's style of exegesis
When I said you needed "to establish that the Ostrogoths play a prominent role in John's prophecy. Same thing for Justinian, etc.", I meant exegesis of the book of Revelation, not a copy and paste job from Encyclopaedia Britannica! I happen to have an MA in Ancient History, so, even though Justinian is a little out of my league, I happen to know of his exploits in Italy and elsewhere. But then again, I also know the formula of sulphuric acid. This has nothing to do with Revelation, of course. Neither do Justinian and the Ostrogoths.
I am not "the one who needs to prove that Daniel doesn't culminate in Rome". And I don't have to do it for two reasons. The first one is that the last two chapters of Daniel are an angelic detailed explanation of the future, as seen from Daniel's perspective. Since the angelic interpreter was so specific about so many details regarding the feud between the two main Hellenistic kingdoms of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, any attempt, such as yours, of injecting a foreign power into this prophecy without as much as a shadow of a hint to indicate so is eisegesis, not exegesis. Secondly, I have already refuted the fallacy of the view of Rome being a major actor anywhere in Daniel. It can be found, among other places, in http://www.truthorfables.com/Lesson%2010.pdf, Addendum A (pages 4-10). If you have a problem with that, you either refute it or your silence will give consent.
As for the year-day "principle," your claim that I can't disprove it "either" is funny. Where is that principle, sir? I'm afraid you'll have to provide the following evidence:
Some Bible passage that indicates that, in the context of prophecy, whenever a passage speaks of a future day a future year is to be interpreted instead. I'm afraid any passages dealing with the past won't come to your aid.
Some passage where a prophet like, say, Elijah, says something about a future event, like, say, a drought, where he says that it is going to last, say, for three days and a half, and then, in another reference to the same event, the prophet's dictum is clarified as lasting for, say, three years and a half.
Justify why, if it is true that in prophecy, "Apocalyptic" or not, one day stands for one year, Nebuchadnezzar's 7-time madness lasted for just 7 years and he isn't in an insane asylum these days, why the Ninevites didn't conclude from Jonah's preaching that their city would be destroyed in nearly half a century and what made Daniel think at the beginning of chapter 9 that Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy was about to be fulfilled. Etc.
Justify how the year-day "principle" can be applied to Dan. 8:14 considering that the word 'day' is nowhere to be found in the passage.
Justify how the year-day "principle" can be applied to the 70 weeks when the word 'day' doesn't appear there.
Justify why the year-day "principle" isn't used by historicists such as yourself when Daniel 11 speaks of years several times. Tell us what the criterion is for you to decide when you should play the multiplication trick and when to refrain from doing so.
You claim that "SDAs have not followed the symbols of revelaton strictly which identify Rome as the 7th head that received a fatal wound in the West in 476AD". Well, this is quite a departure from the supposedly inspired nonsense about 1798, Pius VI and a French general, but it isn't much of an improvement. You see, when John's angelic interpreter says that "[t]he seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while" (Rev. 17:9, 10), I take two things for granted:
The time setting is that of John's vision, not the fifth century of our era.
The angelic explanation is to be taken at face value. Since he didn't use the word basileia, kingdom, but rather the word basileus (plural basileis), king/s, there is no excuse for your eisegesis about Justinian, Otto, Charles V, Napoleon and you name it. You might get my attention if your list of heads was something like this: Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus (Octavian), Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, or, in other scholars' opinion, Caesar Augustus (Octavian), Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus.
You have my sympathy for your statement that Italy, or Rome, is the stronghold of Catholicism. However, so what? What part of the book of Revelation has anything to do with Roman Catholicism? For this famous harlot of chapter 17 is the city in which "was found the blood of prophets and of the saints" (Rev. 18:24). Although Rome was certainly responsible for shedding the blood of many Christian martyrs, it wasn't responsible for the shedding of the blood of any God's prophets in her streets. But we know of one city responsible for such a thing. On no less an authority than Jesus Christ himself: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barakiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (Matt. 23:29-39). Sorry, errorblaster, but I've just demonstrated that the "great whore" was the old city of Jerusalem! Imagine what the real situation of your theories is now.
I know about Mars, and coins of Antiochus have surfaced with Mars on one of their sides. Some interpreters believe, like you, that Mauzzim might refer to Mars. Just another opinion. I prefer Gesenius' explanation. Of course Gesenius was a man. So are you.
You insist that two verses in Daniel 11 weren't fulfilled by Antiochus and claim that, therefore, they take "us into the feudalism of the middle ages"! Even if it were true that they weren't fulfilled by Antiochus (which is not true), I fail to see how failed prophecy in one era can take us into the realm of Neverland! Let's see, errorblaster. The last chapters of the book of Ezekiel contain a detailed prophecy about restored Israel after the Babylonian captivity. Even the measurements of a huge temple are given. For reasons only known to God himself, it wasn't fulfilled and it will never be fulfilled. Period. There's no need to fantasise and propose that some parts of it or of any other portions of unfulfilled prophecy in the Bible will come to pass in the reign of Specious the Umpteenth of Neverland.
As for the time of the end, yes Antiochus was indeed around at the time of his end. Daniel's prediction is as follows: "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no-one will help him" (Dan. 11:40-45). The type of warfare depicted and the mention of long bygone nations indicate that Daniel's "time of the end" is in our past, not our future!
Your concluding remark that there is "a time[,] time[s] and half a time in Daniel 12" is true, but, unless you equate that with the 42 months of Rev. 13:5, I fail to see how that can be connected with chapter 13 of Revelation. In any case, the mere length of one given time period is entirely insufficient to propose the equivalence of events lasting for the time indicated. For instance, in the days of Noah it rained for forty days and forty nights; Moses stayed on the mount of Sinai for forty days and forty nights; the spies explored the land of Israel for forty days; Goliath challenged the armies of Israel for forty days; when fleeing Jezebel, Elijah travelled for forty days and forty nights; Nineveh was to be destroyed within forty days of Jonah's preaching; our Lord fasted for forty days and forty nights; Jesus appeared to his associates for forty days after his resurrection. Very well, if your principle were to be applied to all of the above, the result would be utter chaos: Noah and Moses were contemporaries, as were Joshua, David, Ahab, Jonah, Jeroboam II and Jesus Christ! Such nonsense is usually the result of letting our imagination roam freely. You should really abide by the universally accepted rules of exegesis and repudiate all Adventist-infected nonsense.
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: Daniel 11, Antiochus etc.
Eduardo
When I said you needed "to establish that the Ostrogoths play a prominent role in John's prophecy. Same thing for Justinian, etc.", I meant exegesis of the book of Revelation, not a copy and paste job from Encyclopaedia Britannica! I happen to have an MA in Ancient History, so, even though Justinian is a little out of my league, I happen to know of his exploits in Italy and elsewhere. But then again, I also know the formula of sulphuric acid. This has nothing to do with Revelation, of course. Neither do Justinian and the Ostrogoths.
errorblaster
The symbol points to Rome as in the Roman Empire, the 7th head. The only time that Rome could have fallen was in 476AD and the last power to control the City of Rome were the Ostrogoths. Any other interpretation regarding the fall of Rome falls short.
Eduardo
I am not "the one who needs to prove that Daniel doesn't culminate in Rome". And I don't have to do it for two reasons. The first one is that the last two chapters of Daniel are an angelic detailed explanation of the future, as seen from Daniel's perspective. Since the angelic interpreter was so specific about so many details regarding the feud between the two main Hellenistic kingdoms of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, any attempt, such as yours, of injecting a foreign power into this prophecy without as much as a shadow of a hint to indicate so is eisegesis, not exegesis. Secondly, I have already refuted the fallacy of the view of Rome being a major actor anywhere in Daniel. It can be found, among other places, in http://www.truthorfables.com/Lesson%2010.pdf, Addendum A (pages 4-10). If you have a problem with that, you either refute it or your silence will give consent.
errorblaster
So I guess you don't believe that chapters two and seven of Daniel deal with Rome as the fourth empire?
errorblaster
Don't be like the Farisees trying to win debates for the sake of pride. You didn't answer the questions posed regarding the matter of if there was not a transference of power in verse 36 why does this power still continue all the way up to the time of the end. Is Antiochus or are the Seleucids still around? No they aren't case closed.
Eduardo
As for the year-day "principle," your claim that I can't disprove it "either" is funny. Where is that principle, sir? I'm afraid you'll have to provide the following evidence:
errorblaster
I am afraid that you will have to do the same
When we are dealing with what is stated down below we use common sense.
Eduardo wrote:
* Some Bible passage that indicates that, in the context of prophecy, whenever a passage speaks of a future day a future year is to be interpreted instead. I'm afraid any passages dealing with the past won't come to your aid.
* Some passage where a prophet like, say, Elijah, says something about a future event, like, say, a drought, where he says that it is going to last, say, for three days and a half, and then, in another reference to the same event, the prophet's dictum is clarified as lasting for, say, three years and a half.
* Justify why, if it is true that in prophecy, "Apocalyptic" or not, one day stands for one year, Nebuchadnezzar's 7-time madness lasted for just 7 years and he isn't in an insane asylum these days, why the Ninevites didn't conclude from Jonah's preaching that their city would be destroyed in nearly half a century and what made Daniel think at the beginning of chapter 9 that Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy was about to be fulfilled. Etc.
* Justify how the year-day "principle" can be applied to Dan. 8:14 considering that the word 'day' is nowhere to be found in the passage.
Eduardo
* Justify how the year-day "principle" can be applied to the 70 weeks when the word 'day' doesn't appear there.
errorblaster
Don't matter common sense tells us that Antiochus Epiphanes cannot be the Messiah that came after Cyrus decree.
Very reputable Bible Scholars with MA and other degrees such as yours respect the year day principal of the 70 weeks of Daniel. Case in point Gleason Archer and many others.
It seems brother that you are a theological Black sheep which needs to come back to the fold.
Eduardo
* Justify why the year-day "principle" isn't used by historicists such as yourself when Daniel 11 speaks of years several times. Tell us what the criterion is for you to decide when you should play the multiplication trick and when to refrain from doing so.
errorblaster
Let me submit a better example
When God made the covenant with Abraham, he told them about the Israelites and their sojourn in Egypt, he then spoke to him about the probationary time of the Amorites of 400 years. He was specific. Do we have to use the year day principal here? Of course not. Another case in point. In revelation 12 when we are told that the woman gave birth to the man child who was snatched up to God, are we to believe that Mary was 3 1/2 literal years in the desert? There is no history of Mary the mother being in the wilderness for 3 1/2 literal years. Are we to believe that Mary was hiding in the wilderness for 1260 years? Of course not, she wouldn't live to be that old. Are we to believe that the church was only persecuted for a literal 3 1/2 years and that God had sheltered her in a literal desert for that brief period of time? I don't think so, history records a much longer period of time. So in your opinion what makes more sense? I will leave that up to you.
When using the year day principle we also have to use common sense.
Eduardo
You claim that "SDAs have not followed the symbols of revelaton strictly which identify Rome as the 7th head that received a fatal wound in the West in 476AD". Well, this is quite a departure from the supposedly inspired nonsense about 1798, Pius VI and a French general, but it isn't much of an improvement. You see, when John's angelic interpreter says that "[t]he seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while" (Rev. 17:9, 10), I take two things for granted:
error blaster
The 7 Kings that are mentioned are the last 7 political revivals of the Roman Empire after its fatal wound in the West. There were 3 Barbarian tribes that successively entered into the area of Rome. I know that you are going to say that history records about 20 but there were 3 and God knows who they were. What we do know for sure is that the Ostrogoths were the last of the three.
The Roman Beast had 10 horns, 10 forms of government coming out of it, out of these 10 horns 3 of those horns would be foreign powers causing a transition age between wound and the healing of that wound in the west.
Once these 3 Arian powers were plucked away then the church would sit over the last seven extending down to our time in the form of the EU.
Eduardo
1. The time setting is that of John's vision, not the fifth century of our era.
Errorblaster
The symbols of the heads take us to Rome this is an undeniable fact, if you count the heads Rome is number 7. The prophecy speaks about a fatal wound, the only time Rome suffered a fatal wound on account of a foreign entity controlling its territory was in 476AD. You cannot find any other time period.
Eduardo
2. The angelic explanation is to be taken at face value. Since he didn't use the word basileia, kingdom, but rather the word basileus (plural basileis), king/s, there is no excuse for your eisegesis about Justinian, Otto, Charles V, Napoleon and you name it.
You might get my attention if your list of heads was something like this: Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus (Octavian), Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, or, in other scholars' opinion, Caesar Augustus (Octavian), Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus.
errorblaster
There is an excuse for my eisegesis
Julius C and the rest of the list of emperors that you mentioned were pre-fatal wound emperors all of them prior to 476AD. The greatest leaders after the fatal wound were the 5 that I already mentioned, 1) Justinian, Charlemange, Otto the Great, Charles V, Napolean. When the 42 months came to an end with Napolean this church state combine stopped functioning because it was only allowed 42 months. The time of the 6th head takes us to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany . The church had Concordats with these dictators indicating the time of the 6th head. The Beast is the coming leader of the United Europe. We are told that he is an 8th and of the 7. This area of prophecy is still pending. My thoughts on the matter is that Europe will have a Holy Roman Emperor or a super dictator. This is just my opinion which I know that you will not accept that.
Eduardo
You have my sympathy for your statement that Italy, or Rome, is the stronghold of Catholicism. However, so what? What part of the book of Revelation has anything to do with Roman Catholicism?
For this famous harlot of chapter 17 is the city in which "was found the blood of prophets and of the saints" (Rev. 18:24). Although Rome was certainly responsible for shedding the blood of many Christian martyrs, it wasn't responsible for the shedding of the blood of any God's prophets in her streets. But we know of one city responsible for such a thing. On no less an authority than Jesus Christ himself: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barakiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (Matt. 23:29-39). Sorry, errorblaster, but I've just demonstrated that the "great whore" was the old city of Jerusalem! Imagine what the real situation of your theories is now.
Errorblaster
I believe that Jerusalem is to be the second Vatican City so that doesn't surprise me. Regarding Revelation 18 and its relationship with Catholicism, there is a very interesting detail found in verse 23
and the voice of bridegroom and bride
shall be heard in thee no more;
The only organization which deals with the sacrament of matrimony is the Roman Church. Vatican City is positioned in such a matter so that the shipmasters and all who trade on the mediterranean will see the events which are going to take place which were actually revealed to Pope Pius X.
Revelation 11:
And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them,
[8] and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.
What you are quoting up above from Revelation 18 has to do with Vatican City phase two in Jerusalem. Pope John Paul II. In his Apostolic Letter of April 30 1984 stated that Jerusalem stands as the living symbol of global unity. There is now abundant evidence which reveals this plan. Under Shimon Peres there was a plan to make the airport at Atarot a meeting ground for the worlds three great religions
Eduardo
I know about Mars, and coins of Antiochus have surfaced with Mars on one of their sides. Some interpreters believe, like you, that Mauzzim might refer to Mars. Just another opinion. I prefer Gesenius' explanation. Of course Gesenius was a man. So are you.
errorblaster
Very true
But the problem that you run into is that Antiochus doesn't take you anywhere either. Its just another neverland of no revelation whatsoever.
You insist that two verses in Daniel 11 weren't fulfilled by Antiochus and claim that, therefore, they take "us into the feudalism of the middle ages"! Even if it were true that they weren't fulfilled by Antiochus (which is not true), I fail to see how failed prophecy in one era can take us into the realm of Neverland! Let's see, errorblaster. The last chapters of the book of Ezekiel contain a detailed prophecy about restored Israel after the Babylonian captivity. Even the measurements of a huge temple are given. For reasons only known to God himself, it wasn't fulfilled and it will never be fulfilled. Period. There's no need to fantasise and propose that some parts of it or of any other portions of unfulfilled prophecy in the Bible will come to pass in the reign of Specious the Umpteenth of Neverland.
errorblaster
We know that the anti-tipical application of what is revealed in Ezekiel will find fulfillment in the New Jerusalem. Here we see a conditional prophecy which will have its ultimate fulfillment. This has a purpose but the way you handle prophecy has no purpose.
Eduardo
As for the time of the end, yes Antiochus was indeed around at the time of his end. Daniel's prediction is as follows: "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no-one will help him" (Dan. 11:40-45). The type of warfare depicted and the mention of long bygone nations indicate that Daniel's "time of the end" is in our past, not our future!
Please view the illustrations (pictures) not the theology
you will have to prove that every detail of this prophecy was fulfilled by Antiochus and this is highly doubtful. Most none SDA Bible commentaries such as the NIV don't agree with your interpretation. The NIV footnotes even state that all the details in regards to Antiochus stop at verse 36 and that they apply to the anti-christ. So this means that your point of view is not even a mainstream Christian interpretation. NIV theologians are non Adventists.
What about the time of trouble of Daniel 12?
Eduardo
Your concluding remark that there is "a time[,] time[s] and half a time in Daniel 12" is true, but, unless you equate that with the 42 months of Rev. 13:5, I fail to see how that can be connected with chapter 13 of Revelation. In any case, the mere length of one given time period is entirely insufficient to propose the equivalence of events lasting for the time indicated.
errorblaster
For me this is not a problem because verse 36 is the Roman Emperor and Rome which was a war making power the gold and precious pearls were given by the Emperor to the foreign god. When we compare this with Revelation 17's woman mounted over the Roman Beast things start to make sense.
This is where discernment comes in and the word of God has to be studied with prayer and not cold theological analysis. These two powers the King of the North which supplanted Syria in 65BC is the power which extends to the time of the end. Is the King of the North still here? Yes! The Roman Empire has never really ceased to exist. It is yet to have a brief revival which is to swallow up the whole earth. And the new King of the South is not even connected to Egypt. Iran is the new player. Watch Iran and watch the German led EU. These two are going to clash in the near future and it will be the King of the North which will come out as the winner.
Eduardo
For instance, in the days of Noah it rained for forty days and forty nights; Moses stayed on the mount of Sinai for forty days and forty nights; the spies explored the land of Israel for forty days; Goliath challenged the armies of Israel for forty days; when fleeing Jezebel, Elijah travelled for forty days and forty nights; Nineveh was to be destroyed within forty days of Jonah's preaching; our Lord fasted for forty days and forty nights; Jesus appeared to his associates for forty days after his resurrection. Very well, if your principle were to be applied to all of the above, the result would be utter chaos: Noah and Moses were contemporaries, as were Joshua, David, Ahab, Jonah, Jeroboam II and Jesus Christ! Such nonsense is usually the result of letting our imagination roam freely. You should really abide by the universally accepted rules of exegesis and repudiate all Adventist-infected nonsense.
Back to top
Concluding remark
I believe that God gives us common sense to determine what is deemed worthy of being considered a literal year as well as a prophetic year. You have well stated that if the year day principal were used with some of the examples quoted up above there would be utter confusion. Since we have this understanding then discernment accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit will take the place of frozen cold theology which leaves no room for the Holy Spirit to reveal truth.
View user's profile Send private message
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject: Errorblaster's musings
Dear Sir,
Somehow I had assumed that we were all ready to abide by the rules of a logical discourse. Once someone enters the realms of the illogic, there are no checks in place to maintain the flow of thoughts within the realms of reality. My personal impression is that you are amply trespassing the boundaries of reason, so this may well be my last attempt to dialogue with you. In any case, I will refrain from saying anything about your most notoriously flawed statements.
You deal mostly with these four points:
1. Revelation 17 and your view about the Roman Empire being only the 7th of the seven heads
Paying no attention whatsoever to my pertinent, exegetical observation that the time frame of Rev. 17 is the time of John’s vision, you insist in your non-exegetical notion that the Roman Empire is merely the 7th head of the beast. Sorry, sir, that’s a no-no. Your claim is indefensible. According to the angel, five heads (which were kings, not kingdoms) had already fallen, one was (the sixth), and the other one, the seventh, hadn’t come yet. I submit that your claim is false and doesn’t deserve any further attention. Equally, your claim that “any other interpretation regarding the fall of Rome falls short” is outrageous. I am not discussing anything about the fall of Rome. I know when Rome fell, but that has nothing to do with the wound to one of its heads. Later on, you state that “[t]he symbols of the heads take us to Rome[. T]his is an undeniable fact[. I]if you count the heads Rome is number 7.” Since your idea about the heads has already been thoroughly refuted, there’s nothing undeniable about it.
Later on, without biblical proof of any kind, you have the temerity of saying that “Julius C[aesar] and the rest of the list of emperors […] were pre-fatal wound emperors all of them prior to 476AD. The greatest leaders after the fatal wound were the 5 that I already mentioned, 1) Justinian, Charlemange [sic], Otto the Great, Charles V, Napolean [sic]”. Sir, are you fluent in English? Other than the fact they existed, do you know anything at all about Charlemagne and Napoleon, considering you don’t even know how to spell their names? These sorts of mistakes are what can lead one to the conclusion that your opinions are irrelevant.
As for the number of barbarian tribes, I happen to live in a country that was invaded by barbarian tribes, and I know something about the issue, but I fail to see what this has to do with the book of Revelation. Let me tell you something, though, you say something very funny about “foreign power causing a transition age”. Is there a non-transitory age, sir? And you insist about three Arian powers. Were these the good guys? Were the non-Arian powers better or worse than the “Arian powers”?
I know the Adventist explanation of prophecies in detail, and I don’t have a high opinion of any of it. Your links to sites promoting such pseudo-prophetic views don’t contribute to the advancement of knowledge, only of delusion.
2. Daniel 11, 12 and Antiochus:
Your observation that “common sense tells us that Antiochus Epiphanes cannot be the Messiah that came after Cyrus decree” seems to lack common sense. I’m not aware that anyone has ever said such nonsense. You say it and you refute yourself. It would appear you don’t know what you are talking about. You also ask the question “Is Antiochus or are the Seleucids still around”. I don’t understand why you ask the question, considering I had already demonstrated that Daniel’s “time of the end” doesn’t focus on our days, but rather on Antiochus’. Since that is final, your rhetorical question doesn’t deserve any further attention.
Your observation that my Antiochus-only or Antiochus-mostly stance for the last few verses of Daniel 11 is not universally held is correct. I know such things. There are people who, based on the testimony of Porphyry, affirm there was a third Egyptian campaign against Egypt. I don’t hold that view. I think that last few verses of Daniel 11 are a summary of Antiochus’ military career and, therefore, they include Antiochus’ successful first campaign against Egypt.
You ask the question “What about the time of trouble of Daniel 12?” Well, what about it?
3. Daniel 2 & 7
As for my opinion regarding chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel, you are absolutely right in your guess. As I had indicated repeatedly on this long thread, which I initiated myself, I don’t believe Rome plays a prominent role anywhere in the book of Daniel. Since you decided to post your ideas on this thread, I would expect that you would at least have the courtesy of reading what other people have posted before, just in case your notions had already been discredited. Besides, prudence would probably advise intervening only if you are prepared to contribute facts or even opinions at the same level as former contributors. It is doubtful that future generations will appreciate someone whose major contribution to a thread of thought consists of publishing trash.
4. The year-day “principle”
You’ve provided two “arguments” in favour of the year-day “principle”. The first one is that “[v]ery reputable Bible [s]cholars with MA and other degrees such as yours respect the year day principal [sic] of the 70 weeks of Daniel.” Sir, I am not interested in your opinion or anyone else’s in order to understand what the Bible teaches. History has repeatedly shown how error-prone we humans are, so I conclude that the truth of a biblical proposition cannot be determined “democratically” but by abiding by the Bible itself, studying it using objective methods, not one’s whim. I had asked for biblical proof but you content yourself saying someone thinks like you. So? And then you have the audacity of stating that I am “a theological [b]lack sheep which needs to come back to the fold”! Ha! Why should I want to go to a fold that is guarded by bad shepherds and whose members bask in manifest falsehood?
Your second argument about the year-day principle is that Mary wasn’t for 3 years and a half in the wilderness, which may be true, but your point is faulty. When you try to reason this way, you have to make sure your points will be shared by all parties involved, but this isn’t the case. In the context of Rev. 12, the woman who gives birth to the male child is not primarily Mary, but the community of believers that has its roots in Old Testament times. Since you ignore Scripture so blatantly, I needn’t devote any more time to refute your faulty reasoning. You’ve refuted yourself.
You further state that applying the “principle” in some cases would produce utter confusion. You don’t seem to have grasped my drift. I’m not saying that the “principle” should be applied only on certain occasions. My point is that is should NEVER be applied, because the “principle” is false. It doesn’t exist. The Bible doesn’t teach such a thing. Therefore, your dictum “I am afraid that you will have to do the same”, referring to my denial that there is a year-day “principle”, is odd. Since I deny the principle exists anywhere in the Bible, I don’t have to do anything at all, sir, other than denouncing its non-existence. If you believe the “principle” exists, prove it. I provided some unanswered challenges.
Your invitation for me not to be like the “Farisees [sic!] trying to win debates for the sake of pride” is frankly outrageous. As must be obvious by now, I consider that your type reasoning reveals some peculiar brain constitution, but it would never occur to me to say that your obstinate stance is the result of your pride. If so, what makes you imagine that those who reject your explanations do so because of pride?
Your statement that “discernment comes in and the word of God has to be studied with prayer and not cold theological analysis” doesn’t strike a cord of sympathy. Someone who is crazy can certainly study a lot and pray for countless hours. The “discernment” of such a person, however, is not a reliable guide to Bible truth. Your absolutely unattested claim that the king of the north and the king of the south were “supplanted” is, no doubt a sign of this “discernment” of yours. This is absolutely intolerable. How dare you add to the Word of God, sir? If the angel interpreter had wanted the readers to understand the book of Daniel as you propose, he ought to have said something along the lines of your “discernment”. Since, he didn’t, it is you who has a problem, not me.
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: My last post
Eduardo
realms of reality. My personal impression is that you are amply trespassing the boundaries of reason, so this may well be my last attempt to dialogue with you. In any case, I will refrain from saying anything about your most notoriously flawed statements.
errorblaster
I have read your arguments on other forums and you are not very friendly to others as well. Regarding reason, your theological views do not take a believer anywhere.
Eduardo
You deal mostly with these four points:
Somehow I had assumed that we were all ready to abide by the rules of a logical discourse. Once someone enters the realms of the illogic, there are no checks in place to maintain the flow of thoughts within the
1. Revelation 17 and your view about the Roman Empire being only the 7th of the seven heads
Errorblaster
Scenario pictured in Revelation 17 deals with the Holy Roman Empire, it is no longer Pagan Rome. Revelation 13 is pagan Rome prior to the fatal wound and then the description of what takes place during the 42 months of Revelation 13 is provided in Revelation 17. You will get the full picture of what I am trying to convey in my closing remarks.
Errorblaster
The seven heads deal with 5 great leaders which came after the fatal wound of 476AD. I am talking about 554AD up to 1814. This time period is not pagan Rome. Its the Holy Roman Empire according to the Bible.
The time of the 6th head was when a Concordat was signed by Mussolini and Hitler. Hitler tried to unite Europe by making Germany a warmaking power. We are now witnessing the arrival of the 7th it is the EU which soon have one political head of state known as the Beast.
Eduardo wrote:
Paying no attention whatsoever to my pertinent, exegetical observation that the time frame of Rev. 17 is the time of John’s vision, you insist in your non-exegetical notion that the Roman Empire is merely the 7th head
of the beast.
Errorblaster
According to the sequence of Beasts powers mentioned in Daniel 7 you can clearly see that the dreadful Beast of Daniel is the 4th beast which if you count the heads there are 7. The only Empire existing when John had the vision was the Roman Empire. Rome did not fall in the West in 96AD. Since you claim all this took place in the past then there must be a historical event? Where was the fatal wound that took place in 96AD as you claim?
Eduardo wrote:
Sorry, sir, that’s a no-no. Your claim is indefensible. According to the angel, five heads (which were kings, not kingdoms) had already fallen, one was (the sixth), and the other one, the seventh, hadn’t come yet
Errorblaster
Your statement up above doesn't make much sense. Whoever heard of a King without a Kingdom
Eduardo
I submit that your claim is false and doesn’t deserve any further attention. Equally, your claim that “any other interpretation regarding the fall of Rome falls short” is outrageous.
I am not discussing anything about the fall of Rome. I know when Rome fell, but that has nothing to do with the wound to one of its heads.
Erroblaster
Ask yourself? How would Rome receive a fatal wound? Would someone hit Rome over the head? Would Rome be shot by a gun? Some strange theories suggest that Revelation 13s beast is a man. The most logical answer to this problem is not to bury your head under the sand like an Ostrich, the answer is in seeking the event in history. If you cannot submit a historical fulfillment then your method of interpretation has a flaw.
Eduardo
Later on, you state that “[t]he symbols of the heads take us to Rome[. T]his is an undeniable fact[. I]if you count the heads Rome is number 7.” Since your idea about the heads has already been thoroughly refuted, there’s nothing undeniable about it.
Errorblaster
You haven't refuted anything, the Beast has 7 heads and 10 horns. Rome was the 7th head. This Beast has 10 horns. In other words, what the Bible is saying is that the Roman Beast would have 10 major successive political revivals extending down to the end of time. The Arian conflict inflicted the fatal wound in the West. The wound healed in 554AD and then the church would ride over the next 7 political revivals which are shown as 7 Kings.
The problem with historic Adventistist theology is that there is not one shred of evidence indicating that there have been 10 contemporaneous kingdoms extending from the fall of the Roman Empire down to our time. There have been 9 governments up to the time of World War II. The EU is now the final revival of this power the 10th and final government which is shown in chapter 2 of Daniel.
Three of these governments were foreign barbarians. Once the church managed to regain control of western Europe she would sit on the 7 last revivals which would extend down to our time in the form of the European Union which would be the 10th horn to come up out of the Roman Empire or the 7th and last head which the church is to ride. The time of the 9th horn was Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Errorblaster
I guess that my error has many people who back it up because many non SDA theologians see the rising Beast power in the form of the EU. I noticed that you didn't say anything about the links which I submitted along with the pictures. This totally destroys your interpretation of these events being in the past because now the Beast is coming to life.
errorblaster
Yes! you are so correct in your interpretations that you fail to see that the European Union is now using the very symbolism of Revelation regarding the Woman mounting the Beast. According to your theology it all took place in the past. You are going to have a very rude awakening.
Eduardo
Later on, without biblical proof of any kind, you have the temerity of saying that “Julius C[aesar] and the rest of the list of emperors […] were pre-fatal wound emperors all of them prior to 476AD. The greatest leaders after the fatal wound were the 5 that I already mentioned, 1) Justinian, Charlemange [sic], Otto the Great, Charles V, Napolean [sic]”. Sir, are you fluent in English? Other than the fact they existed, do you know anything at all about Charlemagne and Napoleon, considering you don’t even know how to spell their names? These sorts of mistakes are what can lead one to the conclusion that your opinions are irrelevant.
errorblaster
Grammer is not one of my strong points, I am a musician. I heard you come from Spain? You like Flamenco? I love Paco de Lucias Flamenco guitar playing. Getting back to my grammer you know very well what I mean.
Eduardo
As for the number of barbarian tribes, I happen to live in a country that was invaded by barbarian tribes, and I know something about the issue, but I fail to see what this has to do with the book of Revelation. Let me tell you something, though, you say something very funny about “foreign power causing a transition age”. Is there a non-transitory age, sir? And you insist about three Arian powers. Were these the good guys? Were the non-Arian powers better or worse than the “Arian powers”?
Errorblaster
They were both in error, the Orthodox view was error and the Arian view was total error. This was the undeniable struggle which caused a religious schism in the Western Roman Empire.
Eduardo
I know the Adventist explanation of prophecies in detail, and I don’t have a high opinion of any of it. Your links to sites promoting such pseudo-prophetic views don’t contribute to the advancement of knowledge, only of delusion.
Errorblaster
But the pictures presented on those sites that you call pseudo-prophetic don't lie. The coins and the stamps are real.
Eduardo
2. Daniel 11, 12 and Antiochus:
Your observation that “common sense tells us that Antiochus Epiphanes cannot be the Messiah that came after Cyrus decree” seems to lack common sense. I’m not aware that anyone has ever said such nonsense. You say it and you refute yourself. It would appear you don’t know what you are talking about. You also ask the question
Errorblaster
Correct me if I am wrong, you believe that Cyrus decree is the right one? 538/537BC and the 69th week would be around 55/54BC? Jesus didn't appear during that time. Antiochus did appear around 165 BC didn't he? Correct me if I am wrong, isn't it your opinion that Antiochus fulfilled a portion of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy since as you stated the decree was issued in 538/537BC? I know that Antiochus is not the messiah, I said that as a joke. The point is that how can you take the 70 weeks prophecy and say that Antiochus had a part in it?
Eduardo
“Is Antiochus or are the Seleucids still around”. I don’t understand why you ask the question, considering I had already demonstrated that Daniel’s “time of the end” doesn’t focus on our days, but rather on Antiochus’. Since that is final, your rhetorical question doesn’t deserve any further attention.
Errorblaster
Okay! I will accept this as your opinion
Errorblaster
The problem with that is that chapter 12 time of trouble wasn't fulfilled after Antiochus supposedly fulfilled the final verses of chapter 11. What about the resurrection of chapter 12?
Eduardo
Your observation that my Antiochus-only or Antiochus-mostly stance for the last few verses of Daniel 11 is not universally held is correct. I know such things. There are people who, based on the testimony of Porphyry, affirm there was a third Egyptian campaign against Egypt. I don’t hold that view. I think that last few verses of Daniel 11 are a summary of Antiochus’ military career and, therefore, they include Antiochus’ successful first campaign against Egypt.
Errorblaster
If thats what you believe fine but as you stated, you are aware that it is not a universally held view
Eduardo
3. Daniel 2 & 7
As for my opinion regarding chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel, you are absolutely right in your guess. As I had indicated repeatedly on this long thread, which I initiated myself, I don’t believe Rome plays a prominent role anywhere in the book of Daniel. Since you decided to post your ideas on this thread, I would expect that you would at least have the courtesy of reading what other people have posted before, just in case your notions had already been discredited. Besides, prudence would probably advise intervening only if you are prepared to contribute facts or even opinions at the same level as former contributors.
Eduardo wrote
It is doubtful that future generations will appreciate someone whose major contribution to a thread of thought consists of publishing trash.
Errorblaster
Most if not all the SDAs that have posted on your thread believe the 1260 years came first and then the fatal wound, this is not what revelation 13 is saying. They cannot accuse me of being wrong because this historic SDA theology which probably came from Uriah Smith doesn't match with what the Bible teaches. First comes the fatal wound, then it heals and afterwards come the 42 months, not the 42 months and then the fatal wound.
Errorblaster
Keep in mind that many of the posts that I have seen do not give your ideas to much consideration. There were other post of individuals that believe the historic SDA application of Daniel 2 and 7 culminating in Rome. You are the one that believes differently. The other guys hold to the historic view. Keep in mind that I was going to pull out and then you answered my post, I assumed that you wanted to continue since everyone else left you alone.
Eduardo
4. The year-day “principle”
You’ve provided two “arguments” in favour of the year-day “principle”. The first one is that “[v]ery reputable Bible [s]cholars with MA and other degrees such as yours respect the year day principal [sic] of the 70 weeks of Daniel.” Sir, I am not interested in your opinion or anyone else’s in order to understand what the Bible teaches. History has repeatedly shown how error-prone we humans are, so I conclude that the truth of a biblical proposition cannot be determined “democratically” but by abiding by the Bible itself, studying it using objective methods, not one’s whim. I had asked for biblical proof but you content yourself saying someone thinks like you. So? And then you have the audacity of stating that I am “a theological [b]lack sheep which needs to come back to the fold”! Ha! Why should I want to go to a fold that is guarded by bad shepherds and whose members bask in manifest falsehood?
Errorblaster
Again I say even though some of the other guys have errors some have good things to offer. But I don't see much hope for a Christian witness in the preterist view.
Eduardo
Your second argument about the year-day principle is that Mary wasn’t for 3 years and a half in the wilderness, which may be true, but your point is faulty. When you try to reason this way, you have to make sure your points will be shared by all parties involved, but this isn’t the case. In the context of Rev. 12, the woman who gives birth to the male child is not primarily Mary, but the community of believers that has its roots in Old Testament times. Since you ignore Scripture so blatantly, I needn’t devote any more time to refute your faulty reasoning. You’ve refuted yourself.
Errorblaster
I was testing you to see what you would say I am glad that you stated the matter of the community of believers that has its roots in the Old Testament times. This takes us to the dream that Joseph had
Genesis 37:
9] Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me."
Eduardo
You further state that applying the “principle” in some cases would produce utter confusion. You don’t seem to have grasped my drift. I’m not saying that the “principle” should be applied only on certain occasions. My point is that is should NEVER be applied, because the “principle” is false. It doesn’t exist. The Bible doesn’t teach such a thing. Therefore, your dictum “I am afraid that you will have to do the same”, referring to my denial that there is a year-day “principle”, is odd. Since I deny the principle exists anywhere in the Bible, I don’t have to do anything at all, sir, other than denouncing its non-existence. If you believe the “principle” exists, prove it. I provided some unanswered challenges.
Errorblaster
Since this symbolism represents the Congregation of the Old Testament then after Christ was snatched up to the Father we entered New Testament times. Are you now going to say that the Old Testament people of God were persecuted for 3 1/2 years or is this now a symbol of the true church=disciples of Jesus? Was there a 3 1/2 year persecution of New Testament believers? I would say that persecution was much longer. It extended into the middle ages. I guess that cosnsidering what you stated above, this whole scenario doesn't really exist.
Errorblaster
Well! without having to get into insults I guess it is rather pointless.
Eduardo
Your invitation for me not to be like the “Farisees [sic!] trying to win debates for the sake of pride” is frankly outrageous. As must be obvious by now, I consider that your type reasoning reveals some peculiar brain constitution, but it would never occur to me to say that your obstinate stance is the result of your pride. If so, what makes you imagine that those who reject your explanations do so because of pride?
Errorblaster
I have shown other people your ideas and they agree with me. I guess we are all crazy except for yourself. I have read some of your other debates as well.
Eduardo
Your statement that “discernment comes in and the word of God has to be studied with prayer and not cold theological analysis” doesn’t strike a cord of sympathy. Someone who is crazy can certainly study a lot and pray for countless hours. The “discernment” of such a person, however, is not a reliable guide to Bible truth.
Errorblaster
I believe the wise man Solomon, somewhere he spoke about certain individuals that study and study and never arrive at understanding.
Eduardo
Your absolutely unattested claim that the king of the north and the king of the south were “supplanted” is, no doubt a sign of this “discernment” of yours. This is absolutely intolerable. How dare you add to the Word of God, sir? If the angel interpreter had wanted the readers to understand the book of Daniel as you propose, he ought to have said something along the lines of your “discernment”. Since, he didn’t, it is you who has a problem, not me.
Errorblaster
They were supplanted by Rome Eduardo. Rome was the 4th World Empire
The kingdom was extinguished by Rome in 72. The son of the last king, Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus, was Roman consul for A.D. 100.
Authorities. - E. R. Bevan, House of Seleucus (1902), and the earlier literature of the subject there cited. In addition may be mentioned Dssa. Adalgisa Corvatta, Divisione amministrativa dell' impero dei Seleucidi (1901); Haussoullier, Histoire de Mild et du Didymeion (1902); B. Niese, Gesch. d. griech. u. maked. Staaten, Teil 3 (1903); J. Beloch. Griechische Geschichte, vol. iii.; G. Macdonald, "Early Seleucid Portraits," Journ. of Hell. Stud. xxiii. (1903), p. 92 f.; A. J. B. Wace, "Hellenistic Royal Portraits," Journ. of Hell. Stud. xxv. (1905), p. 86 f. For the chronology of the end of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabaean revolt, see a paper by J. Wellhausen, "fiber den geschichtlichen Wert des 2ten Makkabaerbuchs," Nachrichten d. k. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch. zu Göttingen. Philol.-hist. Klasse, 1905, Heft 2; and MACCABEES, History. (E. R. B.)
Cleopatra (Greek: Κλεοπάτρα Φιλοπάτωρ; January 69 BC–November 30, 30 BC) was a Hellenistic co-ruler of Egypt with her father (Ptolemy XII Auletes), her brothers/husbands Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV, consummated a liaison with Gaius Julius Caesar that solidified her grip on the throne, and, after Caesar's assassination, aligned with Mark Antony, with whom she produced twins. In all, Cleopatra had four children, one by Caesar (Caesarion) and three by Antony (Cleopatra Selene, Alexander Helios, Ptolemy Philadelphus). Her unions with her brothers produced no children: it is possible that they were never consummated; in any case, they were not close. Her reign marks the final end of the Hellenistic and the beginning of the Roman era in the eastern Mediterranean
Back to top
closing comments
I see you didn't say much about the Vatican phase two in Jerusalem and Revelation 18's sacrament of Matrimony.
End of 42 months or 1260 years 1814
--------------------------------------------------------------
World War II
9) 6th head ridden by woman= Mussolini Hitler Axis
10) 7th head ridden by woman=European Union and the Beast who is an 8th King and of the 7
The proof is in the pictures that I submitted in the links showing the woman mounted over the beast. The 10th and final revival of the Beast is coming.
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: Errorblaster's musings
Dear Sir,
When I initiated this thread it was my intention that serious arguments would be considered. By serious I don’t really mean things I would necessarily agree with. For instance, I don’t agree with much of Seventh-day Adventism’s eschatology, but for someone to defend it using something approaching an objective methodology of Bible study, or some type of Bible hermeneutic would be entirely acceptable. For instance, I don’t believe Mr Eugene Schubert's hermeneutics is correct, but at least it has some biblical backing and it is a respectable degree of internal coherence. Even the people who hurled insults at me for weeks or months did so in their zeal to defend their flawed, but relatively coherent view of prophecy and religious paradigm. At least they all tried to respond with some intelligence when they felt their arguments foundered. If there was something they couldn’t answer, they would “attack” me on some other front.
The case is entirely other, however, when an individual appears who, just through unknown methods or procedures, derives some novel understanding of the Bible that does not subject itself to any known hermeneutic. Your belief about Imperial Rome being the 7th head is based, as far as I can see, on sheer intuition and, maybe, quotations taken from encyclopaedias and interpreted according to your own ideology. Since you persist in that, there’s nothing further I can say. I can’t follow you into the realm of your imagination. You don’t give me anything biblically to pursue your lead into the wonderful world of whimsical interpretations, for your imagination is no better, and no worse, than those of others who would have the earth beast of Rev. 13 representing Uruguay, Tasmania or Saudi Arabia. When such wild speculation is entertained without blushing, there’s nothing further a person wishing to remain objective can add. Don’t be surprised that I didn’t say much about the Vatican phase two in Jerusalem and Revelation 18’s sacrament of Matrimony”. As I had announced, I refrained “from saying anything about your most notoriously flawed statements”, and these happen to be among the most unhinged of all.
I will add something, though. And it is this. Please, sir, don’t believe your grasp of other people’s understanding is deep enough to derive any conclusion whatsoever about their finer or even larger points. For instance, your grasp of my ideas is so poor that you had the temerity of presenting this question: “Where was the fatal wound that took place in 96AD as you claim?” Sir, although I respect the opinion of many eminent scholars who believe Revelation was written around AD 96, I don’t share that belief myself, as is apparent from several previous interventions of mine on this thread. Of course, to get that, it is necessary to read with some understanding; besides, some serious background knowledge (history of civilisation; opinions of the various schools of interpretation, etc.) is really a must if one wishes to contribute something that won’t be a cause of scorn or ridicule. I happen to believe, mostly because of internal evidence, that the book of Revelation was written or reflects upon visions received by John of Patmos before the fall of Jerusalem. Since the time frame is, therefore, earlier than AD 70, the deadly wound is, quite likely, Nero’s demise by the sword, but there would be an equally terrible Nero redivivus in Vespasian’s second son to rule, Domitian. It’s as simple as that.
Another instance where you totally misrepresent my thought is in connection with Cyrus’ decree. Yes, Cyrus’ decree was indeed much more relevant than Artaxerxes’ decree of Ezra 7, but what set the 70 weeks in motion was the word of God himself, not any man’s (Dan. 9:23). But it so happens that, even if a chronological explanation of the 70 weeks can be given (not as sequential though) that reaches Antiochus, I don’t believe the 70 weeks were ever intended as an accurate representation of elapsed time. Since I don’t believe the 70 weeks are chronological in the usual term of the word, I find it odd that someone should ask me to explain how their chronology works! If you are interested in the math done by proponents of an arithmetical application to the days of Antiochus, read the relevant books and learn something. It might do you some good. As for Antiochus’ fulfilling some parts of the 70 weeks, I wouldn’t say such a thing. Antiochus was the villain of the last few years of the 70 weeks. The prophecy was fulfilled when Antiochus’ evil deeds came to an end.
Likewise, you presume too much about my understanding about the 42 months of persecution. Your compound question “Are you now going to say that the Old Testament people of God were persecuted for 3 ½ years or is this now a symbol of the true church=disciples of Jesus? Was there a 3 ½ year persecution of New Testament believers?” takes too much for granted. It just so happens that both Jerusalem’s siege (cf. Rev. 11:2f) and Nero’s persecution of Christians lasted for about that.
So, seeing that you’ve shown yourself so pervasively an incompetent exponent of my theology, I demand that in the future you do not presume to have the capacity of explaining it to others, as it is obvious that you are totally incapable to understand it. Your naive question “What about the resurrection of chapter 12?” reveals your inability to grasp the finer nuances of theology, that discipline you say is so “cold” and unproductive. Well, what about it? I give you something, though: I admit that injecting your gut instincts into the world of eisegesis must make a sizzling contrast by way of comparison!
My relative silence about the links your provided was due to the fact that they don’t deserve much comment. I’ve heard for years about all this nonsense of the European Union, where I live, being a restoration of the Roman Empire, so I don’t even bother anymore to even read the type of brainless literature that promotes such views. When you know that one particular type of literature is trash (for instance, pornographic literature), you needn’t devote any time at all to see if someone will someday produce something worth reading within that specialty (for instance, a pornographic “masterpiece”).
You astound me, sir, even in your confession that “[g]rammer [sic!] is not one of” your “strong points”. Even if you are a musician, and even if English isn’t your mother tongue (it isn’t mine either), you should know that grammar is spelled with two A’s. Besides, spelling is not a part of grammar, so writing about “Napolean”, as you do, is perhaps an indication that you haven’t read much about Napoleon, and, therefore, you can’t possibly have an idea what you are speaking about. Your being a musician is no excuse for such ignorance.
You ask me for confirmation if I “come” from Spain. Well, I am Spanish and I live in Spain, in the European Union, which I believe I know better than you, including our coins and all. As for music, no, I’m afraid I don’t like Flamenco music. I like Bach, Vivaldi, Albinoni, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, and I love Italian opera, particularly Bellini, Donizetti, Rossini, Verdi and Puccini. It is OK with me if you like Flamenco or Jazz or even rap music, because such things are very much a matter of culture or even opinion.
What is inexcusable is that, when asked for Bible evidence in favour of your views, you can content yourself with such an empty sentence as: “The proof is in the pictures that I submitted in the links showing the woman mounted over the beast.” Some proof!
Last edited by Eduardo Martínez Rancaño on Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: The proof is in the pudding
You cannot deny that the European Union is becoming a Super State and the pictures on those coins are very real.
Take care Mr Rancano with all your supposedly great intellectuality we will shortly see which of us has constructed his house on sand or rock. Jesus was humble and his followers were unlearned men. I would rather be on the side of an unschooled individual who places more reliance on the Holy Spirit.
Regarding Flamenco, Paco is better than most Classical guitarists, his technique is unsurpassed. I forgot to tell you that I also teach Classical guitar.
Regarding demanding you cannot demand nothing. So take care and have a good life.
This is the end of the matter the 10th and final government of Rome is about to arise. Preterism is just an erroneous theology leading the blind.
Last edited by errorblaster on Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:30 am Post subject:
Dear Sir,
How is it that I "cannot deny" your whim and "cannot demand" anything? Sir, you are not my judge. I can deny anything that is brainless, like your theories, and I can certainly demand that someone like you, lacking the mental power to understand what preterism is all about, stop pretending to be a qualified interpreter of my thought. You are obviously unauthorised for such a role, and I happen to be the most qualified person to say so.
It is the end of the matter between us. The rest of your notions is sheer nonsense, even worse than 'orthodox' Adventism, so, please, stop being a nuisance. Keep your stupidity for yourself, or share it in forums for crackpot enthusiasts of makeshift, half-baked notions of doom. Good-bye.
Last edited by Eduardo Martínez Rancaño on Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:36 am Post subject: You were defeated
God defeated your preterist views
44] And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;
[45] just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."
Would Jesus insult someone who wasn't in agreement with him? Just something to think about. Your words reveal your anger and anger is an indicator that pride has been hurt. When true conversion takes place anger is supposed to be set aside. Theology without conversion is useless.
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: Jesus and "insults"
Dear Sir,
As usual, you are confused. Yes, Jesus very often said things about the Pharisees and others that are very similar to what you call "insults". He didn't "insult" them because they weren't in agreement with him, but because of their evil ways.
Likewise, I haven't insulted you. Why are you offended by hearing the reality about the non-existence of a biblical foundation for your theories? It was you, sir, who refused to respond in a rational way to my denunciation that once your theories are shown to be unbiblical, you persist in them all the same. Your presumption of being capable to discern the intention of others is an all-time high of ignorance. You, sir, lack the ability to grasp what preterism is all about, and, quite certainly, have no intelligence of what Dan. 2:44f teaches.
I won't be writing to you again. Feel free to keep on ranting ad infinitum. I hereby kindly request that the administrator of this forum move your whole intervention and my responses to you to the bottomless pit, which is where it all deserves to be. Thank you.
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
