1844 is Obsolete 19th Century Historicism

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:04 am Post subject: Winning and losing

I'm afraid, Eugene, that it's not up to you to decide who wins or who loses. Readers might have their say, as I still haven't seen a "winning" argument from you. And by "winning" I don't mean if you agree with a renowned commentary like that of Keil and Delitzsch, but whether it squares with the full evidence of the book of Daniel itself. I've read Keil and I like it, but then again, I also like many parts of Mrs. White's Desire of Ages. My liking Keil's commentary does not imply that I agree with everything he says. More often than not, I dislike liberal commentaries of the Bible. In any case, the vast majority of conservative scholars today don't agree with important portions of Keil and Delitzsch's respectable views, and you probably know this. Unless, of course, you deem liberal anyone who doesn't agree entirely with you. In that case, I confess, I must be a liberal, because I absolutely reject any validity whatsoever to William Miller's "prophetic calculations". By the way, I think Keil and Delitzsch are in my company on this. Why, oh why, I wonder!

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:10 pm Post subject:

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Eduardo,
I promised you a reply and I am now back. Here goes.
There would be little wrong with the preterist concepts were it not for one thing.

The Jewish leaders cried, "We have no king but Caesar." "Let his blood be on us and on our children." Which goes to show that you really need to be careful what you ask for because you might get it.

In the rejection of Christ, they brought the plan of redemption to a grinding halt. Satan appeared to have won because everything was predicated on the people of God accepting the Messiah.

In rejecting Him, they rejected everything. Thence forth, the escatalogical
prophecies standing alone, were useless. For this reason God called upon the apostle Jesus loved, to write the Revelation.

The revelation is not so much a prophecy as a "Revelation" of how those former things would now come to pass. This is the start point which the other writers on this subject have yet to come to grips with. Ignoring the start point leaves people wondering why this or that person is saying this or that in their threads which is quite unwise.

When you harped away at me to express everything in their "Context" I was puzzled until I came to realise that you did not understand where the context lay. Had the start point been explained, this and other oddities would have been avoided.

The context of Dan. 8:14 is found in Rev. 14:6-7 specifically, "the hour of His judgment is come."

I am well aware that you have a problem with belief, but one does well to reflect on the fact that, salvation is predicated on belief, while damnation is predicated on unbelief. Those who believe are aware that the judgment is well advanced and we are in no position to second guess it now.

Kindly note that although you claim the high ground of the Bereans, that is not your position at all. Of them it is declared, They received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so. The result of this was that "Many believed."

Rather than follow their lead, you first rejected God the Holy Spirit. Then doubted what you were told - which follows rather naturally - and searched the scriptures with your unaided intellect, to find out if it was wrong, and wound up doubting.

This is quite understandable but, is quite the reverse of the Bereans attitude toward holy things.

The purpose of the gospel is not so much to get a man into heaven in the bye and bye, so much as to get heaven into a man's heart here and now. The purpose of the 1844 message is to bring men to repentance, and harden the hearts of unbelievers.

Sincerely,
R.R. Pollock
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:44 am Post subject: Relevant evidence, please

Dear Ross,

Your words are kind and their implications far-reaching. Some of them rest on unproven premises and, therefore, some of the things you take for granted are far from true.

Let us see. First of all, you, among others, are really trying to beat a dead horse by attacking my preterism. I’m not a full preterist. I’m a conditional preterist. I don’t think Jesus returned in AD 70. By saying I’m a conditional preterist what I mean is that many (not all) prophecies that futurists and historicists have claimed that lie ahead in the future or have been happening until recently are about events that happened or could have happened shortly after the close of the canon.

For most practical purposes, the basic difference between this conditional preterism and historicism is that conditional preterism does not seek some wild fulfilment of certain symbols in the relatively recent past, but rather in the more distant one. For example, one of historicism’s identifications is that the beast of Revelation 11 is revolutionary France. Such a view, however, is entirely whimsical. From the Bible alone you can never reach such a conclusion. Obviously, the beast of Rev.11 is an enemy of God’s children, but trying to pinpoint a specific culprit in the last few centuries involves convoluted reasoning that has very little to do at all with exegesis. Since there are viable identifications for that power, both literal and symbolic, at the time Revelation was written, or shortly afterward, those who content themselves with the analysis of the text itself (this is what exegesis is all about) see no reason why one should try to pursue an elusive “lead” into wild identifications in the relatively recent past.

Naturally, when no known fulfilment of a prophecy exists (for example, there are several significant ones of Jeremiah that never came true, and I fully believe that all of his prophecies were God-given), one has to accept the possibility of conditionality and/or suggest that some of such prophecies may find some kind of fulfilment in the future. Of course, the same principle can be applied to certain particularly difficult passages in Daniel and Revelation. In any case, the most important biblical prophecy, that of the glorious Second Coming of our Lord, unfortunately, hasn’t been fulfilled yet.

All right, so let’s return to the beast of Revelation 11. You probably believe it’s France. I don’t. Does that mean I’ve “rejected God the Holy Spirit,” as you put it? How dare you? The Holy Spirit has never impressed upon me the conviction that the beast that comes out of the abyss is France. So I can’t see how I could possibly reject God’s Spirit by not believing such a thing. Of course, the Holy Spirit may still show new light to me, like to anyone else. But the basic method that I should follow to accept Bible truth has already been iron-cast set before my feet forever: I must follow the Berean principle. I first have to see in the Bible if what someone is telling me is so or not. When I see biblical evidence that the beast that comes out of the abyss is France, I’ll say it’s true. Until then, I’ll have to say it’s a wild theory.

Your interpretation of the Berean principle is odd. For you, there are extra-biblical spiritual truths that a Berean Christian must accept if he or she is to remain in “the truth.” For me, such a theory lacks biblical support and, therefore, must be rejected. Or else, how could I possibly shield my soul against all kinds of heresy proposed by people with wild or heretical imagination? Am I to accept anything a self-appointed prophet like Joseph Smith tells me is a direct revelation from God? Before doing so, I guess a wise step would be to check what Scripture has to say about such “revelations,” and then, just in case, check again. Do you think my attitude would be wrong? I don’t think you do, unless, of course, we substitute the name Ellen G. White for Joseph Smith in the previous reasoning. But, you see, that’s non-negotiable for me. After the close of the canon, all later purported revelation has to be judged first by the Bible, and not vice-versa.

I have nothing particularly interesting to say about your second and third paragraphs. On the fourth let me add a passing comment. The view that the author of the book of Revelation, John according to the book itself, is the same person known in the fourth gospel as the ‘beloved disciple’ cannot be upheld with the Bible itself. The expression ‘the apostle Jesus loved’ that you use is unbiblical. The fourth gospel, however, does speak of a family, and a certain person in particular, that Jesus loved, but he wasn’t an apostle (the word apostle is not even used in the fourth gospel). That person was Lazarus of Bethany. If you can prove otherwise, I’ll be waiting for your biblical evidence, in a true Berean attitude.

Now you claim that God inspired John the Seer (there’s no biblical evidence that he was John the apostle, either) to write the book of Revelation. I’m certain John was inspired by God to write the book of Revelation for the consolation of the early and all later Christians, until the end of time. The most important of the prophecies in that wonderful book hasn’t come true yet, but I’m convinced that it will, together with several others.

Now, you seem to intimate that the book of Revelation is the key to unlock the book of Daniel, or vice-versa. This claim of yours is an old theory of our church. The theory goes that certain parts of the book of Daniel were sealed until “the last days.” In SDA parlance that means, precisely, until AD 1798 or whereabouts, when, supposedly, there would be a renewed interest in the study of prophecies. The book of Daniel, would only be liable to be understood after that time, it is claimed, by reading the book of Revelation. But surely, this absolutely contradicts the book of Revelation itself. Contrary to the book of Daniel, which contained portions “sealed” until the last days of its forecast, the book of Revelation was to remain unsealed so that the church would know that things that were going to occur soon. So, the existence of the book of Revelation didn’t unlock any mysteries of Daniel any more than it unlocked any passages from Jeremiah or Obadiah. The book of Daniel, which, like all conservative scholars, I believe was written in the 6th century BC or whereabouts, was clearly understood by the Jews and the Christians of the first century alike. When its sealed parts met their fulfilment in the terrible persecution of the 2nd century BC and in the times immediately preceding the messianic time, everybody was greatly admired at the accuracy of the prophet’s prediction.

You claim that the context of Dan.8:14 is Rev.14:6,7. The intimation is that if I don’t accept such a claim I’m rejecting the Holy Spirit. Since you are not the Holy Spirit, I know I’m not rejecting Him by passing up your asseveration. No, Ross, the context of Dan.8:14 is not Rev.14:6,7. The context of Dan.8:14 is made up by the verses that surround it. Period. In a previous post, I delineated in the clearest terms the inconsistencies of the SDA claims about Dan.8:14. Can you prove, from the context, that any of my observations was impertinent? Do you still maintain that it is a simple matter to prove, from the Bible and “the Jewish historical record,” the validity of the date October 22, 1844, as the beginning of the “investigative judgment.” If you do, show us all how easy it is. If not, deal with it.

Claiming that the other is wrong because he or she has rejected the Holy Spirit is a most unchristian kind of argument. I see that you don’t agree with me, but it would never occur to me to say such a thing about you. If I think you are sincerely mistaken, as is the case, the best I can do is to try and show you the inconsistency of your position, and the present weakness of your biblical knowledge. In that endeavour of mine, I may be successful, in which case I’ve won you over, or perhaps not. If so, there might be multiple reasons for my failure.

One of them might be that I was mistaken and you were intelligent enough to see through the mist of my ignorance. If so, I will be forever in your debt if you can bring me to the right path. But, in doing so, I must necessarily request that you use contextually relevant biblical evidence alone, as I’ll reject anything else. I’m sure you’ll understand that I cannot possibly follow a different course of action. I’ll have to give an account of my actions and my very thoughts before God’s throne one day, and since I’ve read several admonitions to take to heart God’s Holy Word alone, I can never take a mere man’s word as a substitute.

Another possible cause for my failure in having my position accepted by you might lie in the inadequacy of my language to convey truths that you would have accepted otherwise, had I not been so clumsy. If so, I sincerely apologize. English is not my mother tongue, and perhaps I haven’t expressed myself in the best possible way, despite my efforts. In this case, the best I can do, I guess, is to say I’m sorry for my clumsy language and extend an offer for clarification of anything that is obscure or inadequate in my exposition.

A third possible cause for your inability to see light in my position might lie in your stubbornness, possibly unconscious, to accept the obvious if it is in conflict with erroneous views you’ve upheld dearly, perhaps for a long time. If so, whether you admit it or not, perhaps it would be a good idea to really reexamine the foundation of your views. Use the Berean principle. It will always guide you to the truth, unless you use it like those who lived in Thessalonika long ago.

Stubbornness is an ugly thing. Another word for it is the biblical expression, which you use, of “hardening hearts.” But, remember, you should really demand from yourself that before you have the right to say that those who reject 1844 are “unbelievers” they should first be presented incontrovertible evidence of it. I dare to say that nobody, not even you, has done so in my case, so I’ll keep waiting.

All the best.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:19 am Post subject:

I am resigned to the thought that if anyone wants to find "problems' with truth they will certainly find it. Satan was even able to find a "problem" with God Himself.

I sat thinking the other day (after I wearily "laid down arms" in contending with Eduardo's preterism) how come Paul had no book of Revelation to refer to in A.D. 51 when he wrote the counsels in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 and especially 2 Thess. 2:1-4, but was able to be applying the prophecies of Daniel 11: 36-39 to the "man of sin" TO COME? And then it hit me like a lightening bolt that it is because he fully understood Jesus' words in Matt. 24:15. THE ANTI-CHRIST POWER, WHO WOULD STAND UP AGAINST THE "PRINCE OF PRINCES" AND WHO WOULD BRING THE TRUE "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION" WAS NOT ANTIOCHUS, BUT ROME (PAGAN AND PAPAL). Why? Because it was when the Jews rejected Jesus he was able to say, "your house is left unto you desolate"!! It was then that their "transgressions had come to a FULL", and thus the way was open for the full release of the power which would trample the sanctuary, and the truth under foot, and would destroy the people of God. This started when the now defunct earthly sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans, and thereafter the spiritual earthly sanctuary, the Church, invaded by the "mystery of iniquity", and the "man of sin" "sitting in the temple of God", trying to be God; while obscuring the truth about the Heavenly sanctuary.

Paul had no other prophecy to refer to but Daniel's in Daniel 7 and 11:36-39. EVEN IF JESUS INTENDED TO COME AT THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM ANTIOCHUS WAS STILL TO EARLY TO BRING THIS "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. Antiochus was too early to fulfil this prophecy made clear by Jesus!! I stand by the words of Jesus. There is safety there; not by the pompous words of "learned men". The question is, will we all listen to the words of Jesus and Paul, or the words of intellectual and preteristic theologians who feel Rome only began to appear in prophecy, as the "man of sin", when the Revelation was written, but long after Jesus and Paul referred to this system by referring to Daniel's prophecies? Certainly not!!

The Revelation was not written until A.D. 96 (or thereabout) and thus the prophecies of the "abomination of desolation", and the blasphemous "man of sin" WAS ALREADY IN HOLY WRIT. John was just given more fine details about how the Romans would be fulfilling the "fourth beast" and "little horn" prophecies of Daniel as the composite beast (Rev. 13) and later the "woman who rides the beast" (Rev. 17), the same "fourth beast of Daniel 7. The truth is there for all who wish to see it. But of course, THE BLINDEST PERSON IS HE WHO WILL NOT SEE!!
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

gillespie9669

Funny how over time our very own words condemn us , and betray our faulty theology. I will demonstrate this by using Eduardo's own words to show that he is a false teacher, inconsistent in his pronouncements, and is no authority on the Scriptures or exegesis.

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 62

The prevailing spirit of our time is that of infidelity and apostasy—a spirit of pretended illumination because of a knowledge of the truth, but in reality of the blindest presumption. There is a spirit of opposition to the plain word of God and to the testimony of His Spirit. There is a spirit of idolatrous exaltation of mere human reason above the revealed wisdom of God.

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject: Laying down of arms?

Mr. Gillespie,

I haven't entered any contradictions whatsoever. To Eugene I answered, many months ago, that "in a way" Daniel is Christless, like the rest of the Old Testament. I don't back down from that statement. Because, even then, I expressed my conviction that Daniel was Christocentric, although not in the naive way that some people think.

As for the falsity of my views, that statement of yours can only be sustained by relevant proof from the Bible, something that none of you, and particularly you, Mr. Gillespie, have provided. So, by being entirely incapable, despite your sweeping insults and character assassination, of showing any inconsistent analysis on my part of the book of Daniel you are not proving yourself a false teacher. Only an incompetent one.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:21 am Post subject: I KNOW FULLY AGREE WITH EDUARDO!!

Dear Eduardo,
I do admit that you are indeed right. I am “incapable”, as is everyone one else on this forum (according to you) to show you the error of your views. But how can we when you can’t see past yourself, and the pompous expressing of such views (views, which are, at best, secondary and just the ‘tailored’ regurgitation of the semi-preteristic views of others). You claim time and time again that none seem to have a “winning” argument against your theology. Who is the best judge of that? You? Yeah, right. Like you will ever get down off your high horse.

All the users of this forum have to do is read again my response posts to you so far, and those of Eugene, and it will be clearly seen who is it that cannot even see the plain and obvious about, e.g. the “fourth beast” of Daniel 7, and the “iron monarchy” (legs of iron) of Daniel 2 being ROME (pagan then papal), or that Antiochus IV (one man) could never be an entire empire described in the K.J.V. (with Strong’s numbers) as:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:28 am Post subject: Joy in hell? At what exactly?

I don't think the devil necessarily rejoices when two Christians have different views on a doctrinal issue. For example, in our church there are people who believe that our planet is some 6,000 years old, whereas others think it may be millions of years old. I wouldn't say that all discussion on this issue should be abandoned. Why should it? Both groups should present all the relevant Bible evidence and reach whatever conclusion best fits all available evidence.

The devil will probably rejoice, however, when those Christians, or at least one of them, crosses boundaries that Christ would have never crossed. It is a very bad habit of some individuals to attribute evil intentions to those who do not agree with our every opinion. Jesus never did that, not even in the case of the Pharisees! Reasons could exist to be more severe, of course, particularly when the bahaviour of a person could be a cause for scandal.

Intellectual discussions should rest on objective evidence (I know nothing about non-intellectual discussions). Two positions have been presented (actually, there are more than two, but let us try to simplify the argument). Up to this moment, objectively, one of the arguments has tried to establish historicist positions based on the supposed equivalence of the Roman Empire (with a papal appendix, if you will) and the terrible beast of Daniel 7 and the iron legs of Daniel 2. I wasn't ignorant of that view. How could I possibly be when I myself upheld it for nearly twenty years? The reason why I gave it up is evidence from within the book of Daniel itself (particularly chapter 11), not because I read any books that showed me otherwise. By the way, I had already read those books, both conservative and liberal, years before I reached the conclusion that Rome hardly shows up in the book of Daniel (it does show up, however, in Revelation), so they did not directly influence my conclusions. Besides, before reaching the personally-analysed conclusion that Rome doesn't show up in Daniel 7, I had already reached the conclusion, just from the Hebrew itself, that Daniel 9:25ff is not messianic in the sense proposed by Tertulian and that Daniel 8:14 has nothing to do with 1844.

Naturally, I am not infallible. I could be mistaken, I admit that. Curiously enough, others won't admit it, but I do admit it, with no reservations. Since I want to follow God's Word wherever it will take me, I am willing to receive instruction. Something like a Bible study. However, since the subject is certainly intricate, posting long considerations involving sweeping philosophical views of history would only help to confuse issues. Why don't we go in small steps instead? Once one of such steps is clarified to everybody's satisfaction, perhaps we could move ahead another step. It seems to me that this would be a perfectly agreeable procedure.

If so, if I am to go back to standard Adventist positions, I would like to see the weaknesses of the conclusions I reached 15 years ago (without reading Desmond Ford or anyone else). The first simultaneous three conclusions I reached 15 years ago were:

1) The 70-week prophecy in Hebrew predicts the coming of an anointed individual after the first seven weeks, and the elimination of, I assume, another anointed individual after 62 further weeks, not after 62 weeks and a half. Please, show me from the Hebrew text of the 70 weeks that this is not so. Since this is quite objective (it only requires some knowledge of biblical Hebrew) and does not need a subjective appraisal about the relevance of the Roman Empire in certain prophetic passages, showing my error should be straightforward, if I am really mistaken. Please, oh please, provide that evidence. I'll study it prayerfully and will forever thank the kind soul who will show this important evidence to me. Just remember, do it with the Bible alone. Do it with the Hebrew of Daniel 9 alone (I'll accept a transliteration of the Hebrew). I'll also accept relevant quotations from accredited Hebrew grammars. If any of you thinks I'm being picky in my demand or you think that I should content myself with the KJV or some other translation, please indicate the reasons why the Hebrew of Daniel 9 should be disregarded in favour of some other version of Daniel's original words.

2) The year 457 BC is not related to the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem, as specified in Daniel 9. This one does involve a little bit of historical knowledge, but it shouldn't be very difficult. Please, provide historical evidence that in the year 457 BC, perhaps in the autumn (?), a decree was issued that granted permission to rebuild Jerusalem. I'm afraid I'll have to ask for some kind of proof, preferably astronomical or epigraphical, that the decree was indeed issued in that very year (for example, if the decree was issued in the previous year, that would never do). Besides, I will also need a copy of the decree; it must show in explicit terms that it is an authorisation to rebuild the ruined city of Jerusalem. Please, oh please, provide this decree dated in 457 BC. This way, you will show that you are workers of the Word who have nothing to be ashamed of and are capable of instructing in the sure prophetic word one who errs unwittingly. If, for any reason, the decree cannot be provided or the date cannot be ascertained, please indicate why I shouldn't be asking for this simple thing.

3) Daniel 8:14 is the answer to a question. The question asks specifically for how long the evil deeds of the Little Horn will proceed. I interpret that the answer is a specific answer to that specific question, not an answer to an entirely different question. Because of that, I understand that the beginning of the 2,300 evenings and mornings takes place when the Little Horn is in existence, not centuries before its appearance. Please, provide clear contextual evidence that the 2,300 evenings and mornings began centuries before the Little Horn came into existence. Nothing but contextual evidence will do, I'm afraid. Also, provide the Bible evidence that, in prophecy, apocalyptic or otherwise, one evening and one morning equal one day, and a Bible parallel of the usage of a figure of a figure (something like "in prophecy, one evening and one morning is one prophetic day, and one prophetic day is one year"). Please, provide Bible evidence of this interesting kind of equation.

That should suffice as a first step in our quest for Berean truth. I'm not asking for too much, am I? Just three tiny little pieces of evidence. Please, do not obscure the issue with collateral subjects like how wonderful historicism is, or how evil preterist considerations are. We can discuss that later on, if you will. But, for now, let's content ourselves with this. Please, oh please, pretty please, do provide the evidence I'm requesting. I'll be more than happy to recant all my errors and adhere unconditionally to the relevant Bible evidence you provide. If you do, you will have saved one soul, but if you don't, what will I think? Imagine all the misconceptions that might creep onto my murky mind! I might even think that you don't have the slightest clue on how to answer me. Please, don't ever let that happen. Such a thing would only confirm me in my wrong path. You must avoid that at all costs, so, please, once again, do provide the evidence I'm requesting in utter sincerity.

If, after this most eager request, my plea is ignored, or if someone tries to darken the issue answering to that which is not requested, I'll come to the conclusion that my arguments are, indeed, unanswerable and that the whole edifice of 1844 (including the SDA sanctuary doctrine and the "investigative judgment") is indeed heinous heresy without a shred of foundation in God's Word, and, therefore, deserving utmost contempt.

Now, answer once and for all, will you? Anyone? I thought so.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:22 am Post subject:

Eduardo,

1. I don't believe that there's any linguistic controversy about Daniel 9:24. Do you really believe that it points to the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes? "To finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy" is strikingly apocalyptic. If a glorious gospel age arrived in 165BC, don't you think Jesus would have said something about it?

2. Stop perpetuating illusion and obfuscation. There was no decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

3. Daniel 8:13-14 requires an understanding of the context but since you believe that Daniel 8:22 and Daniel 7:7 refer to the same power, then it makes sense that you can justify just about anything. Consequently, there's no point in debating concealed revelation with you. (You have difficulty seeing simple things).

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:47 pm Post subject: Answer to Eugene

Eugene,

1. Considering the point we have all reached, what I or you believe regarding "linguistic controversies" about 9:24 is irrelevant. I know you don't believe yourself to be infallible, and neither do I, so we might both be mistaken. All I ask is that someone give me relevant evidence, irrespective of specific personal identifications, that the original Hebrew text of Dan.9 does not predict the coming of an anointed individual after the first seven weeks, and that the text does not predict the coming of presumably another anointed individual after another 62 weeks, but rather after 62 weeks and a half. When that evidence is provided, my soul will receive a positive influence toward good prophetic hermeneutics.

2. I don't want to perpetuate illusion or obfuscation, but see to it that both are ended. When I was a teenager the SDA church instructors told me that the Bible teaches in Daniel 9 that the beginning of the 70 weeks was marked by a royal decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. As, apparently, this is vital for my salvation, I need conclusive proof that such a decree was indeed issued in 457 BC, and not at any other date. To make sure that I'm not being led up the garden path, I'll also want to see a copy of such a decree, preferably in the Bible itself.

3. Daniel 8:14, like any other biblical passage, does indeed require an understanding of context. I think you are 100% right. There's no doubt that we can all improve our methods of research and reasoning. So I am most willing to be instructed about this fine art of contextual interpretation. Naturally, before going to remote contexts, it ought to be recognized as self-evident that the immediate context is where most contextual information should be sought. So, without going to Daniel 7:7 or any other more remote passages (like in the book of Revelation or elsewhere in the NT), I wish to receive specific instruction that in the immediate context of Dan.8:14 it can be shown that the 2,300 evenings and mornings began centuries before the Little Horn came into existence. As said before, I also need some kind of Bible evidence (like a Bible text) that, in prophecy, an evening plus one morning equal one prophetic day, which, in turn, is to be interpreted as one year.

The reason for these questions, as stated, is very simple. They are the first step in turning me from a wrong style of exegesis to rock-solid historicist hermeneutics. But all in due course. Before we reach the stage of discussing the respective strengths and weaknesses of partial preterism, full preterism, historicism and futurism, I need conclusive evidence for the three simple questions I'm asking.

Please, understand that if my requirement is not met, I will feel no inclination whatsoever to pay the slightest attention to any other considerations, character assassination diatribes, or anything else that you may deem adequate. All that might be well and good in the future, but first answer my questions, please. Instruct me in the rich treasure chest of historicism. I'll be most entertained.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:35 pm Post subject:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:57 pm Post subject:

Eugene,

As perhaps you remember, this thread started somewhere else, at a place called something like "High ranking revelation". It surely takes some nerve suggesting that I should post my questions elsewhere when it was precisely you who decided that this thread should be in the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet Convention Center. Please, feel free to move this thread again, if you consider it convenient, but I won't post anywhere else. I like the company I am encountering here with so many false prophets. I hope heaven doesn't forbid them from illustrating for us all the world-famous strengths of historicism. Heaven won't forbid, but, of course, you might. Why not let others show me my errors, if there are any, in a most Christian manner?

Not doing so might cause some intelligent reader to ponder the soundness of certain towering assertions that are made by some of the people who have been posting here so far. Who knows, some people might even begin analysing the basis for their own beliefs! Of course, there are people in this world who are immune to such signs of weakness, but there might be others who are noble like those of Berea.