1844 is Obsolete 19th Century Historicism

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

Dear Eduardo,
Thank you for your reply. I have manged to print it out O.K., but now I have to shut down my system because of some sudden faults with my monitor. Hopefully I will be back on line in the near future.
Sincerely,
Ross.
_________________
R.R. Pollock

gillespie9669 · Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:40 am Post subject:

Dear Ross,
I noted with interest Eduardo’s response to your latest post on the prophetic truth as it concerns Rome in Dan. 8. I must say that I do agree with him though that the potency of our SDA position about Rome in Daniel 8 cannot lie in the matching of feminine or masculine forms of words in Hebrew, since he is indeed right that there is sometimes no REAL fixed or ‘foolproof’ rule to be followed, when there is confusion of gender. In the case of the ambiguity in expression, “out of one of THEM” it appears to me that it can be equally argued that the “little horn” could have either or BOTH come out of one of the “winds” or one of the four “horns” of the he-goat’s head. Why?

Because Rome did indeed appear to arise out of Greece’s domain (from the he-goat’s head) when it defeated Macedonia; ONE OF THE FOUR HORNS IN ONE OF THE DIRECTION’S THE FOUR HORNS HAD SPREAD. It really doesn’t matter if it grew out of Greece (which in vision it so appeared). The non-Roman, and anti-Roman Germanic barbarian tribes or “horns” (Dan. 7) grew out of the body of the Roman “fourth beast”, and also England (non-Latinic Anglo-Saxons) grew to later world power out of the body of the Roman “fourth beast”. Hence there is precedence for this reality in the prophecies.

Once the ‘foolproof’ rule is followed that A “HORN” is never one man, but a kingdom, or phase/stage of a larger kingdom then any defense of Antiochus being a full "horn" is null and void. The Bible’s general principle on that matter is unambiguous, and rock solid. Antiochus cannot be one full horn, since even the “first horn” of the he-goat was just the first "kingdom" or leading stage of Greece’s world dominion, and which just happened to be realized under Alexander. However, the horn to which Antiochus belonged was just ONE OF THE “FOUR HORNS”, AND HE WAS JUST EIGHTH IN A LINE OF OVER 25 RULERS INSIDE THAT ONE HORN. HE WAS NOT ANOTHER HORN OR “FIFTH” HORN, IN THE SAME WAY THE OTHER THREE HORN’S HAD THEIR OWN LINE OF RULERS WITHIN EACH HORN.
Eduardo spoke of Antiochus fulfilling “precisely” everything in Daniel 8, when he earlier had to admit that Antiochus was just “close” (not exact) in fulfilling the 2300 eveningsmornings (days) in the preteristic interpretation. "Close", "precise", or far off? Which is it? I know the answer.
However, if the above is ever kept in view then we have a clear course to follow. God bless.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:56 pm Post subject:

If Rome came out of Alexander’s empire because it conquered Macedonia, then perhaps the USA came out of Japan because of the atom bomb! If so, perhaps that absurd theory that the beast that comes out of the earth must be the USA because it came into existence in a scarcely populated continent should be finally recognized as wrong!

As for prophetic "precedents" and "foolproof" crackpot theories like "a horn is never a man, but a kingdom," I’ll abide by the angelic explanation given to Daniel: "The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king" (Dan.8:21). So much for Newtonian exegesis. As for the validity of the theory that Antiochus was the representative of one of the four horns who took over Alexander’s empire, and not a fifth horn, that objection stands or falls together with the idea that the four horns that sprouted out of the initial horn are dynastic monarchies as such, and not specific rulers who took control of different portions of Alexander's realm after his death. This latter presupposition is not better than the idea that the whole of the neobabylonian empire was predicted as the golden head of Dan. 2. We moderns, with the benefit of hindsight, are easily inclined to interpret the head as a kingdom, despite the specific words of the prophet: 'You [i.e., Nebuchadnezzar] are that head of gold' (Dan.2:38). Besides, in Dan.7 all the beasts survive until the eschaton, something which historically has not happened, irrespective of the identities of the beasts. This agrees perfectly with the close of the inspired explanation of chapter 2: "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure for ever". "These kings" have nothing to do whatever with the barbarian European rulers of the early Middle Ages, because the purported collapse of the Roman Empire is not presented at all in Dan.2. The equivalence of the ten toes of the statue with a supposed division of the fourth beast's domains [in parallel perhaps with the ten horns of the beast in chapter 7] is something foreign to God's word. The text of the vision doesn't say anything about the ten toes at all, and the inspired explanation of the vision doesn't give a hint that there would be any kings after the iron phase of the statue. Therefore, if we follow Daniel's text faithfully, 'in the days of these kings" means 'in the days of the kings" mentioned in the vision, i.e., the ones represented by the gold, the silver, the bronze and the iron and that's about it. Too bad you don't like it, but that's what God's word says. This is confirmed by the fact that the rock that strikes the statue's feet does not simply break the clay to pieces; it rather "broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces" (Dan.2:45). And this is no interpretation of mine, but of Daniel's. Notice 2:35, "Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing-floor in the summer." I'll leave it up to you, gentlemen, to explain why it hasn't happen exactly that way, should you feel inclined to do so.

I shouldn’t need to say anything about prophetic "accuracy" when confronting people who read their Bibles. I said before that I’m perfectly content with the view that Antiochus’s onslaught on the temple lasted for approximately the 1150 days predicted in Dan.8:14. You see, I see no evidence whatever in the Bible that prophecies are precise predictions of future history. All honest Bible students know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC and the city was rebuilt by 516, 70 years as Jeremiah had predicted. However, Nebuchadnezzar’s first attack on Jerusalem happened in 605 BC, whereas the return of the first Jews took place in 536, under Cyrus, almost 70 years again. And yet, from 586 to 536 there are only 50 years! So-called Jehovah's Witnesses make a fuss about this discrepancy. Was Jeremiah mistaken? Hardly. Was his prophecy fulfilled mathematically? No. Who on earth said it should have? Nobody, as far as I know. And yet, Jeremiah's prediction about the captivity is true. Even some prophecies of his that never came true were true, as a divinely inspired warning. I don't know any prophecies that are liable to an arithmetic verification. Most assuredly, the 1,260, 1,290 and 1,335 days are no exception.

As for Antiochus’s three-year oppression of Israel, it fits very well indeed the 1150 days of Dan.8:14. Of course, those who are utterly unable to prove that anything happened at all, in heaven or elsewhere, on 22 October, 1844 will believe themselves in a position of authority to dogmatise on Antiochus’s slight mathematical disagreement with a supposedly entirely accurate prediction, but I won’t be fooled by such arrogance. You can’t prove objectively either the beginning or the end of your scheme of the 2300 evenings and mornings, so your whole edifice is nothing but smog. In the case of Antiochus, we know when his pigs were first sacrificed on the altar, and we know when the temple was cleansed. You know what? It was very close to 1150 days (2300 evening and morning sacrifices), so it's no wonder that by the days of the apostles all Jews knew how amazingly and precisely Daniel's predictions had come true. And you know what? A festival was instituted to commemorate the cleansing of the temple. It’s called Hanukkah, and our Lord celebrated it with thousands of other Jews. This festival, mind you, had nothing to do whatsoever with the Day of Atonement; it took place at the beginning of winter. It marked the reinauguration of the temple services and it is a precise match of what Daniel predicted in Dan.8:14 and its context. That context speaks of the onslaught of the Little Horn against the sanctuary, whose services are interrupted (cf. chapter 11). Bringing Yom Kippur into this context is nonsensical. If the religious services of the temple are interrupted, what needs to be done is to set them in motion again, not holding a Yom Kippur festival to ritually cleanse the temple from ordinary offences of God's people's sins. In Dan.8:14 the temple is purified from the evil deeds of the Little Horn, not from the sins of God's people or from the application of sacrificial blood. The only way you could maintain your theology would be to affirm that the Little Horn is Christ and God's people, but that would be nearly as heretical as the view you uphold now, with no basis whatever in the Bible. It has its bases somewhere else, like Mrs. White's infamous Great Controversy and similar literature. For that she'll have to give an account one day, and so would I if I defended views I know full well are contrary to God's word.

As for what you do with this crystal clear evidence, it's entirely up to your conscience.

Once again, if I'm mistaken, I'm ready to recant my present stand. But for me to do so, it'll be necessary that someone show me that the very pertinent questions I've been asking can be answered successfully from the "orthodox" position using the Bible, and the Bible alone. Go ahead. Give it a try.

Cheers.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:35 pm Post subject:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:10 pm Post subject: My sincere apology

I apologise for my usage of the expressions about which Mr. Gillespie complains. I shouldn't have used them, as they don't strenthen my case and are obviously irritating to others. However, more often than not, I have been personally accused of all types of crimes unbecoming a Christian for no other reason than my desire to abide by the dictates of the Bible alone. Such an attitude is a far cry from what some call "honest thoughts." An erroneous thought ceases to be honest when, after being confronted by overwhelming evidence, one persists in error. I am saddened by the fact that none of my correspondents has addressed my questions and, instead of recognizing their poignancy, content themselves with attacking me. What's the use of such behaviour? In any case, I have no reason to offend you in any way, so, please, accept my sincere apology.

All the best.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:37 am Post subject:

Eduardo,
Apology accepted. No hard feelings. If you/we would ALWAYS dialogue in the right spirit (humbly, respectfully, and WITH less dramatics accompanying your words) then who knows? Also I have addressed (indirectly) your opposition levelled at "1844" in another thread (a work ever in progress; being edited and refined ever so often). Go there and take a second and a third look (especially at the arguments presented after the introductions and overview points). Anyway, that is another matter, and is entirely up to you. Just one qiuck response here about the basics in Daniel.

"BEASTS", "KINGS", AND "HORNS" IN DANIEL'S PROPHECIES

A horn represents not merely a king, but a kingdom or smaller kingdom within a larger empire. It is claimed that the “little horn” of Daniel 8 was not a new and distinct kingdom but only one single person, the king Antiochus IV. Although 8:23 identifies the little horn as a “king,” there are compelling reasons for recognizing it as a kingdom (ruled over by a line of several monarchs).

The four preceding horns on the he-goat were said to be kingdoms (8:22) which had a line of leaders; so we would expect them to be succeeded by another kingdom with its own line of leaders. The two horns on the Persian ram represented the “kings of Media and Persia” (8:20); that is, the dynastic houses that ruled those nations—not merely two single literal kings. The four "beasts" are ALSO referred to as “four kings” (7:17); yet they represented vast kingdoms/sprawling empires and not individual monarchs (7:23). In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar was told he was “the head of gold”; yet the "head" evidently represented the entire Neo-Babylonian Empire which continued for decades after his death under other Babylonian rulers. Why? Because he was specifically told that he would be succeeded by another kingdom (2:38-39); not in the sense of another literal king or monarch within Babylon itself, BUT BY ANOTHER DISTINCT EMPIRE. That is unbeatable logic!! And to prove me wrong you need to show me otherwise in the Bible.

The only place where an entire “horn” is traditionally identified, even in Adventism, as a single person or literal king (not symbolic king) is the “notable horn” of the Grecian he-goat (8:21) being Alexander the Great. HOWEVER THIS WRITER CONTENDS THAT EVEN ADVENTISM SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO ADVANCE IN TRUTH AS MORE LIGHT IS DICOVERED; IT CAN ONLY BE THE BETTER FOR IT. HERE NOW ARE SOME NEW, OR REVOLUTIONARY, AND, WHAT I HOPE, HOLY SPIRIT- FILLED THOUGHTS ON THIS ISSUE!!

*This writer now proposes that THIS VIEW NEEDS REVISION AND REFINEMENT (not an overturning), because the general rule that a horn is a kingdom need not be broken, or compromised, as it concerns Alexander the Great. Why? If the he-goat in Daniel 8 represented the entire course of the Macedonian-Greek world domination, THEN THE TIMING OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE “HORNS” MUST REPRESENT THE SUCCESSIVE PHASES, ALONG WITH THE DIVISIONS OF THAT EMPIRE'S ACTIVITY. THUS THE FIRST "NOTABLE HORN", BEING IT’S “FIRST KING" SIMPLY SHOULD MEAN THE FIRST UNITED PHASE OF THAT KINGDOM, WHICH JUST HAPPENED TO BE REALIZED UNDER ONE LITERAL LEADER, ALEXANDER! THIS FIRST PHASE COULD HAVE HAD SEVERAL SUCCESSIVE LEADERS TOO. THE EXCEPTION CANNOT BECOME THE RULE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE "FOUR HORNS" REPLACING THE FIRST PHASE CAME UP TOGETHER IN ANOTHER PHASE (A DIVIDED PHASE OF THE HE-GOAT' EMPIRE), BUT HAD A LINE OF LEADERS WITHIN EACH HORN (THE HORNS TAKING THE NAMES OF THEIR FIRST LEADERS, eg. Seleucid dynasty) . Antiochus was within one of these horns (the Seleucid horn) with its own line of leaders.

Remember, Nebuchadnezzar was “the head of gold” inDaniel 2, but he was just representative of the entire kingdom/empire itself! Alexander was therefore just representative of the first phase of the he-goat’s power. As the Strong’s lexicon clearly shows concerning the words, “first king” (for the “notable horn”), the word “first” (Hebrew, rishon) means ‘first in rank’, but it also means ‘first in time’!! And thus if the word “king” means kingdom/dynastic house, then the he-goat’s first “horn”, or Greece’s “first king” simply means the first phase of its world dominion, and also the most notable phase (highest ranking or most effective phase) of it’s history. IF THIS POSITION IS TAKEN THEN ALL DIFFICULTIES VANISH, AND NO PRECEDENCE IS SET FOR THE OPPOSITION TO ASSUME THAT ANTIOCHUS, ONE PERSON, COULD ALSO BE AN ENTIRE HORN OR THE ENTIRE SELEUCID HORN; WHEN IN FACT HE WAS JUST PART OF ONE HORN (THE SELEUCID HORN)!!! He was just the eight leader among over 25 leaders in the Seleucid horn, and was certainly not "stouter" than all his fellows (the other horns); no matter how "villianous" he might have been.

Thus in the closing moments of the domination of the "four horns" ("in the latter time [ending stage, towards the end] of THEIR [not 'his', but 'their'] kingdom), out of one of the directions (“four winds”), AND/OR OUT OF ONE OF THE HORNS (THE HORN IN THE MACEDONIA AREA) on the he-goat's head, where its four divided kingdoms (horns) had spread themselves, came a new, and distinct kingdom, Rome. Why was it not another Greek kingdom? Because after the four divided kingdoms of Greece, "TOWARDS THE END THEIR KINGDOM" the he-goat HAD NO OTHER PHASE OF POWER, and because Rome rose to power (after this second and final phase of Grecian world domination) by descending on the Greeks from the Macedonian direction of the divided he-goat kingdom, that is, from the direction of Italy. Rome thus appeared to the prophet Daniel to be coming out of the he-goat as a horn, BECAUSE IT ABSORBED GREECE’S TERRITORIES, AS IT MOVED FROM THE NORTH WEST (ITALY), AND WAXED "EXCEEDINGLY GREAT" TOWARDS THE SOUTH, THE EAST, AND EVEN TOWARDS THE LAND OF GOD’S PEOPLE (“THE PLEASANT LAND”), CONQUERING AND DESTROYING EVERYTHING IN IT’S PATH!! IT ALSO IMBIBED THE HELLENISTIC GREEK CULTURE TO A LARGE DEGREE.

Antiochus doesn't fit...

Antiochus as a single man resembles this horn (probably as a foreshadowing type), but is not this "little horn" simply because he cannot be. He was just part of one of "four horns", he did not appear towards the end of "their kingdom", but before even the middle of the Seleucid line of kings, he could not be "exceedingly great" in relation to the "ram" kingdom of Medo-Persia (described as just "great" for the precise reason of ALSO "pushing"/conquering in several directions), and in relation to the "he-goat" kingdom of the Greeks (described as "very great" for defeating that "ram" kingdom). The "little horn" did not REMAIN "little" either, but grew in [b]stature all the way up to even heaven, while conquering in several directions successfully. The name "little" was only applicable at first.

Antiochus was far from being this COMPARATIVELY "illustrious" or "exceedingly great" in conquering in several directions (as the "ram" kingdom did), DESPITE VILLIANOUS!! The prophecy is precise about the "illustrious" of the "little horn" in addition to being "decptive". Antiochus was defeated by the very Romans who became naturally the "fourth beast" of Daniel 7, and was eventually chased out of Palestine by the Israelites he tried to harrass and overwhelm. Hardly the image of a power "exeedingly great"; defeated by one of the smallest and weakest military nations around through a band of guerillas (the Maccabees). If he was to be that "little horn" he must have been all the above ("exceedingly great", very "illustrious", undefeated by weaker nations, etc), plus he had to destroy the "temple", and the nation of Israel itself. He tried, but failed miserably, despite disrupting their temple services for a time. Even the "abomination of desolation" he is supposed to have visisted upon the nation of Israel, and the temple, Jesus applied it to the Romans (Matt. 24:15). This more than anything else pulverises the Antiochus theories. All this declares that Antiochus was just a faint shadow of the true "little horn" which had its political foundations already in Jesus' time:- [/b]this power was to ride the back of ROME!!!!
Anyone can disagree if they want, but this argument does have merit, has Biblical support, and is compelling too EVEN MORE THAN THE ALTERNATIVE POSITION!!

In closing let me point out that despite the kingdoms/empires were sucessive in Daniel 2 (patterning Daniel 7) there is no difficulty in recognizing that God'skingdom would SYMBOLICALLY destroy them all together (simultaneously), since they passed on their power to each other. This is the proper explanation Adventism should adopt. The composite beast of the Roman empire in Revelation illustrates this quite well. The Roman empire, the last of the four "king/empires" in metallic symbols, when finally destroyed would have had all the features of the kingdoms/empires before (despite they no longer exist). Thus to God, in symbolic language, it would be all these powers being destroyed together, as it were. "The kingdomS of this world... [would have then become]... the kingdom of God, and of His Christ" Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
The Abert Barne's Commentary has an interesting spin on the matter, which is also worth consideration, but without ignoring the above stated about the context of the simultaneous destruction of the four kingdoms in Daniel 2.

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:54 am Post subject:

Derrick,

I usually follow your thread on 1844. As I’ve said before, you follow the traditional explanations very closely indeed, so you don’t address the real difficulties. I don’t think you’ve refuted any of the so-called "traditional" objections, and, quite certainly, you’ve failed to answer mine. I’ve also noticed that, so-far, you’ve refrained from saying anything about the Karaite calendar. Since you are an educated person with access to the internet, I’m sure you’ll be aware of objective evidence from Karaite communities across the world (mostly from Russia and the Near East) in the sense that Yom Kippur in 1844 took place in September, not October. Naturally, you could say that, somehow, those sources were misinformed and that only Samuel S. Snow and his associates (Hiram Edson, O.R.L. Crozier and the like) knew the right date, absolutely out of the blue. However, before you do that, perhaps you might want to consider something even more objective than the testimony of the Karaites themselves. I’m speaking of astronomical evidence.

Let me elaborate for a moment. Tishri, when Yom Kippur took place, was the seventh month of the year. The first month, Nisan, began in the first evening after the time of the appearance of the first crescent of the moon coinciding exactly with the spring equinox or the one taking place immediately after it. Now, in the year 1844, spring began on 20 March, at 13:54, Jerusalem time (you can check the accuracy of these figures using an astronomical program like SkyMap). The astronomical new moon, an invisible phenomenon by its very nature (unless there is a sun eclipse), had taken place the day before at 00:17 Universal Time. In Jerusalem, on 20 March 1844, the sun set at 17:51 (Jerusalem time), but weather and other physical conditions like eyesight acuteness might have prevented observers from seeing the moon. However, there’s no doubt that it would have been observed on the following day. Even if it had been clouded, anyone would have known that, at the very latest, 1 Nisan was 21 March, 1844 (because there are no lunar months of 31 days). As far as I know, there’s no historical reference of Nisan beginning one full month after the onset of spring. The problem for defenders of "orthodoxy" is now the following: Tishri began just 6 lunar months after 1 Nisan. Fatally, this will take us to 14 September. Therefore, Yom Kippur, coming 9 days after 1 Tishri, was 23 September, which coincides exactly with Karaite testimony (and rabbinical testimony as well; there wasn’t a calendar discrepancy between the two groups in those days anymore). In any case, this crystal-clear evidence, absolutely devastating for the standard position, is, in my mind, of a very secondary nature, as Yom Kippur has nothing to do with Dan.8:14 at all, as shown in one of those objections of mine that no-one has answered yet.

As for your elaboration on kings and kingdoms in Daniel, you’re using standard historicist literature that builds a certain interpretation, part of which I share, upon the Word of God, but that structure demands that we ignore certain aspects of Daniel’s words and substitute them for human theories that go well beyond the inspired interpretation in the book itself. There is absolutely no need to water down the angelic statement that "the large horn between his [the shaggy goat’s] eyes is the first king" (Dan.8:21), taking into account that, immediately before, the angel says that "[t]he shaggy goat is the king of Greece." I admit that this must be equivalent to "the shaggy goat is the kingdom of Greece," but, if so, you cannot possibly defend the view that the second part of that verse means "the large horn between his eyes is the first kingdom"! You can’t have it both ways!

Since I know in detail the SDA exposition of prophecy, I had the hunch that someone would respond just as you have, and that’s why, consciously, I refrained from using the full biblical evidence against it the last time and left a few things unsaid. Consider, for example, some additional evidence in Daniel 7. Notice, first, that what concerns Daniel in particular in that vision is the evil deeds of the Little Horn (7:8, 11, 19-26). Notice, however, that the Little Horn is not a more-or-less distant heir of the fourth beast, but a part of it, since it is that fourth beast that gets slain as a result of God’s judgment of the Horn (7:11). Furthermore, the other three beasts are explicitly said to have survived their demise from power (7:12). The fact that the fourth beast succumbs not before the Little Horn, but together with him, is ample proof that the other 10 horns of that beast are not successors of the beast in any way, but rather its constituent parts. And it is curious indeed that Antiochus happened to be the eleventh along the Seleucid line, and that he got rid of three others on his way to the throne. The fourth beast as a whole seems to be identified with the Little Horn probably because all the previous kings of the Seleucid kingdom pale down comparatively as far as Israel is concerned. Undoubtedly, Antiochus III was a much more illustrious monarch, but he didn’t endeavour to destroy Israel’s religion such as Antiochus IV did. This more than justifies Daniel’s concern and predictions. And come to grips with the fact that Daniel 11 depicts for the last specified "king of the north," an individual who can’t have been anyone but Antiochus Epiphanes, exactly the same career as he does in chapters 8 and 7 for the Little Horn. This means that, no matter how much you study Daniel 2, 7, 8 or 9, in whatever language (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or Spanish), the fact will remain: Daniel’s portrayal of the enemy power is internally coherent throughout the book, so the more obscure passages can and must be interpreted in the light of the clearer ones. The conclusion is inescapable: Daniel does not portray an imperial march from Nebuchadnezzar to Nero or anything like that. There’s no need in Daniel for a shift in the prophetic geographical focus from Israel to Europe. The focus, as shown in Daniel 8 and 11, is Israel ("the glorious land"), not Germany, Italy, Spain or Britain.

In any case, it seems to me that we’ve been discussing about Antiochus long enough. How about addressing my questions and striving for unity in our church, but unity around God’s Sacred and True Word, not around 19th-century myths?

gillespie9669 · Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:38 pm Post subject:

Eduardo,
In this I can be brief.

1. While you might have my attention about Antiochus in Daniel 8 and 11 (since that view is not singular, but prevailing among non-SDA expositors), however your road to proving that Antiochus ALSO appeared in Daniel 7 leads me nowhere, and in fact is nothing near being compelling in your exegesis, thus influencing me to see your point (as in fact it is not even a prevailing view). I am not swayed, however, by prevalence of views in Christendom , but ONLY BY SOLID BIBLICAL EVIDENCE; else I would be a Sunday observer among the majority, instead of a Sabbath keeper among the opposed minority, for istance, or a teacher of the "Antiochus in Daniel 7, 8 and 11 theory" AMONG THE MAJORITY, and not a teacher of Rome in Daniel 7, 8, and 11 among the opposed minority instead.

Incidentally, which three kings, SPECIFICALLY named, did Antiochus remove to become the "eleventh" king of Syria? And why "eleventh" (show how that math is arrived at). I am puzzled because it appears to be the same weak logic used by Sabbath opposers who argue that the Sabbath sequence got lost or altered when the calendar was changed by ten days in Europen history. This was a myth however, because altering the calendar had no affect upon the natural sequence of the days in the week. Friday was still the sixth day, and Saturday the seventh. I hope the analogy is not far off as it relates to Antiochus. I have knowledge of the full historical line of the kings in the Seleucid dynasty (and I am aware of him removing/ousting one person on his way to power), but he was still eighth in line among the kings. Inform me, but SPECIFICALLY, to the contrary if you can.

2. I have not yet addressed the matter of the Karaite calendar because I had not yet finished my point coming before it (discussing the Priestly "movement" of Jesus between sanctuary apartments in Heaven). Will address it soon in that thread on "1844". You will be surprised by my view, or take on that issue when I finally get to it.

3. The Biblical statement about the "he goat" being the "king of Greece", and the "notable horn" being the "first king" on the surface would appear contradictory, but only if we ignore [1] the symbollic use of the word "king" for "kingdom", [2] the role of "horns" on the symbolic "beasts" to mean either initial subdivision or subsequent subdivision and or phases of power of a larger kingdom or "beast" (depending on their appearance), and [3] if we ignore the use of the word "first" (rishon) to mean, in this case in Daniel 8 specifically, "first in time" or sequence, or phase. I have not ignored that, and certainly have not watered down the matter either. If you choose not to accept my honest and responsible treatment of the symbols (including how the "kings" of the metallic image of Daniel 2 would CONTEXTUALLY all meet their fate together, despite their successive dominion), then so be it, but you have said nothing compelling enough yet to show me why I should adopt the alternative view.

4. Your liberal approach to God's prophecies, insisting that his 'time prophecies' never seemed verifiable as being exactly fulfilled (just approximately probably) leaves me wondering about your solid faith in the ability of God to be precise. I have the verifiable evidence of God's preciseness in predicting for instance:-
the "70 years" of Isreal's progressive captivity and punishment by Babylon, but calculated from 605 B.C. (Babylon's first attack on Israel and securing its first set of captives) to just after 538 B.C. (when the captives of three Babylonic invasions were all allowed back to Israel). THE PERIOD ENDING JUST AFTER PERSIA STARTED TO ALLOW THE CAPTIVES TO GO FREE IN 538 B.C. WAS EXACTLY 70 YEARS, USING INCLUSIVE RECONNING!! Thus the reason for Daniel looking at it's closing years in Daniel 9 just before Medo-Persia's arrival in 538 B.C. See the SDA Bible Commentary on Jeremiah 25 and Daniel 1. But I fear you will just frown upon this too, and repel the reasonable points presented there (as you have seemingly done with everything said by ALL on this web site as it concerns matters raised in your anti-historicism thread .

You declaring that these 'time' prophecies (among others) were not exactly and mathematically fulfilled, or even verifiable leaves me to strongly doubt your theology and exegesis NOW more than ever (especially after you earlier demonstarted your refusal to see the "Messiah" prophecy of Christ being precisely and mathematically fulfilled in Daniel 9). And you don't have to try and convince me otherwise because that matter is set like concrete before my feet, and I will die procaliming its veracity, while ever disgreeing with you strongly.

5. Finally, your request for me to try and secure Church "unity" by trying to convince you strikes me as amusing. I am 'accused' of following closely the Church's major doctrinal position to the point of being an apologist (despite my already demonstrated freedom and ability to to honestly disagree with my Church in some matters). You defy almost every prophetic doctrine of the Church, or more specifically our whole doctrinal eschatological superstructure as it relates to Daniel, and you frown publicly upon our identifying mark of "the Spirit of prophecy" in Mrs. White's writings (Rev. 12:17), and you actively try to promote doctrinal dissent among our ranks (by ridiculing our teachings), and you repel every argument and thought of ALL on this "Everything Important" web site (never seeming to say you agree in any point whatsoever, no matter how small), BUT YOU WANT ME TO TRY AND CONVINCE YOU? Eduardo, I know better than that. My responses are more for the other readers of this site than me TRYING to convince you. You are presently unreachable by someone like me (or anyone else on this site), in my opinion. No offense but just my honest assessment.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:32 am Post subject:

Derrick,

Being specific about things the Bible does not clarify entirely is certainly difficult. I know some scholars defend the idea that the three horns uprooted by the Little Horn in chapter 7 are not kings at all, but rather territories that didn’t escape his depredations. They notice that this might be a parallel to 11:42,43, which mentions specifically Egypt, Lybia and Nubia. However, I feel inclined to agree that the three horns were, indeed, individuals of royal blood that he either eliminated or whose access to the throne was delayed in favour of Antiochus IV’s ambition. Whether he instigated all the relevant events himself or not, Antiochus IV was the beneficiary of the assassination of his own brother Seleucus IV Philopator (176 BC) by his minister Heliodorus. The personal situation of Antiochus himself as a hostage in Rome had changed shortly before when he was replaced by Demetrius, the true heir to the throne. This way, Antiochus found himself at the right place at the right time to seize the throne. He immediately declared himself the tutor of the infant son of his murdered brother, named Antiochus as well. Later on, he had the child murdered. Demetrius himself remained in Rome as a hostage throughout Antiochus IV’s usurpation of the throne and during the two-year nominal rulership of the child Antiochus V Eupator (164-162), ended by Demetrius’ escape from Rome.

As for Antiochus IV’s being the eleventh of the line after Alexander along the Seleucid line, I admit that this requires a little tweaking, like incorporating information not included in Daniel 7, but rather in Daniel 8 and in ancient History. If this should be admitted as acceptable (such a thing is usually accepted by historicists anyway, who think of the Heruli, Ostrogoths and Vandals as being the three “horns” uprooted by the papacy!), then the “ten” kings who preceded Antiochus Epiphanes in prophecy and/or history were the following:
1. Ptolemy I (died in 282), one of the four horns of Dan.8:8,22, the initiator of the Ptolemies of Egypt — the kingdom of the south in Dan.11.
2. Lysimachus (died in 281), another of the four horns of Dan.8:8,22. He ruled in Thrace and a good portion of Asia Minor. A large part of his dominion in Asia was taken over by the Seleucids I in 281 BC. Later on, lesser more-or-less independent kingdoms appeared in the region. The most important of these was Pergamum.
3. Cassander (died in 297), another of the four horns of Dan.8:8,22. He ruled in Macedonia proper. His line ended by the conquest of his country by Rome in the middle of the second century BC.
4. Seleucus I (died in 281), another of the four horns of Dan.8:8,22, the initiator of the Seleucids in Syria — the kingdom of the north in Dan.11.
5. Antiochus I Soter, son of the latter, died in 261.
6. Antiochus II Theos died in 246.
7. Seleucus II Callinicus or Pogon died in 225.
8. Seleucus III Ceraunus died in 223.
9. Antiochus III the Great died in 187.
10. Seleucus IV Philopator murdered in 176.

It is obvious that you can object to the inclusion of Ptolemy I, Lysimachus and Cassander in this list. I might be willing to object to it myself were it not for one thing. When we enter such details in prophecy, we are bound to encounter difficulties, no matter where we look. Take, for example, the split of Alexander’s dominion. Daniel predicted that four horns would come out of his territory. Did they? Well, yes and no. We can count just four by disregarding the role of Antigonus and Demetrius Poliorcetes in the succession. Therefore, counting just four, even if one of them was short-lived and then split up into other minor realms, requires some tweaking, but quite reasonable, just like the list of ten kings above.

As for your thread on 1844, I read with interest your half-hearted attempt to correct Mrs White. It is obvious that she was entirely wrong in stating repeatedly that Christ had to wait until 1844 to have full access to the “Holy of holies” of the “heavenly sanctuary,” thereby contradicting the crystal-clear testimony of the book of Hebrews and other NT passages. Your attempt to salvage her writings, however, only because church unity must be sought, I cannot accept. Unity must be sought around truth, not around error. Your theology about the “movement” of Christ in heaven is undoubtedly more correct than Mrs White’s, but it is just as irreconcilable with hers as is Desmond Ford’s. There’s no reason whatever to imagine that Jesus’s ministry in heaven was to undergo two phases. The author of Hebrews knows nothing of such a thing, since he says that, since his ascension, Jesus is carrying out a ministry equivalent, though superior, to what the Aaronic high priest did on Yom Kippur.

That a self-proclaimed prophet should say things that are contrary to the Word of God and claim that we must accept it because God inspired her is something I can’t digest. The 1844 heresy entirely disqualifies her testimony. Despite the value some of her beautiful passages — most of them purloined, if not all — display, and without considering some of her more abominable traits (like her propensity to accepting gossip, for example, as a source of her “inspiration”), her specific endorsement of error and conscious rejection of truth (Ballenger presented incontrovertible evidence that the SDA position on the sanctuary was wrong, but she contributed to lynch the man without ever refuting the evidence he presented) invalidate the whole of her “ministry.”

Finally, let me just add a few thoughts on the historicist view of the Little Horn being a fifth “kingdom” in Dan.8. That view of yours would be a little more credible if Gabriel had said so in his inspired explanation. He does speak of four kingdoms (8:22) derived from Alexander’s. The word used is an inflexion of malkuth, which, indeed, does mean “kingdom”. However, when the angel gives the heaven-breathed explanation of the Little Horn, he says that a king (melek, not malkuth), a master of intrigue, just like the king of the north (8:23, 25; cf. 11:21, 23, 27, 32), despite being endowed initially with little military strength, just like the king of the north (8:12, 24, 25; cf. 11:23, 36), manages to destroy many, just like the king of the north (8:24, 25; cf. 11:22, 26, 41, 44). This king, according to inspiration, was to fight against the south, just like the king of the north (8:9; cf. 11:25, 29, 40), consider himself superior, just like the king of the north (8:25; cf. 11:36). This king was to attack the glorious land (Israel), just like the king of the north (8:9; cf. 11:41, 45), and oppose Israel’s covenant with God, just like the king of the north (8:11, 25; cf. 11:22), make war against God’s people, just like the king of the north (8:24; cf. 11:28, 30, 31), suppress the daily worship to God, just like the king of the north (8:11, 12; cf. 11:31), damage the sanctuary, just like the king of the north (8:11; cf. 11:31). And, just like the king of the north, he was to disappear, although not as a result of human intervention (8:25; cf. 11:27, 35, 36, 45). And you are trying to say that, somehow, for reasons not specified by Gabriel, but rather because of half-baked ideas devised by Newton, Uriah Smith or some other “commentators” of equal stature, the Little Horn was not the king of the north! How come?

As you yourself said once, anyone willing to find problems in a given interpretation will find them. This observation of yours is true, no matter what interpretation we consider. The art of exegesis of ancient writings is a difficult one, not only for prophecy but even for more mundane matters. Not everything, even in the gospels, can be understood one hundred per cent. Sometimes we have to do, perhaps, with 99%, or 85%. So, quite certainly, preterist views, even partial preterist views, like mine, cannot possibly explain every minute detail of the prophecies. Historicist views, however, are in an even worse situation. In my perception, their "explaining power" lies in a constant twisting of overall history and not just in the need to tweak some minor detail related to an obscure passage not explained by Inspiration. If nobody can explain all the minutest details of Jesus's parables, why should we expect that all the minutest details of Daniel should be explained by any given interpretation? The problem does not lie in the minute details, however, but rather in the major ones, and it's there that historicism flounders.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:21 am Post subject:

Eduardo,
I have edited (expanded) my response post before this one, so go back to it to see more of what I said.
I have seen your take on the issue of Antiochus being the "eleventh" king in the Seleucid line. Interesting 'tweaking', as you put it. It would however have my attention if I really believed that the fourth beast of Danel 7 was the Seleucid dynasty, or referred to Antiochus any at all in the first place. Sorry brother, you have lost me there, and I will simply respect your right to accept your own theories, BUT I CANNOT JOIN YOU THERE AT ALL!!

Finally let me point out where your superstructure flounders. Your failure to see God having a better view of the FULL future of human history than the preteristic view of it ending before Jesus' arrival during the time of the Roman empire, and your failure to see God originally including the Gentile Church in His 'Israelic' plan all along (Gal. 3:29 and Gal. 4:22-31), but only FULLY after the arrival of the Messiah, and after the final desolation and desolution of the NATION of Israel under the Romans (see again Matthew 24:15), this prevents you from seeing how/why the 'Daniellic' prophecies included Europe in the scheme of things; Europe which had the bulk of the Christians forming spiritual Israel, and forming another type of "temple", and where the true Roman "little horn" had the most "desolating" impact on God's post-Christ people in His spiritual 'temple', His Church (Jews and Gentile alike). God's plan was to save ALL MANKIND (NOT JUST THE FLESHY NATION OF ISRAEL) through Christ, the true seed of Israel, and if human history was to have ended before the arrival of the ONLY means of our salvation then, gosh, where would that leave us?

Eugene earlier pointed that out to you in different words, but it had no effect on you. Too bad, but if that is how it will be, then so be it.
That is why your exegesis of eschatology will NEVER appeal to me, no matter how you fix it, or "tweak" it. But I respect your right to try, and your right to disagree with my opposite view (which obviously is the true SDA viewpoint grounded firmly in Scripture). I do see however that we will/might NEVER convice each other, and especially because we both see each other promoting heresy. However that is the beauty of democracy, and the allowed freedom of thought even in God's goverment/spiritual kingdom. God bless.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:23 am Post subject:

Eugene Shubert

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:27 pm Post subject:

Eugene,

I have no need to be alarmed. In Daniel 7 the "little horn" (Papal Rome), seen in symbol as an outgrowth of the fourth beast (evidently Rome), held the focus of attention more than any other symbol in that vision. The repeat use of the same symbol in Daniel 8 suggests strongly that the same entity was being focussed on. In Daniel 8 the same little horn was so much in focus that it came to represent the power of Rome that it grew out of in Daniel 7; only that it was described from the time when its supportive political system started its rise to power by overthrowing the Greeks through their Macedonian "horn" of the divided Greek empire. Why?
Because the authority of pagan Rome gradually became the authority of Papal Rome as the little horn, AND THUS WAS DESCRIBED IN DANIEL 8 IN TERMS OF ROME'S COMPLETE CAREER (BOTH PAGAN AND PAPAL), AND IN RELATION TO BOTH THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.

The same seemed to have happened in describing the LAST "king of the north" in Daniel 11, specifically from verses 15-39; the complete career of Rome from its pagan to its papal stage was symbolized by this "king of the north". The fact that Jesus was able to speak of the "abomination of desolation" being expected after his time, BUT DURING THE CAREER OF ROME (the same "desolation" which related to both the "little horn" in Daniel 7 and 8, and the "king of the north" in Daniel 11) argues eloquently for identifying the two "little horn" symbols (Dan. 7 and 8), and the LAST "king of the north" (Dan. 11) as one and the same power (Rome), but just described at different stages in its career.

But couldn't there have been two separate "little horns", one as Antiochus, and one as Rome? That is the view of some, but I will answer this way. In the same way the life of Joseph (or even David's) seemed to typify the later life of Jesus, as Antiochus seemed to resemble the Roman "little horn", this however gives me no reason to feel that there were two Jesus Christs (plural).
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:11 am Post subject:

Derrick,

Thank you for bringing the speck of dust in my eye to my attention. I was aware of it myself. I’m referring to the not entirely satisfactory explanation of the ten horns as related to Alexander’s successors along the Seleucid line. As was to be expected, you entirely fail to notice the plank in your own eye, for, how on earth dare you maintain that the ten horns signify the scores of barbarian tribes that politically replaced the Roman Empire in the West and which actually were never a part of it? Is this the “biblical evidence” to which you point that prevents you from accepting the obvious relevance of the Seleucid empire in the history of Israel, just before the messianic times? Something tells me that you won’t be willing to post a list of the ten horns according to that “biblical” interpretation of yours. Remember: Just one line per horn, ten in all. Just don’t group together any tribes, as that wouldn’t be only tweaking but outright counterfeiting history, and don’t leave any tribes behind. Oh! No ten tribes? Shame! In this “so-biblical” explanation of yours, perhaps you would care to explain why, in Daniel (except in the case of Daniel 8:8, 21, 22, where the four horns are specifically said to succeed the illustrious first horn) and Revelation, the horns are consubstantial with the beasts that carry them, not entities coming into existence after the collapse of the beasts themselves (notice, for example, Dan.8:3, 7, 20; Rev.17:16; by the way, I don’t think these verses are parallel at all).

I don’t doubt for a moment that God does indeed have a complete and accurate view of history since the beginning of the world. And yet, he didn’t give a full revelation of that perfect knowledge of his to Moses. I don’t think he gave it to Isaiah either; or to Jeremiah, or Habakkuk, or Malachi. John the Revelator does not claim to have full knowledge of future history. If he had had that knowledge, how come he didn’t say anything about the Crimean War? Or about Napoleon? Or about colonialism? Or about the discovery and conquest of America by the Spaniards? Or about the USSR and communism? Or about Hitler? Even Jesus Christ himself stated (Mark 13:32) that the angels and he himself didn’t really know when the end of the world was going to take place! And yet, you claim, Daniel does have most of this evidence. In your view, Daniel MUST present Rome somewhere in chapter 2 and 7 (most certainly, it’s nowhere to be seen in Daniel 11, 9 or 8). But that’s only your contention. Since I dispute your view as unbiblical and unhistorical, you cannot say that since I don’t believe a word of your interpretation about Rome I fail to see the obvious. It’s not obvious to me, because everything that the book of Daniel says about the fourth beast, iron legs, etc., because of the parallels that Daniel himself wrote, leads me elsewhere. His more detailed portrayal in Daniel 11 points unambiguously to the Seleucid kingdom, and to Antiochus IV in particular. Since the Little Horn in Daniel 8 is entirely parallel to the king of the north in Daniel 11, I am compelled by the book of Daniel itself, not by any prevalent alien interpretation, to admit that the Little Horn is the same entity as the king of the north. And as the Little Horn of Dan.7 does exactly the same things as the Little Horn of Dan.8 (the one that comes from the he-goat empire), I am compelled by the book of Daniel itself to admit that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is, indeed, Antiochus. And as the iron legs are described, in broad terms, like the fourth beast of Daniel 7, I am compelled by the book of Daniel itself to admit that the iron legs represent the same entity as the fourth beast of Daniel 7. It’s that simple. Being compelled by the book of Daniel itself is something that I call biblical evidence. Reading Uriah Smith’s infamous commentary is not biblical evidence. Reading about Julius Caesar or Caligula is not biblical evidence to me. Reading Suetonius or Livy doesn’t seem biblical evidence to me at all. Reading Gibbon is no substitute for the Word of God either. So, where exactly is the biblical evidence that Daniel means Rome when he speaks of the iron legs, the fourth beast and its Little Horn, the Little Horn of chapter 8 and the king of the north in chapter 11. Besides, if you inject Rome into Daniel 9, please, explain how, if the 70-week prophecy ends in AD 34, as you claim, the presented destruction takes place 36 years after the close of the prophecy. What kind of prophetic tweaking is that?

Yes, God can indeed be precise, but prophecy is not pre-written history in any sense. God himself caused the following words to be written:

“If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.” (Jer.18:7-10).

I fully believe those words to be an accurate representation of the nature of all of God’s predictions with one single exception: I believe that the parousia will inevitably take place some day. All the other prophecies, even those in so-called apocalyptic portions (actually, they are not apocalyptic at all; read Fred Mazzaferri’s As in a mirror), are conditional, and they have all been fulfilled in different degrees. Some, like Isaiah’s prediction of Tyre’s desolation, in a very high degree throughout the centuries. Others, like Jeremiah’s prediction of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt, haven’t been fulfilled in any sense. Daniel’s predictions were fulfilled in a very high degree, as shown in the books of Maccabees and other books of ancient history. I have no quarrels with Jeremiah’s prediction of the 70-year captivity, but I don’t claim the prediction was accurate to the day. Other people claim that, since the standard date for the destruction until the date when the first captives returned only 50 years had transpired, you have to make certain “corrections” in history to make it “fit.” Such arithmetic arguments I reject entirely, just as I reject all the falsehood built around the 70 Weeks of Dan.9 and the 2,300 evenings and mornings of Dan.8. Please, don’t feel indignant at my usage of the word “falsehood.” I’m compelled to use it seeing that apologists of “orthodoxy,” such as yourself, fail to address the issues I’ve presented that completely demolish that supposed “orthodoxy.” You believe yourself to have the right to ask me puny questions like the one related to the Seleucid dynastic line, but judge yourself to have no need to give an account of your fanciful theories to anyone who doesn’t accept what you say and inquires using a few questions a little more penetrating than you are used to. The best you do, in such cases, is answer to other questions that were not asked, thereby indicating that there are, after all, some questions that you can at least answer, or sort of.

As for my appreciation of the SDA Bible Commentary, I can say that I’ve read it often throughout the years, and I know well what it says. When I was younger, I used to believe everything written there. Now I know that the theology of important parts of it is pure trash, while others are reasonably good. Some of its historical analyses are valid, whereas others, though popular, are contrary to God’s Word (like its insistence that the Exodus took place during the 18th dynasty; historical evidence would seem to indicate that it took place much earlier, no matter how unpopular or impossible this may seem to some).

Your interpretation of my attitude regarding doctrine is wrong. I’m not trying “to promote doctrinal dissent,” as you put it. I don’t want a split in the denomination. I’m trying to destroy erroneous views from among us because a Christian should have no place for error on his mind once he knows God’s wonderful truth. When I voluntarily quit denominational employment after my personal discovery of the enormity of the fraud that was being perpetrated against God’s children by people who know the impossibility of defending standard positions (that’s why they don’t answer to questions like mine), at first I thought of leaving the denomination, as so many others have done after seeing so much dishonesty. But then I realized that, if I left, who would remain to share with my sincere and honest brethren the truth of the Gospel? I’m not referring to professional apologists like yourself. You I judge as either blind or outright dishonest, since your aim is to cover up an indefensible situation. And, indeed, I believe you capable of dying proclaiming error, and that’s precisely why my posts “are more for the other readers of this site than” for you, a person who, in an “honest” assessment, recognizes that I am “presently” unreachable by someone like him. Thank you for that recognition. It’s an honour. That tells me I’m on the right path.

PS Any chance that you’ll answer any of my questions? I’ve been good and answered several of yours, as a bonus. You could at least answer one of mine. Please?