Judging the Judge...More Goldstein on Daniel

The following article (the green type) is from Clifford Goldstein in the August 26 Mid America Outlook titled Judging the Judge

One early morning, driving to the GC building, I caught a BBC news report about Saddam Hussein’s trial in Baghdad. A judge involved in the proceeding remarked that the world would judge them, the judges—the whole trial even—based on the justice and fairness meted out in the courtroom. Instantly I thought of the pre-Advent judgment as depicted in Daniel 7, a judgment that happens in heaven. It occurs before the Second Advent (hence pre-Advent) and is witnessed by a retinue of angels (Daniel 7:9, 10). Actually, God is the one who Himself is being judged, based on how He deals with us. How do we know? Because Psalm 51 tells us so. Read carefully what David says: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest” (Psalm 51:1-4).

It’s easy to miss one of David’s crucial points here. He’s asking God for loving-kindness, for forgiveness. He admits his sins, and he asks God to have mercy on him, to cleanse him, to blot out his transgressions in order that “thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.” Is he saying that the Lord should do these things to him so that God should be clear when He, God, judges? Exactly!

It is easy to miss that point because that is not the point the Psalmist is making. Remember the occasion of this verse.

“Psalm 51 For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba”
PSALMS 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. (All my Quotes are taken from the NIV translation)

David is not worried about some Judgment of God at some future point in time, he is saying that he David has been justly judged by God. God was 100% right when Nathan brought God’s Judgment to David. It is a confession before the Judge after the Judge condemned him. The story is related in 2 Samuel 12 as Nathan gives David His Judgment:

2 Samuel 12:12-13 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.

This all becomes clearer if we understand his words— “For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight”—as parenthetical. They interrupt his main flow of thought, in which he is asking God to pardon and clean him so that He, God, will be “clear when thou judgest.” So, if you pick up the train of thought, it reads like this: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin … that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.” God—justified when He speaks, clear when He judges?

That is a unique view, as it moves from David’s present circumstances to something very different, Does David ever really question that God is not Just or vindicated in His actions that someday He must be judged and vindicated? Of course not David is acknowledging God’s Justice and mercy even while confessing his own sins. The Psalms recite a confidence in God, not ever representing the need for God to vindicate His righteous judgments:

Psalms 7:11 God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day.
Psalms 9:8 He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice.
Psalms 72:2 He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice.

It appears that this confidence in the righteous judgments of God is developed by the way the Psalms were even arranged. The Psalm right before Psalm 51 begins with Praise for God’s judgment:

Psalms 50:4 He summons the heavens above, and the earth, that he may judge his people:

Psalms 50:6 And the heavens proclaim his righteousness, for God himself is judge. Selah

Yes! The word translated “justified” in the King James Version can also mean “vindicated,” the idea being that God Himself is being tried based on how He deals with us, fallen sinners. This point is so often lost amid the hubbub regarding the judgment. Though we can’t deny the biblical reality of judgment by works (Romans 2:6; Ecclesiastes 12:14), for believers in Jesus we have a substitute, Christ, who intercedes for us (Hebrews 7:25). Thus, in many ways, the judgment isn’t so much about us; it’s about God, and about how He deals with sinners, a crucial motif of the whole great controversy scenario. So God, even after the revelation of His character at the cross, still wants to give even more evidence of His goodness. He does it in the pre-Advent judgment when He Himself is judged.

Clifford Goldstein August 26 Mid America Outlook
http://www.midamericaadventist.org/site/1/docs/AUGweb06.pdf

Now let’s look at the idea that God is Judged in the Pre-Advent Judgment. As we see Clifford Goldstein derives that idea from Daniel 7:9-10

DANIEL 7:9 "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.

DANIEL 7:10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.

Does it sound like a defendant coming into a courtroom to be judged? No in fact the word Throne indicates that He is judging. In the Old Testament, throne is used often to indicate the function of whomever is seated upon that throne. Usually a King sometimes a judge, but of course the King was the ultimate ruler and ultimate judge. This is what Daniel speaks about. So who is being Judged in Daniel 7? The Answer is given in Daniel when the Angel interprets the vision:

DANIEL 7:25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. DANIEL 7:26 " `But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever.

Then in verse 27 “the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints”. So it appears from the book of Daniel that the little horn power is judged and destroyed and the judgment then goes in favor of those whom the little horn power abused. The account in Daniel does indicate that this judgment is witnesses by angels. But angels are God’s ministering spirits there is nothing to indicate they have anything but faith in God, they are His servants and messengers often they are called Holy. What good does it do to have a Pre-advent Judgment of God where God is declared just by those who already know and acknowledge the Justice of God? The only people that need such a show would be us here on earth, the people who don’t see everything that God does, the people who don’t know what to believe and are tossed around by conflicting philosophies and religions and historical interpretations.

Goldstein wrote: “Actually, God is the one who Himself is being judged, based on how He deals with us.” I hope I never have to judge God upon how I feel he deals with me. I don’t have enough information to make any such judgment. I can judge whether I will choose to accept God by faith that God is loving and forgiving and accepting as God has demonstrated Himself to be through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. But I am in no position to judge God as to whether he deserves to be God or not. I am only a judge of whether I accept or reject God. If the angels have placed God on trial to judge how he deals with us it is something that the Bible is silent on. But for angels to serve God for millennia and then turn around and become the judge of the Creator of the universe is quite a stretch of credibility. To say that God is giving us evidence of His goodness in the Pre-advent judgment which we can neither see, hear, read of, or experience is not really evidence of anything at all.

Update:

From the Expositor's Bible Commentary on Psalm 51:4:

Between these two prayers of contrition is an affirmation of God's justice (v. 4b). The psalmist does not reject or argue with divine justice (Rom 3:4), because the Lord's verdict is "right" (s-d-q) 5-6 Confronted by God's righteous verdict, the psalmist is more deeply pricked by his own sinfulness.

Chocolate Mary or Chocolate Opus?

FOUNTAIN VALLEY, Calif. — Kitchen worker Cruz Jacinto was the first to see the 2-inch-tall column of chocolate that had dripped under a vat.

She stopped when she saw it. The melted chocolate looked just like the Virgin Mary on the prayer card she always carries in her right pocket.

Not sure if it is Mary or Opus, you decide:

To be the Remnant or to be part of the Remnant?

The Bible is filled with remnant principles from Noah to Elijah, from Judah to Ezekiel there is always someone who holds to the principles of God, who does not cave into the world around them. The remnant however is not exclusive the opportunity is open, some will chose God many will never, the remnant are those who as Joshua says, “choose life”. As Chip Brogden said: “ Anyone can, everyone won’t (in fact, a large majority will not) but SOMEBODY will. That group of “sombody’s” who will is the Remnant.”

To be the Remnant is to be special and since people like to feel special they also like to define themselves as the Remnant. Just to be a sincere follower of Christ is not enough for many who define themselves as the Remnant. Often they must define their particular beliefs as Remnant beliefs and the beliefs or actions of others must be apostate. Today those who claim to be the Remnant define themselves as those who hold to the truth against the apostate churches. A few examples:

1. Gwen Shamblin, the well-known dietician who created the "Weigh Down Diet" formed Remnant Fellowship having come to the conclusion that "institutional church can be defined as the counterfeit church the Apostle John warned about in Revelation - 'The Mother of Prostitutes' (Rev. 17) .. a place that says it is Christ's church and yet .. has insidiously allowed its members to rebel against Christ" (2). Viewing the small groups of people who hearkened to her message as being a true remnant of true believers, Shamblin's Remnant Fellowship now openly urges all like-minded people to abandon Christian churches and affiliate with her band.

2. A National Catholic Newspaper is titled the Remnant with the following given as it purpose: “The Remnant's position is a simple one, as it strives essentially to adhere to Catholic teaching in every aspect of its journalism. There has been great upheaval and revolution within the Catholic Church over the past five decades -- not unlike the one encountered in the fourth century by St. Athanasius, called the Arian Heresy -- and Catholics are called to oppose that which in any way contradicts the infallible teachings and immutable traditions of the Catholic Church.”

3. The Portland International Church of Christ split, calling for the remnant to come out from their former church. “However, as of this Jubilee the Portland leadership believes it is time for a progressive “calling-out of the remnant of disciples” from dying, former ICOC Churches.”

The International Churches of Christ (Boston Movement), also known as the ICC, founded in 1979 by Kip McKean, is an organization which portrays itself to the public as “...a family of Christian churches whose members are committed to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible.” (Who Are We?, ICC Home page, http://www.intlcc.com/) By this statement they appear to be just another family of Christian churches. Is this an honest portrayal? In an article entitled Revolution through Restoration II (a sequel), written by Kip McKean (lead Evangelist and founder of the ICC), Kip states that perhaps the most often asked question of the ICC is “Are the people in the International Churches of Christ the only ones who are saved?” Kip avoids answering this question out right, but comments that the Bible’s answer comes from understanding the nature of God’s movements.

“To initiate his movement, God, in his grace, always works through a man. He puts his message on this man’s heart. As God’s man preaches God’s message, God moves in other men’s hearts to collectively come together to follow God through the leadership of his man.” (Kip McKean, Revolution Through Restoration II, 1994)

A few sentences later Kip states: “I believe with all my heart that the Boston Movement is God’s modern-day movement.” (ibid) This statement infers two things. First, that if the Boston Movement is God’s modern-day movement, then it’s leader, Kip McKean must be “God’s man” who is preaching God’s message. According to the above quote, this means that all persons who are moved upon by God to follow Him will do so through the leadership of “his man” Kip McKean.

Second, if the Boston Movement is God’s one and only modern-day movement, with Kip McKean as it’s leader (God’s man), then any person or group of persons not following Kip McKean by membership in the Boston Movement are not following God. So back to the question, “Are the people in the International Churches of Christ the only ones who are saved?”

4. Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. From its restoration in 1830 thru the Reorganization of 1860 and Renewal in 2000 The Remnant Church has remained the true successor of Christ’s New Testament Church.

5. The Remnant Church of God

6. Association Remnant Church of Creation 7th Day Adventists

7. Remnant and Its Mission: (Seventh-day Adventists Fundamental Belief 13)
The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)

One thing is certain from the many churches who claim to be the remnant, they can not all be right. Yet to be part of each particular church remnant theology they must accept that their view of the remnant is true. Of all the views expressed in the brief examples above, which only represent some of the groups who view themselves as the remnant I don’t agree that any of them represent the remnant of the followers of God. Neither would the different groups agree with that any the other groups definition of the remnant is true.

The Remnant principle is more God oriented then religious institution oriented. That is God identifies the remnant as those that are His. It is not up to the religious institution to name themselves the remnant. When they do, they are not acting with the view of how God thinks but they operate with the view of a self exalted organization or person. They choose to raise themselves as obedient and lower others as disobedient. Choosing to judge others on things which they can have no way of knowing or simply because of a different interpretation of some Bible passages. It is selfishness.

To be the Remnant or to be part of the Remnant are two very different things. To be the Remnant is exclusive and certain of its exclusive unique position. To be part of the Remnant means you are willing to accept God’s definition of the Remnant with fellow followers of God. God may use a far different definition then man, because remnants can come from all sorts of things.

Wrong But Right

The following is from the Adult Sabbath School Class Blog :

Sunday, August 13, 2006
1844 made really, really, really simple
1. William Miller predicted the world would end in 1844.
2. He was wrong.
3. But he got the date right.

How pray tell do we know he got the date right? Unless of course he means that Miller was able to read a calendar and chose a date off the calendar of a day which actually did occur. As opposed to an incorrect date such as September 42.

Possibly an even more simple idea for 1844 made really simple would be:
1. William Miller predicted the world would end in 1843 then 1844.
2. He was wrong

Notice the difference my version is 100% verifiable, it requires no assumptions or speculation it is historically accurate and true. Can Greg say the same for his?

By the way did you ever wonder why Snow chose the date Oct 22, we have all heard the story that it was from the Karaite calendar for the day of atonement that year. However that was not the date the Karaite's calendar had for the Day of Atonement. As the most recent Adventist Today Magazine presents a letter from someone who asked several denomination sources for evidence of the supposed Karaite calendar used to make the calculation used in 1844. No one has been able to discover such a source and the Karaites records do not support that view. Then again Karaites is a group from the middle ages and not necessarily used as Jewish traditional authorities.

So I have a theory. If you recall Ussher chronology based upon the Genesis genealogies he ascertained the creation of the world on Oct 23, 4004 B.C. As Israel begins her days one day before we here in America Oct 22 would be Oct 23 in Israel. So the world could end on the very same day as it was created. The only thing that would have made it better is if it ended up being an exact 6000 years after the creation. 1997 would have worked better for the 6000 year mark. Harold Camping was almost on that date when he predicted the return of Christ on September 6, 1994. He was wrong...although Greg may want to tell us that "he got the date right".

Nashville Educators Try to Reconcile Dinosaurs and the Bible

Tennesean.com:Group wants to reconcile dinosaurs, Bible Some Adventists say science flawed, call for discussion Tuesday, 08/08/06

Two years ago, Seventh-day Adventists reaffirmed their belief that the "seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the flood was global in nature."

You may remember those Science and Faith Conferences and the committee of those who affirmed the traditional view of Creation in the SDA church quite apart from any consensus of those involved in any of the conferences. Their final line in the Response to an Affirmation of Creation being

We call on all members of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist family to proclaim and teach the church’s understanding of the biblical doctrine of Creation, living in its light, rejoicing in our status as sons and daughters of God, and praising our Lord Jesus Christ—our Creator and Redeemer.

You can see some of this so called Biblical view in some of the comments of the teachers at the NAD meeting reported in the Tennesean.

Dinosaurs, according to some Seventh-day Adventist theories, either never existed, their bones were scattered by Satan on earth to confuse people, or they were animals created by God but altered by Satan after the fall of the Garden of Eden.

But a growing number of adherents believe they must do better at offering an explanation for dinosaurs that is faithful to scientific data and supportive of biblical beliefs.

Connie Reynolds, principal of A.W. Spalding Elementary School in Chattanooga, says she was picking up a copy of Kennedy's book not only to help guide the education of her students, but to help her when she is challenged by her 15-year-old son to provide answers to natural phenomenon not easily explained by the Bible.

Reynolds says she believes dinosaurs were originally created in some form by God but were warped by Satan, and they died in the great flood described in the Bible.

Although in reality the Bible says nothing about Satan warping animals into dinosaurs (or anything else) or Satan scattering their bones around to confuse us or that they never existed. Of course if they were destroyed in the worldwide flood it is really amazing for us to see their fossil tracks and nests. It appears that it is not really to the Bible that many find their beliefs about such things but to their interpretation of what the Bible is trying to say. And what it is trying to say is based upon their traditional views, just as their traditional views were affirmed by Faith and Science Conferences which offered scholarly articles of many views and developed no consensus report, no majority report and no minority report. Just a reaffirmation of what we already believed by a seperate and unrelated committee. Rather like a committee in charge of the parking for political convention who after the convention reaffirms the convention platform of 4 years earlier.

It's Not A Jesuit Plot

Another one of the myths that swirl about the Adventist media and most likely many of the classes this Sabbath is the idea that the view that Daniel 9:27 is speaking about Christ rather then the prince who destroys the city of the previous verse.

(Dan 9:26-27 NIV) After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Some like Doug Batchelor have accepted or created the myth of Jesuit involvement with the reading of these verses. Even though the language is more in line with those who see the anti-Christ in these verses.

Batchelor says: in his lesson on Daniel 9 at about 44 minutes into the presentation:

“He (The Messiah) will confirm the covenant with many for one week: but in the middle of the week he’ll bring and end to sacrifice, when he died on the cross what happened? The veil was ripped he brought an end to the sacrificial system this isn’t the anti-Christ this is Jesus…it blows my mind when I hear Evangelicals say this is the anti-Christ that is a Jesuit teaching. That has found its way into the Protestants churches it just…that’s an abomination of desolation.”

If Doug Batchelor would bother to look into the history of Christianity he would find that this view that verse 27 is referring to the anti-Christ preceded the Roman Catholic Church and of course the Jesuits who were not formed until the 1500’s.

We can see the idea that this is about the anti-Christ at the time of the Early Church Fathers. I am always amazed at how our Adventist Evangelists are so theologically and historically inept. Here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers. Most of these are likely available on the internet but I am not going to give links since I am using my own copy of their writings. To give a true feel for the subject I have included much of the surrounding writings, I will however highlight key areas for those who scan this post. The idea that Antiochus was the one who desecrated the temple is also present in the Early Church Fathers. Those who pretend that it was a Roman Catholic teaching to deflect from the reformation view of the Catholic church as the anti-Christ often ignore that it has a history that goes all the way back to the Early Church Fathers.

IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES BOOK V CHAPTER 25 THE FRAUD, PRIDE, AND TYRANNICAL KINGDOM OF ANTICHRIST, AS DESCRIBED BY DANIEL AND PAUL
Early church Fathers Ante-Nicene Vol. 1 page 1147 [c. 130–202]

Vol. I - The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: "I have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive," calling Antichrist "the other," because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one "who feared not God, neither regarded man," to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God, -that is, the earthly Jerusalem, - to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again:
"And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously." And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: "And towards the
end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [roundtheir neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart:
he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs." And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: "And in the midst of the week," he says, "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete." Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.

5. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord,when He said, "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, whichhas been spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coining and
the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestlypointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise of the Son, andcalled us into His knowledge.

------------------------------

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA BOOK III CHAPTER 21
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 2 page 663 [born about the middle of the 2nd century, and died between 211 and 216]

From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation." That the temple accordingly was l built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

[Later he writes about the 2300 days page 674]

We have still to add to our chronology the following, - I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him, Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away."
These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was half a week; and for a half, Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius reigned. And on this account Daniel says, "Blessed is he that cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." For up to these days was war, and after them it ceased. And this number is demonstrated from a subsequent chapter, which is as follows: "And from the time of the change of continuation, and of the giving of the abomination of desolation, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."
Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

-----------------------------------------

ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS BOOK III Chapter 46
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4 page 1224 [185-254 AD]

...The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, ...What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where he says, "so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: "And on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation." So many, out of a greater number of passages, have I thought it right to adduce, that the hearer may understand in some slight degree the meaning of holy Scripture, when it gives us information concerning the devil and Antichrist; and being satisfied with what we have quoted for this purpose, let us look at another of the charges of Celsus, and reply to it as we best may.

HIPPOLYTUS THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES II The interpretation by Hippolytus, (bishop) of Rome, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, taken in conjunction.
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 5 Page 377 [born in the second half of the 2nd century]

21. For this reason, then, the angel says to Daniel, "Seal the words, for the vision is until the end of the time." But to Christ it was not said "seal," but "loose" the things bound of old; in order that, by His grace, we might know the will of the Father, and believe upon Him whom He has sent for the salvation of men, Jesus our Lord. He says, therefore, "They shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall;" which in reality took place. For the people returned and built the city, and the temple, and the wall round about. Then he says: "After threescore and two weeks the times will be fulfilled, and one week will make a covenant with many; and in the midst (half) of the week sacrifice and oblation will be removed, and in the temple will be the abomination of desolations."

22. For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and
to prove himself an instructor in such.
Page 382
39. Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every God, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: "And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." As also it was announced to Daniel:

"And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed" - that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: "And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days."
Page 398

11. "The abomination of desolation shall be given (set up)." Daniel speaks, therefore, of two abominations: the one of destruction, which Antiochus set up in its appointed time, and which bears a relation to that of desolation, and the other universal, when Antichrist shall come. For, as Daniel says, he too shall be set up for the destruction of many.

Is the Seventy Sevens "cut off" from the 2300

One of the key points that will be brought out in most lesson studies this coming week is summed up in the following from Kenneth Hart’s notes:

9. Notice that the word used in Daniel 9:24 is translated “cut off”, “determined”, “decreed”, etc. The basic Hebrew word means “to cut off”. Cut off from what? The only plausible explanation is that this 490-year period is cut off from the 2300-year prophecy given in Daniel 8:14. If this is not the case then we have no identifiable points to which we can attach the 2300 day-year prophecy.

Dan 9:24
24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. (NIV)

Strongs number and Definition 2852 chathak (khaw-thak'); a primitive root; properly, to cut off, i.e. (figuratively) to decree: KJV-- determine.

I don’t know of any translation that actually translates the word as “cut off”. The particular word 2852 chathak is only used here in Daniel 9:24. It appears only wishful thinking that leads to the idea of meaning cut off from the 2300 evening and morning prophecy. As that prophecy did not really have any need for a starting date since it was dated by the desecration of the temple. Only if you assume that you cannot see this temple, i.e. that it is in heaven would you need a starting date.

Dan 8:13-14

13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled-- the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated." (NIV)

Here is how C. Mervyn Maxwell in his book the Magnificent Disappointment explains why you should take the70 sevens from the 2,300 days:

This is the decree that was to start the seventy weeks. And inasmuch as Gabriel’s reference to the decree was intended to help Daniel and us understand the 2,300 days, we know that the 2,300 days also began in 457 B.C. page 42

Since in both Dan. 2, 7 and 8 Daniel gives wide ranging prophecies which apparently run from the time of Babylon to the time of the Advent of Christ or the second coming of Christ depending on your view. It is hard to say that Daniel 9 is restricted to the 2300 evenings and mornings, that is, that it is an elaboration on the 2300 days. Clearly that was not what Daniel was concerned with at the start of the chapter or with his prayer as he specifically refers to the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah. If this was written in around the 500's B.C. time period there was no temple. To assume that the decree to rebuild the temple marks the beginning of the time period where the Temple is desecrated makes no sense at all. Yet this is what our traditional understanding has said. -457 + 2300 = 1843 + the year zero = 1844

So for the 2300 days to stand for the time of the desecration of the temple, the temple has to be desecrated from before it’s construction. If the sanctuary is not the one which Daniel was expecting, i.e. the rebuilt sanctuary of the decree, then the Adventist view has to have the sanctuary in heaven be trampled and desecrated by the little horn from the time of the decree to rebuild the earthly temple. In which case even before Christ came the heavenly sanctuary would have been desecrated. So in Adventist terminology from 4 centuries before any knew of the Messiah's work of intercession His work of intercession was being desecrated.

As Bill O’Reilly would say, “tell me where I am wrong?”

Pew Survey Shows Opinions Relatively Unchanged

The Oregon Pastor writes in It's not a Moral Majority -- just a very loud minority.

When it comes to "moral" issues --issues such as abortion or gay marriage -- most Americans are in the middle.

• They don't like abortion, but want to keep it legal.
• They don't like gay marriage, but favor some kind of "civil union" for gay couples.

Concluding:

What the articles ignores, however, is the power of these relatively small groups to set the agenda for the rest of us.

The Oregon Pastor’s statement that relatively small groups set the agenda is only true if we allow the courts to decide our laws. Something they were not designed to do. In fact the reason I am addressing this is because the Pew Survey Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues points out just how distorted the concept is that the Religious right is indoctrinating America from the pulpit. The survey shows that there are not really any changes in American opinions on these controversial subjects in the past several years.

Indeed, public opinion has moved little on these issues in recent years and continues to be mixed and often inconsistent, reflecting a blend of pragmatism and principle. For instance, a clear majority (56%) continues to oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry while 35% express support. But nearly as large a majority (54%) supports allowing homosexual couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.

This reflects the idea that Americans do not want to have marriage redefined, however civil contracts are an accepted idea by a majority (small majority however which is true for most of the findings in these polls.)

Public opinion about the legality of abortion is largely unchanged from previous polling. While about one-in-three (31%) prefer for abortion to be generally available to those who want it and one-in-ten (11%) take the opposite position that abortion should not be permitted at all, most Americans fall in between, preferring what might be described as a "legal but rare" stance. One-in-five (20%) say that abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now, while about one-in-three (35%) say that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or to save the woman's life.

Just as abortion opinions are largely stable, so too are differences of opinion on the issue across demographic, political and religious groups. As polls have often shown, there is no gender gap in opinion about the availability of abortion. College graduates and people in their 50s and early 60s ­ roughly the first half of the Baby Boom generation ­ are more supportive of making abortion generally available than are other demographic groups.

White evangelicals and black Protestants stand out for their high levels of opposition to abortion. Among seculars and those who rarely attend church, on the other hand, majorities say that abortion should be generally available.

As in 2005, a large majority of the public (73%) continues to view abortion as morally wrong in at least some circumstances, while only 24% say that abortion is not a moral issue. But slightly fewer now say that abortion is morally wrong in nearly all circumstances (24% now compared with 29% in 2005), while there has been a small increase in the number saying that abortion is morally wrong in some circumstances (49% today compared with 41% one year ago).

By a 56%-35% margin, a majority of Americans continues to oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. These figures are largely unchanged over the past several years.

One area that does show change is the Gay Marriage concept which understandably was not much of an issue just a few years ago.

While only one-in-three Americans (35%) oppose gay marriage, majorities do express support for civil unions. The poll finds that 54% of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements giving them many of the same rights as married couples. This figure, too, is largely unchanged compared with one year ago ­ but it is nine percentage points higher than it was in October 2003

When we look back prior to 2000 we see that Abortion opinions have been stable for many years. Homosexual marriage is not likely to have much poll results prior to 2000 as is also the case for federal financing of stem cell research which did not exist. Acceptance of homosexuality has probably changed to a more accepting view over the past decade. Causes and Consequences of Public Attitudes Toward Abortion:
A Review and Research Agenda Ted G. Jelen :

Second, abortion opinion is relatively stable, both at the individual level, and in the aggregate. At the individual level, abortion opinion is almost as stable as partisanship (Converse and Markus, 1979; Wetstein, 1993; Wilcox and Norrander, 2002; Sharpe, 1999). At the aggregate level, abortion attitudes have also been remarkably stable over time (Wilcox and Riches, 2002).

Most studies (Cook, et. al, 1992; Wilcox and Norrander, 2002) show that a substantial minority of Americans favor abortion virtually without restrictions, and a smaller minority oppose abortion under most, if not all circumstances. Large majorities favor legal abortion for medical reasons (fetal defect, health of mother, etc.) while opinion is divided on abortion for social or economic reasons. Thus, numerous observers (Cook, et. al., 1992; O=Connor, 1996; Sullins, 1999) have reported the existence of a Asituationalist majority.@ In other words, a slight majority of Americans favor legal abortion under some circumstances, but not others.

There have been small, but statistically significant changes in aggregate opinion over time. After the Roe decision in 1973, support for abortion increased. Yet this overall increase masked an underlying polarization, for some groups of citizens became more opposed to abortion as a result of Roe (Franklin and Kosaki, 1993). During the 1980s, support for abortion dropped for reasons yet unexplained, and then rebounded in 1989, just before the Court handed down the Webster decision that permitted some state regulation of abortion. Wlezien and Goggin (1993) have argued that the public anticipated the Webster decision, perhaps based on signals sent by party and interest group elites. By the late 1990s, support had declined again.

And Then There Is The Davidian View Of The IJ

At the Sabbath School Class I attended this Sabbath we were introduced to the comments of a Davidian, apparently a remnant of the Shepherd’s Rod movement. This presents an interesting take upon the whole quarter’s lesson. We can be pretty sure that at the end of this quarter Clifford Goldstein will have tried to explain the importance of 1844 and the Investigative Judgment. In general it will be that we the SDA church God’s remnant church represent the restoration of the sanctuary by our doctrines which reveal the true character or activities of Christ. Of course many study teachers have already indicated that it is our doctrines that are revealed in the 3 angel’s message of Revelation 14

The quarterly concludes the series of lessons with this:

Further Study:

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, "God's Law Immutable," pp. 433-450.

Another important point about 1844 relates to the Adventist Church itself. As Adventists, our foundation was erected on the understanding that, while our spiritual forefathers, the Millerites, got the event wrong, they got the date, 1844, right. Thus, not just our heritage but the biblical foundation upon which our early pioneers worked stemmed from the 1844 foundation. Hence, it's important for us, as a people, to understand the biblical reasoning that leads to 1844. That we have grown since the early days in our understanding of this message is unmistakable; that we have a better grasp of what it means is unmistakable, as well. At the same time, however, by being firmly rooted in the biblical basis of 1844, we have the assurance that the prophetic foundation upon which our church was founded is, indeed, a foundation rooted in the Word of God itself. In short, it's important for us to be grounded in the 1844 teaching because it affirms the biblical basis upon which we, as a church, with our distinctive message, exist.

The last lesson study in the teachers edition lists its summary as:

Summary: The pre-Advent judgment, with the date 1844 and its teachings, is important for us because it affirms the biblical basis upon which we as a church, with our distinctive message, exist.

The lesson offers us the unique view of the Adventist church on Daniel and the several time prophecies of the Bible. The Adventist church is the only ones who see this meaning because it is the Adventist church that has been chosen and brought into existence to declare the teachings which are unique to the Adventist church. When you look at it that way it is no wonder no other Christians through history stumbled upon the Investigative Judgment.

The Davidian in Sabbath School today has taken this concept of Traditional SDA’s and their unique views and embraced it with meaning derived from other Old Testament books. After all if we can be so bold as to identify ourselves in the visions of Daniel and Revelation why not also of Ezekiel and Zechariah etc. The Davidian visitor told us of the importance that they see through Ellen White and the Bible within this framework of the Investigative Judgment. He pointed me to a website which expounds upon some of the comments he made in class. So rather then try to recount what he said I will mention some of his points by aid of the Davidiansda.com website messages.

The first thing is that there are two phases to the IJ. First is the judging of the dead out of the books in heaven. The second is extremely important as it has to do with the real Christians living at this time.

The Judgment as you know is in two separate and distinct sections, one following the other -- the Judgment for the dead first, and the Judgment for the living last. This we know is so and we must not let subversive influences, even if they be in Seventh-day Adventist's garb, cause us to lose sight of this truth. Our part of the Judgment message since 1844 has been, as you know, to proclaim the Judgment for the dead, not for the living as yet. What is the Judgment for the dead?—

We have been taught by Inspiration that it is to separate the good from the bad, not bodily, but in books, because before the resurrection, the dead have no being, or "portion" "in anything that is done under the sun." -- Eccl. 9:5, 6. This judgment work is to enable the angels to know who is to come up in the first resurrection, in the resurrection of the holy ones (Rev. 20:4, 5, 11-14), and who is to come up in the second resurrection, in the resurrection of the unholy ones. To this end declares Daniel "the Judgment was set, and the books were opened." (Dan. 7:10.)

Thus it is that Inspiration calls the judgment work, "the cleansing or the sanctuary" (Dan. 8:14); that is, each professor of religion that ever died since the beginning of sin, is now judged and the case of each decided either to bring him up in the first resurrection or in the second; either to blot out from the records the name of each impenitent sinner, or to blot out for ever from the Book the sins of each penitent sinner. This has been Heaven's work since the year 1844, and every informed Seventh-day Adventist knows it.

Now, since the message of the Judgment for the Living is of far greater importance than the message of the Judgment for the Dead, it is but expected that the Bible will have more to say about the latter than the former. This is so because the Judgment for the Living has to do with the living themselves, with the message bearers, rather than with the dead. In importance, therefore, there is no comparison between the two. How will we get the message of the Judgment for the Living?--

The answer is clear to all: We will get it in the same way we got the one in 1844. Since it then came through Inspiration and through God's own chosen instrumentality, it is certain that the additional message ("Early Writings," p. 277), too, is to come in the same way; that is, by inspiration through God's own chosen agency. Indeed Truth is never revealed in any other way but by Inspiration. See 2 Peter 1:20.

The writer goes on to say that one can have received the message of judgment of the dead and still miss the judgment of the living. As the writer is not too concise I will just use some of his phrases to bring in what the judgment of the living is about and then his concluding paragraphs on the subject. I will say first that this seems to me to be very similar to the Traditional Adventist views of yesteryear.

What is the Judgment for the Living? In His parables Christ illustrates that the righteous, as good fish, are put into vessels; as wheat, they are put into the barn; and as sheep, they go into life eternal -- they are placed in absolute security. sealed for eternity. Here we see that the judgment work for the living is illustrated in several ways, and is variously called: "Judgment; "Cleansing of the Sanctuary" "Purify His Temple" "Harvest" “Mighty sifting," "purification of the church," As shown before, in the Judgment for the Dead the sinners are separated from the righteous in books only, but in the Judgment for the Living the sinners and the righteous are bodily separated one from the other as Inspiration through the prophet Ezekiel explains: Eze. 9:3-6.

And through the prophet Malachi we are told that the Lord will beforehand send a messenger, and that after he prepares the way, the Lord will suddenly come to His temple (the church) for no reason other than to purify it, especially to purify the sons of Levi, the ministry. See Malachi 3:1-3. Then, says the Spirit of Prophecy, "Only those who have withstood temptation in the strength of the Mighty One will be permitted to act a part in proclaiming it [Third Angel's Message] when it shall have swelled into the Loud Cry." -- "The Review and Herald," Nov. 19, 1908. And to this "startling revelation" ("Testimonies to Ministers," p. 445) the prophet Isaiah adds:

After quoting Isa. 66:15-20. the writer says:

Since the slaughter predicted by the prophet Isaiah takes place among those who profess to be sanctified and purified (falsely believe to have need of nothing more), and since those who escape from among them are sent to the Gentiles to preach the gospel, five distinct and supremely important points stand out plainly: (1) since the victims of the slaughter are those who against their God-given knowledge indulge in swine's flesh and other abominations, and since those who escape are versed in the gospel work enough to be sent to preach it to the Gentiles, the slaughter, therefore, is seen to take place in the church; (2) those who escape, according to Ezekiel, are those who sigh and cry against the abominations, and thus receive the mark of deliverance, (3) since they are sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles after they escape the slaughter, they are "the remnant," those that are left, the future servants of God; (4) since they are to gather from the Gentiles all their brethren, all that can possibly be saved, they are the ones who finish the gospel work in all the world, (5) since there are two separations -- one from the church (Israelites), and one from the Gentiles, -- those who escape and those who are gathered in -- then the former are the first fruits and the later the second fruits -- those of Revelation 7:4, 7-9, one from the tribes of Israel, and one from the Gentile nations.

From this the writer moves to their abused status by the leadership of the SDA church:

This is what the phrase "religious liberty" means, my friend. Is this not the proper, honest, and honorable way to deal with the situation? Are you to follow men's sayings, or are you to follow Christ and His Truth? Tell those hostile Elders that their fight is not against "The Shepherd's Rod" but against God and against their own souls…

We come to you with the pure Word of God and all we request of you is to give us an unbiased and unprejudiced hearing when we call on You in your home. Since you see that this letter contains the plain untarnished Truth, then if you hear any one talking against it you can help him by asking him to give you something better on these scriptures if he has it, and if not, to let you alone.

A fitting place for me to end, in that it asserts that if you don’t have something better to explain the confusing Old Testament Prophecies don’t give them a hard time. The Davidian’s have a very much Old Testament way to view God, something that the Christian church has moved away from in the last couple hundred years. But something you still find among the more Fundamentalist Christians who assert that God will judge America or that hurricanes and Earthquakes are judgments of God. See Abundant Rest Blog on Church Judgment

Perhaps we should remember that not all the ideas that the SDA church has produced lead to well balanced Christian beliefs.

Dan 8 & 9 and the words used for "vison"

One of the comments on the Adventist today.com deals with the two words for “vision” used in Daniel. They are used to create a connection between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 however they are only connected artificially.
Dr. Milton Hook writes in his comment entitled It is not rocket science :

The argument begins with the fallacy that the "2300 days" is the only part of Daniel 8 left unexplained (Close examination of the entire chapter will, however, reveal other elements not fully explained to Daniel, as is the case in Daniel 2 and 7 also). The argument continues with the assertion that HAZON means "the whole of the vision" and MAREH means "only a small part of the vision." This assertion is then applied to Daniel 8 and 9 in order to link chapter 9:24-27 to chapter 8:14, alledging (sic) that 9:24-27 is an explanation of 8:14. That is, because the word "vision" in 9:23 is MAREH it must refer back to the small part of Daniel 8 left unexplained, namely 8:14.
This argument sounds very scholarly and will dupe many Sabbath School members.

He makes a good argument but it lacks the actual evidence which is necessary to support his case. Of course he does not have room to provide the texts in his letter to Atoday so I will supply the quotations for the aid of those who may want to point this out to others in their Sabbath School classes.

Update: The same point is made by Desmond Ford on the Spectrum Website where he says:

On page 74 of the Adult Teachers Guide, much space is given to the supposedly great distinction between the words Chazon and Mareh—words translated as "vision." This is enough to make any Hebraist not paid by the denomination weep. The words are used interchangeably, as anyone who knows English can find out by using a Strong’s Concordance. Chazon refers to the ecstatic experience of prophetic vision, and Mareh to its contents. The latter comes from a root meaning "to see." Mareh is found several times in the later chapters of Daniel and is NOT limited to the detail overheard concerning the twenty-three hundred evening-mornings. O that the brethren might play fair!

Example of Mareh meaning vision:
Dan 10:16
16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. (NIV)

Strongs definition: 4758 mar'eh (mar-eh'); from 7200; a view (the act of seeing); also an appearance (the thing seen), whether (real) a shape (especially if handsome, comeliness; often plural the looks), or (mental) a vision:
KJV-- X apparently, appearance (-reth), X as soon as beautiful (-ly), countenance, fair, favoured, form, goodly, to look (up) on (to), look [-eth], pattern, to see, seem, sight, visage, vision.
-----

Example of Chazown used for vision:
Dan 10:14
14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come." (NIV)

Strongs definition: 2377 chazown (khaw-zone'); from 2372; a sight (mentally), i.e. a dream, revelation, or oracle: KJV-- vision.


The following verses in Daniel use chazown 2377 (KJV)

Dan 1:17
17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Dan 8:1
1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
Dan 8:2
2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
Dan 8:13
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Dan 8:15
15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
Dan 8:26
26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
Dan 9:21
21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
Dan 9:23
23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

---

The following verses in Daniel use mar'eh 4758 (KJV)

Dan 1:4
4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
Dan 1:13
13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
Dan 1:15
15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.
Dan 8:15
15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
Dan 8:16
16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
Dan 8:17
17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.
Dan 8:26
26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
Dan 8:27
27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.
Dan 10:1
1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
Dan 10:6
6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.
Dan 10:16
16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.
Dan 10:18
18 Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me,

Martin Luther - Reason is a whore

One of the things that I really don't like to see is people taking a quote out of its context. Fortunately with the internet it is now possible to often quickly find the context to verify if the use of the quote is accurate to the way the quote is used.

Marco at HeavenlySanctuary.com writes;
Satanic statement of the day:
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently then not - struggles against The Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
Who said this?

The hint is in the title, but for the record, sometimes I think that instead of moving the church from The Dark Ages, The Reformation covertly gave The Dark Ages a nicer looking face.

The more I study it, the more I'm leary of being associated with "Reformation Theology."
Comments?
 Marco here assumes that Martin Luther is attacking the concept of reason. However Luther is defending his position on the correctness of the Roman Catholic belief in infant Baptism. 
LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK OF BAPTISM CCCLIII.
The anabaptists pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.  
I would not have wanted to get involved with Luther and his arguments. He was in fact quite brutal particularly those who were more conservative then he. However wrong he is on infant baptism and his predestination views it is not appropriate to call such a quote satanic. His material about the Jews, and his denouncement of other Christians such as Zwingli, those things are more substantially evil. However all of us say evil things.

Another quote attributed to Martin Luther is the following:

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has."

I never really found the source of that quote many places quote it with out reference. The only one that gave a reference gave the quote as:
"Reason is a whore of the devil." But it only gave abbreviations of the source and I could not find the title of the abbreviation used.(WE 51, 126, 7 ff.; comp. 10 I, 1, 326, 16; 18, 164 , 24. 182, 11)

I actually like those alleged quotes however. As one person said of this quote:

"There's a method to his madness here, as always: reason is only as good as its premises or assumptions, and, like rhetoric, reason will sell its service to any set of premises."

As I planned to post this a couple days ago the folks at HS.com have been discussing the quote and as yet none have figured out the context but some are questioning the context. Maybe they will stumble upon the meaning before they lose interest. In any case the idea of questioning the Reformation is wise because though it did many good things it also failed in many things. I should not be looked at as the standard for Christian theology. It was a re-awakening and the reformation to really serve it's purpose must continually re-awaken.

Response to the politics of division

What bothers me most is that little response can be found for religious topics which is the main focus of this blog. I certainly don’t think I can persuade anyone from their political beliefs because they are based upon ones emotions and philosophy they certainly can change but it is often a slow process. This is also very true of religion however it seems that it is harder to get Adventists involved in discussing their religion then their politics.

But now to the politics. Ryan Bell writes:

My job as a Christian, and even more so as a pastor, is not to say which party is closer to being right, but to declare the gospel of the kingdom, which eschews violence.

The vast majority of Pastors do not preach politics from the pulpit. Which is why the NY Times article is being used by the Religious Left. Their assumption which they treat as simple truth is that Evangelicals are preaching Republican politics and bringing in Republican political candidates to speak to their congregation. The NY Times article said:

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

If you pay attention to the political world you will rarely see a Republican politician make a speech in any Evangelical church. While during the Election campaigns you will regularly see Democrat candidates for President appear before some Black Church. Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, they have all done it. Personally I don’t like to see a church where the Pastor decides what can and can not be announced to the congregation. A table in the lobby is not really an issue of the church mission. I know of several churches which have coffee stands in their lobbies, [update, I got curious and yes Woodland Hills church also has a coffee stand, it's ministry team is called Sunday Coffee Team ] so is it really an affront to let someone have a table to lobby against abortion or for someone to give out voter guides. No the reason these are mentioned is because they represent societal actions of members of the church and they are in harmony with the Republican and or conservative view. And that to the Liberal media is the problem. And make no mistake the NY Times is very much a Liberal organization. Daniel Okrent, the Times Public Editor, said that his was a liberal newspaper in a July 25, 2004 article.
Or read the comments of the publisher of the NY Times Publisher Copies Michael Moore

[Update: Bill O'Reilly's latest column points out the Liberal media Bias I will quote the article in the comments of this post since the link will change when he posts his next article]

The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the countries. Society needs rules to deal with people that attack others either physically or by methods of theft or carelessness etc. If a person eschews violence do they also eschew the police? The words of Christ say to turn the other cheek, should our society abandon our system of authorities, no need for police or judges or jails? The military is another form of police, it however acts upon larger forces then individuals and law breakers. It sounds very nice to say that one eschews violence, most of us really don’t like it, either to use it or to be the victims of it, however much most people don’t like it, it is a part of life in this world. There is a reality to life and we must recognize and deal with it.

Alexander said...

We are of the same faith and I share a desire for greater peace and justice.

Re-read the language of your post. And compare it to the four Adventist posts on the Times piece. Where is the divisive language?

I did not say the other Adventist posts were divisive, I merely said some were excited by the NY Times article. The article itself was not really divisive but it is being used by the Liberal media for its own purposes.

Using novelist Crichton again to dismiss danger misses the point. When experts talk and consensus builds, we need to act. See Katrina, 9/11, welfare reform.

It does not because Crichton is not dealing only with the issue of global warming but with the whole concept of speculation and media’s use of projected crisis. It does not take that much time to read those speeches I would be interested in hearing back from anybody who reads them and still has a disagreement with his positions.

What disturbs me is not the mix of politics and religion - they did it and it is reality. Rather, the sin is the manipulation of religion for political ends, especially by the religious right on the war in Iraq, gay marriage and abortion.

Certainly the war on Iraq had nothing to do with Evangelicals. If we look at history we see that it was approved by both parties. In fact it is my contention that any President in similar situation with the type of Intelligence we and other nations had would have done the same thing. Gay marriage was not an issue raised by the religious right either it was raised by Gay activists and the religious right and society in general responded against the redefinition of marriage. And of course abortion has always been a issue, raised to a new level when the Supreme Court found it to be a right of privacy.

To toe the status quo is itself political and to call those who work for progressive change "divisive" fails to follow the long arch of justice and Christ's mission to the least of these.

There is a divide between the left and right that is the divide I mentioned I have no idea what you have read that leads to you statement. In the political world there really is not a status quo. Which is why we have laws upon laws and every few years someone claims they can make the country or world better.

Sherman Haywood Cox II said...

I agree with alexander...Your piece is much more "partisian" using language like "liberal media" and attacking some sort of liberal establishment...than the post on Spectrum's blog or the commenters to that entry...

Again that is the point, to show that there is a liberal manipulation going on with the article in the NY Times. That is why my quotes were taken from the Washington Post article dealing with the activities of the religious left. If you find you agree with Alexander it may be you need to re-read the article as a couple of his points were without merit.

JS in DC said...

'Over the top generalization' was invented by talk radio hosts -- most of whom are wildly conservative. To suggest that this kind of rhetoric is only visible in the 'liberal media and blogosphere' is itself and over the top generalization.

No, actually over the top generalizations were invented long before radio was invented or before there where talk show hosts. Nowhere did I suggest that such generalizations are exclusive to anyone in particular I noted that it was commonly found in certain liberal outlets, comments like the one quoted in the Post article.