1844 and the Future of Adventism

(Frankmer7) #189

It sounds above like the great Oz has spoken, Tim. Lol!


(Mikecmanea) #190

This is good. Finally a clear admission of the methodological presuppositions at play (without a recognition that they are in fact presuppositions).

Says who? Who made up this rule that everything in scripture was always intended for its immediate audience?

(Mikecmanea) #191

Translation: I don’t know how to respond.

Let’s use another example - the rich man and Lazarus. Those who believe in the immortality of the soul claim this is a depiction of reality while those who believe in soul sleep consider this a parable. For both groups it is theology that determines the interpretation not exegesis. Why can’t this apply to Dan. 8 as well?

This is a legitimate question that someone taking Andre’s position really should address to be taken seriously.

(George Tichy) #192

For a moment I thought you were referring to the question I asked you, about your background/credentials. Well, you never answered it anyway…

(Steve Mga) #193

“The Rich Man and Lazarus” story.
If anyone REALLY is interested in HOW the original listeners probably responded
to this story by Jesus, I would suggest this interpretation.
Short Stories by Jesus [the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi], by
Amy Jill Levine. chapter 9, pg 267 to 296.

Amy is a Conservative Jew. Teaches New Testament and Jewish Studies at
Vanderbilt Divinity School, Nashville, TN. Also has short lectures on YouTube.
Has a set of 24 lectures on CD. The Old Testament. The Great Courses series.

Has nothing to do with either the Soul in Heaven or burning up in the heat of Hell.
And neither with the “soul” sleeping after death.

(Harry Elliott) #194

Church members do not believe that the littler horn was Rome because we studied the pertinent evidence. we believe because we feel it’s the loyal thing to do. we believe whatever their herd believes, ever prouder that the sine qua non for our beliefs is truth. instead of compliance.

Ask an SDA to prove that the little horn is Rome, and the response will probably be, “I couldn’t find the little horn with both hands”.

Riddles never 'stand on all fours", and symbolic visions are riddles, not revelations. Our interpretations are speculation and invention, and seldom conclusive. They can be fun to decode and discuss with others who have dug deep, but inevitbly the ones who get fired are often being punished for being right–or at least reasonable–and only want to discuss their discoveries.

Having said that…

It seems to me we’re (mostly) missing the simple core of Daniel 8:
Verses 11 aand 12 say a little horn will cause the evening and morning sacrifices to be suspended AND THEN RESUMED.
Verse 13 asks how long they will be suspended.
Verse 14 answers: for the space of 2300 sacrifices.
And subsequently, the evening/morning SACRIFICES WERE SUSPENDED for 2300 sacrifices AND THEN RESUMED.

(Nothing in the passage mentions Rome or Jesus or sacrificing suspended in Heaaven or RESUMED in Heaven.)

This is the Jews explanation and they celebrate this fulfillment every December.
Maybe this riddle was written by Jews and about Jews and for Jews, and we’re just reading somebody else’s mail.

After all we’re famous for our DISAPPOINTING effort to decode another of their riddles.


André @areis74

Thank you for taking the time to answer my comments.

Below, I will address the points that you made in your answer.


The weakness of your demonstration relies on the fact that you are willing to analyse Daniel 8 without its context. Without the context, we can make the text say whatever we want but, at the end of the day, are we closer to the truth?

Also, I would respectfully disagree with you when you say that nothing in the text creates an interdependence between the preceding visions and Daniel 8. The mere fact that Daniel 8 uses the expression “little horn” automatically creates a link with the vision in Daniel 7 where the same expression is used. Daniel 7 and 8 are the only places in the entire Bible where this expression is used. How can one say that the visions in these chapters are not linked? And when we consider that the vision in Daniel 8 mentions the Medo-Persian and the Greek empires and that we know from history books that these empires are those that followed Babylon (we can even see the Medo-Persians take over Babylon in Daniel 5 and 6) it is more than obvious that the vision in Daniel 8 is directly linked to the visions of the statue (Daniel 2) and of the four beasts (Daniel 7).

So, yes, there is an interdependence between Daniel 8 and the previous visions concerning the succession of empires and to say the contrary is erroneous.

No, the question is relevant. It is you who are making the assumption that the chapters should not agree in spite of the fact that they are touching the same subject: the different powers that would come after Babylon.

Of course, it is easy to say that there is no confusion when one limits one’s study to one chapter out of context. But, again, are we closer to the truth at the end of the day? I don’t think so.

No, I rather say that it doesn’t seem to be your concern. Why? Because you refuse to put chapter 8 of Daniel in the larger context of the entire book in spite of the fact that other chapters touch the same subject as chapter 8. This is a major flaw in your analysis that leads to a flawed conclusion. As you have surely heard, a text without a context is just a pretext. In your case, a pretext for what, I wonder (but I think that I have an idea by reading the rest of your article).


It is your assumption that Daniel 8 focuses on Greece. Just because the little horn comes out of Greece doesn’t necessarily mean that it is Greek. For example, just because the people of America [mainly] “came out” from Europe doesn’t mean that America is European or belongs to Europe. No, while we recognize the European heritage, we recognize that America is independent from Europe.

If we recognize the link between Daniel 7 and Daniel 8, it is not unreasonable to say that the little horn of Daniel 8 may not be tied to the third beast of Daniel 7 (Greek empire) but to the fourth beast, that is, Rome.

So, no, Daniel 8 doesn’t necessarily focuses on Greece (as the verses dealing with the little horn may not be necessarily talking about Greece)

You say that the "text of Dan 8:23 requires that the little horn be part of the “descendants”". But are you sure that it is not one of your assumptions? Several Bible translations translate “And in the latter time of their kingdom” in Dan 8:23 as “at the end of their domination”, or “after their reign”, or “at the end of their reign” as “acharyith” can be also translated as “end” (see Isaiah 46:10 for example:"Declaring the end (Heb. acharyith) from the beginning…"). So, there is no absolute necessity to see the little horn as a Greek “descendant” in the Greek empire.

Obviously, a conclusion depends on the assumptions. Purposely or not, you’ve made several assumptions in your analysis that are not proven whatsoever (for example, that Daniel 8 is independent from Daniel 7 or that the “little horn” expression doesn’t apply to the same entity (according to your words: One thing to keep in mind is that “little horns” were a very common occurrence in the agrarian Mesopotamic world and as such, I don’t see a reason to see this symbol as a rarity or a unique feature requiring that it apply to the same entity in both chapters)).

A conclusion depends also on methodology. Your insistence of analyzing Daniel 8 out of the context of the entire book discredits not only your analysis but also your conclusion.

(Denny) #196

hmmmm… I risk being “censured” for disagreeing with a professor in the theology circles…My good sir, Daniel 8 in verses 7 and 8 do speak of Greece and the 4 generals that took succession thereafter. Verse 9 changes dimension and speaks of a little horn akin to Daniel 7 and if you ackowledge the “repeat and enlargement” priniciple and comparing apples with apples (other similar prophecies in Daniel) you will see that this little horn is indeed a fast transition from pagan Rome to Papal Rome. This comes clear from verse 11 where we see the issues of it magnifying itself to the host of heaven and the blasphemous tones later (claiming to be God on earth and power to change Gods Law). Verse 12 speaks to the Dark Ages similar to Dan 7v25… I could go on an on… But Antiochus is a “weak affair”, just to quote a phrase by famous archaeologist Dr. Manfred Bietak.

It is unfortunate that the gentleman who left the church was also indulging himself with YouTube videos as a source guide for study… Who here studying seriously for a Masters, Doctorate or Professorship will cite YouTube as a credible reference in their dissertation submission? No -one… But we can use it without sifting and scrutiny to guide us biblically?hmm… The Bible is not about one’s education but about one’s dedication to what it plainly says.

Our movement was brought up in its time and context (revelation 12v15-17) and that is our terms of reference. We need not be ashamed about 1844… Other Christian denominations dont understand or deny 1844 because some of them rejected its fulfillment after Jesus did not come. Hence the term GREAT disappointment.

We are safe only as we continue in the Word… And we are very much relevant in our time.

(Denny) #197

Depends if youre talking of the nominal bench warming SDA who waits to be told from the pulpit whats the latest for the day, or youre talking about the studious student who keeps digging and searching the Scriptures.

There are those who study and can give you a definitive breakdown of the book of Daniel (my self included)

(Denny) #198


(Denny) #199

Its unfortunate you have chosen to leave the fold , but i would like to encourage and refresh your conscience that indeed the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation can be understood WITHOUT a single reference to EGW… On ocassions where i present or teach on prophecy, i never make reference to EGW. Actually i dont study or research for presentations using EGW for prophecy because the Bible is sufficient… (P.S. EGW is still accurate on prophecy). Actually EGW goes " silent" on prophecies after Daniel 9 or 10. She does not touch Daniel 11 and only cites bits and pieces of Daniel 12. Maybe you have not studied with the “right” people who are truly compare Scripture with Scripture on the prophecies.

The books of Daniel and Revelation must be studied with an open and unbiased mind to the popular opinions of “theological scholars” of today. Prophecy does NOT need theology otherwise Jesus would not have come in the simple form He came in.


These quotes are from www.historicism.com/collins/interp.htm

(Note: I am quoting this to be more concise).

It is necessary to distinguish between the message of the prophet and the fulfillment. As a matter of procedure, the mean­ing of the prophetic text should be determined first. Only after this should the question of fulfillment considered. It is true, however, that exegetical considerations which remain obscure or ambiguous may be clarified immediately when the broad outlines of the particular prophecy are recognized as fulfilled. Nevertheless, the interpreter must resist the temptation to wrongly identify the prophecy with a particular fulfillment in order to accommodate it to a particular historical event or to a particular prophetic system.


It is necessary to recognize that the apocalyptic prophecies in God’s Word are real prophecies, concerned with real temporal, mundane future events which from the author’s standpoint are subject to future fulfillment. They are not to be understood merely as a “philosophy of history”; that is, a disclosure of principles which govern future events. This follows from the manner in which the visions of Daniel are interpreted, as well as from what is stated in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:1, 4:1).


Several of Daniel’s visions, where the form is more extended, carry their own interpretations. In the classic dream-vision genre, future events are often portrayed as if experienced in symbolic representation, consecutively one after the other. These represent the pro­gress of history from the time of the prophet (or from some other indicated time) and extend into the future, usually to the end time. (See in addition to Daniel and Revelation the extra-biblical IV Enoch 83-90; 93, 91:12-17; II Baruch 36-41; 53-74; IV Esdras 11-12.)

This as a reference brings up many questions. Namely of context.

This is for biblical study (and my rubric only).

  1. What are the archaeological findings recently that shed any light on the factual knowledge regarding this time period in history?

  2. What other “historicist” related interpretations explain the context? Rise of Islam?

  3. Why is there not a detailed overlay of all possible historical and future “possible” interpretations of Daniel 7/8/9 which should be tied together in context?
    and most importantly…

  4. Regarding the “fulfilling of the gospel commission” for which all this ties into the imperative commands in the book of Revelation… how does one successfully map the imaging/symbols of Dan 1-9 into 10-12 contextually and yet have it line up with Revelation?


From a comprehensive standpoint. Whether Dan 8:14 refers to 2300 years or days… the book of Hebrews talks of Christ’s mediation as being complete. That’s everything birth,life, death, ascension, and his ACTIVE priestly ministry now. Even if correct, (SDA interpretation) Dan 8:14 is a “type” . Not only does Christ “match” the prophecy “once for all”, He validates the end time… which is based on the gospel commission. My goal is to understand this “in the vein”…

with kind regards,


(André Reis) #203

The Hebrew term “acharith” is a noun and cannot be translated as the preposition “after” as you wish. This has actually been a staple of the traditional Adventist argument that needs to place the little horn incorrectly “after” the end of the reign of the four horns. But that has no support in the original text.

The text of Dan 8:13 is clear: “In the acharith malkutam … a king will rise.” This cannot be rendered “after their reign” or “after the end of their reign, a king will rise”. This is grammatically incorrect.

The common way to translate this is “at the latter part of their reign” (NIV) which does not assume that their reign has come to an end but rather that this king rises towards the latter part or at a later section of this period.

I translate acharith as “posterity/descendants” because acharith is used precisely with this meaning in the parallel passage in Dan 11:4 which explains the death of the male goat’s great horn (Alexander) and his two sons: “It will not go to his descendants {acharith}, nor will it have the power he exercised”.

Even if we do not take acharith as “posterity” but rather as “latter part” this king still rises within the period of the reign of the four horns, not after. This along with the other evidence in the chapter strongly connects the little horn to Greece and no other unknown empire, much less Rome which was no “little horn” when it defeated the Greeks in 63 BC but a massive empire. Further, the Romans didn’t do any of the things predicted in Dan 8.

Rome continues to fail the basic test.


By the way I would like to thank all of you for your contributions because it is discussions like this that allow us to understand more…come let us reason together…:slight_smile:

(Mikecmanea) #205

Since of course there were no Romans around while the Greek empire was still on the scene.

(Harry Elliott) #206

I couldn’t agree more. The participants (and lurkers) here aren’t typical SDAs. For a very long time I was very active in what was patronizingly called “Lay Activities” in those days, and and I gave in-home Bible studies–a lot. From the rostrum we would invite others to participate and later stand in the foyer with packages for all who wanted to help. The latter was generally an experience you could call zero-eye-contact.:wink:



Please read carefully as I have never said that “acharyith” meant “after”. I told you that this word also means “end” (not just “posterity”. See, for example, Isaiah 46:10 where the word is used to mean “end”) and that several Bible translations have used that meaning in their translation of Daniel 8:23.

Also, you are making the wrong assumption that because it can be translated as “posterity” or “descendant” in Daniel 11:4 it has the same meaning in Daniel 8. This is not necessary the case as several Bible versions have plainly translated the beginning of Daniel 8:23 as “at the end of their dominion” (Septuagint, or Louis Segond version), or “after their reign” (Vulgate:“Et post regnum eorum”).

So, apparently, it seems that “your” translation is based on an assumption that may be incorrect and that your interpretation may not be the most solid one.

So your conclusion that Rome fails the test may be a little bit premature, to say the least.

(André Reis) #208

The fact is that there’s no reason why acharith couldn’t mean “posterity” in Dan 8 since it is so used by Daniel in a chapter which is thematically linked to Dan 8. Either way, whether it means “posterity” or “latter part”, it simply doesn’t place the rise of the “little horn”_ after_ the “end” of the four kingdoms but rather within a “latter” part of their reign. Acharith has mostly the meaning of what comes “next” and even “extremity” within a continuum, not “termination.” Further, it is clear that the desecrations against the sanctuary by the little horn occur within that same period while the four kingdoms are in their “latter” period, not after they ended.

It so happens that the Seleucid kingdom by the time of Antiochus IV had already lost most of its territory and although other rulers followed Antiochus IV, it was the last Greek kingdom to intersect with the Jews. After they revolted against Antiochus IV, Judea became an independent state under the Hasmonean dynasty until 63 BCE when the Romans took over Jerusalem.



Thank you for your answer.

The King James version used the expression “latter time” as a translation for “acharyith” which may give the impression, indeed, that the little horn comes within a latter part of their reign. But several other translations (Septuagint, Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, Wycliffe Bible, Louis Segond, Nouvelle Edition de Genève, etc) convey the meaning that the little horn comes at the end of their reign or after their reign (which is not contradictory with “acharyith” since one of the meanings of the word is “end”).

So, how can we choose between the two views (“within their reign” versus “at the end of their reign”)? The only way is to consider the context in which Daniel 8 is found, that is, the other visions already exposed in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.

But whatever the choice, we can see that:
1 - there are several possible renditions of Daniel 8
2 - the SDA interpretation of the little horn in Daniel 8 cannot be summarily dismissed as it is entirely plausible according to the rendition that has been chosen.

My conclusion will be this one (I am not speaking specifically to you here, André, but in a general manner to Spectrum): so far, it has not been proven that the SDA interpretation is incorrect (even if there may be some alternatives). Based on this, I think it would be more intellectually sound to avoid writing articles dissing the church based on premises that may be wrong and are unproven. It doesn’t reflect well on the authors and on the magazine publishing these articles.

(André Reis) #210

You won’t find acharith with the meaning “after the end” anywhere is Scripture and no lexicon gives this meaning for the word. The connotation can be best summarized as “what comes in the future” for the subject. Try to read all occurrences of acharith in the OT as “after your end” to see how this translation would make nearly all uses of acharith nonsensical. A prime example is Jer 29:11:

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope after your end [acharith].”

And you keep falling back to the circular reasoning of saying that Dan 8 must “match” Dan 2, 7. But this forced reading only matches your interpretation of the chapter, not necessarily what it means in context.

You’re grasping at straws here.

You make it seem that this is the only line of argument in favor of a Greek little horn in Dan 8. It isn’t, there’s plenty in the chapter to solidify this reading. The burden of proof is with those who translate “Greece” as “Rome” in Dan 8.

What is not “intellectually sound” is to try to change the meaning of a word to make it fit your own opinions about the text. What is not “intellectually sound” is to continue to base a convoluted system of interpretation in flawed and unproven assumptions and then accuse those who carefully exegete the text of the same. And so on and so forth… As much as you and others would like to see these critiques cease, they won’t so long as the church holds onto this problematic theory as its only reason for existing.

I just don’t think you’re going to be able to see what you simply cannot see.