1844 and the Future of Adventism

(Mikecmanea) #231

We need to make a distinction between how the church arrived at certain ideas and the value of those ideas now in their mature state. Otherwise, we fall for a genetic fallacy. Like if someone said that Luther discovered righteousness by faith while climbing pilate’s staircase on his knees, so there must be some importance to that ridiculous ritual.

It makes no difference that some guy came up with the sanctuary idea while walking through a cornfield, that EGW couldn’t understand anything going on at the Bible conferences until God took over and helped her guide things when people were stuck, or, that EGW continued to endorse 1844 the rest of her ministry.

Today, we’ve had these theological elements for a century and a half with plenty of time to develop them and understand what they are about so we need to judge them on their own merits in the context of the wider Christian theological landscape. And, when doing this, SDA theology has no need for EGW but can stand just fine on it’s own feet.

(Mikecmanea) #232

Well, this whole time we have been talking about the Antiouchus vs. Rome issue. But the same applies to the cleansed vs restored/justified issue. Andre feels that the entire 1844 theory is built on ‘cleansed’ when in fact it works just as well with restored/justified. We have no obligation to accept other people’s strawmen just because those are things they know how to knock down.


It is isn’t it…these are indeed very interesting clues.


I would submit that she felt very adamantly that her writings should not be used to settle points of doctrine. In her later years pointedly refused to do so when repeatedly request by various people. Even her son wrote about this after her death saying the same thing. It wasn’t till after her death that the idea of her infallibility was aggressively promulgated until over the last 4 decades we discovered why we were lead to think this way.

In the pursuit of Present Truth I would agree that we will find various elements are correctly to be updated. We need to continue the pursuit of greater understanding building and questioning to increase are necessary.

(André Reis) #235

The passage Dan 8:13–14 follows the pattern

interruption — defilement — restoration

of the tamîd sanctuary services and therefore the end of the desecrations lasting 2,300 evenings-mornings has to do with its “re-dedication” rather than Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur would not take place without the sanctuary being nitsdaq first.

That is one of the fundamental problems with connecting Dan 8 to a so-called eschatological Day of Atonement occurring in heaven being defiled by the sins of the saints rather than the Greek “little horn.” It subverts the most basic meaning of the chapter.

(Darrel Lindensmith) #236

Your advocation of this view is truly puzzling. You agree “the goat had a notable horn between his eyes” “the goat waxed very great” is Greece I assume.
“The great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds” I assume you view as the break up of Alexander’s Empire into the well know four divisions or empires.
“And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great” I assume you believe is Antiochus IV.

“them” - winds is (feminine) horns is (masculine) William Shea’s document “Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation” is helpful here. “Out of one of them” literally translates “from the one from them” meaning from one of the winds or ‘directions’ probably this power would arise. The genders indicate there is no organic connection between the four horn entities and the new ‘little horn’ in question.
In chapters 7 and 8 “a little horn” is mention in a climatic manner and these are two consecutive chapters in the book of Daniel. To say they (the horns) are ‘not related’ is puzzling.

2300 literal days can’t be lined up with Antiochus. Ford attempted it and failed. If you take it as 1150 literal days his reign was not that. Nor can the 1260 of little horn in Chapter 7 line up with Antiochus, and the 1260 and the 2300 must relate to each other in some meaningful way. Antiochus CANNOT be the little horn. He is not even in the same category as MedoPersia and Greece; he is not even close to being a World Empire in this sequence.

Rome is the obvious intention of the prophecy.

(André Reis) #237

One cannot successfully refute the refutation by using the same arguments that have been refuted.

I address nearly all of the traditional arguments based on flimsy gender discrepancies and mistranslations in Dan 8 in the longer pdf version which it seems you haven’t read.

(Darrel Lindensmith) #238

Regarding the relationship between 1798 and 1844 one is helped by seeing the context of the cleansing in 8:14. It is given in response to the question in the previous verse, “How long will this abomination that makes desolate be allowed to continue?” To understand verse 14 (the answer) one must understand verse 13 (the question). What does the context say? The sanctuary in verse 14 is the same contextually as the sanctuary that is cast down and corrupted in verses 11 and 13. What Sanctuary was infiltrated by this ‘little horn’ power? If the little horn is Rome then the answer is that the infiltrator of the Sanctuary is Rome, and so we are look for a historical event or events on earth no in heaven. Historically we know Rome, beginning with Constantine the Great, certainly began a process of infiltration into the Christian Church, that was not stopped until 1798 with the French Revolution. 1844 as well brought a cleansing of the infiltration, just as God used the Assyrians to cleanse Israel by its invasion.
The Christian Church was to be “Nestdaq”-“cleansed,” (no connection to Lev 16) The word here means “set right.” What has God done in Biblical history to purify and set right His church? Whether it be by He allowed pagan Assyria, and he allowed pagan Babylon to weed out the sinfulness. Beginning in 1844-secular humanism/Communism would do the same. In the 19th to 21st Centuries God allowed persecution to cleanse and separate out the dross in Christianity.

Charles Darwin in 1844 privately published the Origin of Species (officially published in 1859). This work gave the scientific validation to the political and philosophical belief in Atheist Humanism. Then, Carl Marx in 1844 publishing his Philosophical Papers of 1844 and This work developed the political theory and social revolution based on Atheism. This trinity of secularism must include Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, born in 1844. His writings provided the philosophical/logical justification for the worldview of Atheism. These three are the foundation for the Atheist Revolutions that purged religion of power and influence politically.

This is the modern paganism God has allowed to “set right the sanctuary,” freedom of religion and conscience has been the result.

(Brad(Luna)) #239

Because that’s a basic rule of interpreting anything. If I were to write a letter to someone, you would want to figure out what it meant to that person and to me. You wouldn’t say, “Well this obvious has no relevance to the audience, only to someone in the future.”

While it’s true that prophecy can have double fulfillment, the idea that something wouldn’t be intended for its original audience at all is well…wrong.

(Brad(Luna)) #240

The Seleucid Empire was LITERALLY a successor state to Alexander the Great’s Empire. The text literally describes Alexander’s empire as splitting up, which is exactly what happened and one king emerging from that split empire and messing with the Temple.

(Darrel Lindensmith) #241

Except the Prophecy directs that the fulfillment often “will” be in the future-/Dan 8:26 ]. 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.

(Brad(Luna)) #242

Yes, because the Maccabbean revolt was hundreds of years down the road from the Persian Empire.

(Darrel Lindensmith) #243

Thank you, so this is prophecy not history pretending to be a prediction?


Of course, Rome is the obvious intention of the prophecy.

Antiochus was not a major player. Yes, he desecrated the temple. So what? He was not the first one or the last one to do that. So why mentioned him in a vision dealing with issues far more serious and important? This doesn’t make any sense.

Also, to keep this Greek connection, you need to artificially disconnect Daniel 8 to Daniel 7 in which the same expression “little horn” is found. And they are the only places in the Bible where this expression is found (correct me if I am wrong here, anybody). To affirm that the little horn is Greek, it needs to be proven that the little horn in Daniel 8 is not the same as the little horn in Daniel 7 and so far, it has not been proven.

So, yes,the “advocation of this view is truly puzzling” (but not surprising if it is driven by ideology).

(Mikecmanea) #245

To be fair, Andre has already provided a response to these arguments, which ought to be taken into account for the conversation to move forward. If a text-based argument is made against Andre, it should either counter his assertions or show that a case could still be made in spite of them. If you (and @DarrelL ) haven’t already done so, I recommend reading his more formal position statement carefully:

Granted, a large part of this paper is spent addressing Goldstein’s arguments, but there are still sections that contain stand-alone arguments that need to be considered.

My main contention to his work is that it is built on faulty methodological and theological presuppositions. He relies heavily on Ford’s imaginary version of Adventist theology rather than actual Adventist theology. It is very similar to conversations I’ve had with fundi’s who try to understand Adventism through a fundamentalist logic. Because of this, he mistakenly believes that his arguments have a lot more weight than they actually do.

(Mikecmanea) #246

That is a basic rule of interpreting anything EXCEPT Scripture, if:

  1. God exists
  2. This God is personal
  3. This God chose to directly influence the production of Scripture, and,
  4. This God intended that a text developed over a 1000 year period would be used as the primary basis of theology for the next two millennia. (if you disagree with any of these four points, we should be having a completely different discussion)

Now what you say does apply to some degree to books like the new testament epistles. Although we also have to consider that Paul, for example, spent a significant amount of time teaching his audiences in person, such that the letters later written to them had a much wider context that we are not privy to.

It very likely does not apply however to the apocalyptic sections of Scripture, if in fact, they addressed issues in the distant future that the present audience had no access to. Because of this, we need to spend significant time evaluating the presuppositions of secular methodologies before applying them to Scripture.

“Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you…” 1 Pet 1:10-12

(André Reis) #247

Only if “Greece” actually means “Rome” in Daniel 8. Start with the wrong premise and you’ll arrive at the incorrect conclusion.


My point exactly! Start with the wrong premise and you’ll arrive at the incorrect conclusion.

(George Davidovich) #249

I don’t know Tom, this is an extra-biblical feast that although I undersand from a historical perspective, I never considered from a prophetic one, maybe you can tell us

(George Davidovich) #250

In all fairness to Denny, he was referring to the Bible, being an ancient "book” which is as relevant today as it was 3,500 years ago. This idea is also reflected in my initial statement in this blog concerning biblical verses that describes who the SDA Church is. I picked John 1:1, because of its relevance to Dan 9:24, although I could have selected many others that do just as good a job.

It also goes back to the question that @areis74 will not answer for this audience concerning who does he believe the Dan 9 prophecy points to. To further explain this point I will note how @areis74 will pick a unique translation in the NIV not found in any other biblical translation (I pointed this out earlier also) and engage in “exegetical” gymnastics to prove his point, which incidentally contradicts all other translations, while at the same time dismissing a different translation example that @Nymous presented (Isa 46: 10) saying: “Incorrect translations are actually an extremely common occurrence in Bible versions” This is bad enough as a methodology in case anyone still is paying attention, but when you take a look at the verse itself which says that God knows the “end” from the beginning, it is just very telling. Either you believe that the term “end” in this verse is an absolute statement about God’s omniscience or you just don’t.

When people so-called scholars get to the point of believing that their understanding and “exegesis” is superior to the Written Word and therefore the Living Word, then we are all wasting our time here.