1844 and the Future of Adventism


10/25/18 - #8

Ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

(Elmer Cupino) #83

Planck, originator of quantum theory, was discouraged from pursuing physics because "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes” as his professor told him. Little did his professor know what was to shake physics.


(Robert Lindbeck) #84

@gford1 I am so glad you raised this point. I was reading through looking for someone to raise it, so I wouldn’t double up. When people dismiss Antiochus as not being important and therefore could not be the little horn, they do it from a modern perspective. His impact needs to be viewed from the people of the time.

(Nathan Robinson) #85

Daniel certainly did not understand. Perhaps with Holy Spirit guidance we are in a better position at this point in the timeline.

I still wonder why we pay so much attention to the “visions” and seemingly so little to the divine interpretations.

What haunts me most about SDA theology is that it all seems to hang on one verse - Dan 8:14. I hate to think in such absolute terms, but it truly seems that SDA identity, eschatology, even soteriology, hang on this single verse. What would the SDA church look like if this verse were not in the Bible? Who would we be? What would we teach?

For the SDA church to exist, we must be absolutely sure that we are absolutely right on Daniel 8, the meaning of 8:14, and the identity of the little horn as the papacy. To be who we are, we must be abolutely right and all others must be wrong, absolutely wrong.

(Darrel Lindensmith) #86

We would look like pretty much what we do look like seeing that most Adventist don’t really understand our position on 8:14 anyway

(Nathan Robinson) #87

Your reply is true, sad, and sums what is wrong and upsetting with this church. We are all-knowing yet ignorant.

(Elmer Cupino) #88

Which reminds of the OB/GYN joke. The child is born and is traditionally given the slap. The father says “Be careful Doc, he’s held only with a single screw.”

(George Tichy) #89

As long as the focus remains on Daniel 8:14 the only big picture people will perceive is the Adventist Church itself. I mean, the importance of the church, the prophetic importance of the church, the special importance of the church. The Church!

I just wonder how our church would be like if it focused primarily on the Gospel.

This 1844/IJ issue is baloney, not biblical. But… just try to say such a thing and you can expect a very strong reaction. Because this is actually the basic Church’s belief, one that the members are proud of the most.

Please, keep studying the book of Hebrews.

(Harry Elliott) #90

Of course we’re wrong. Our pioneers were adding speculation to speculation to save face for Jesus’ failure to conform to Adventist predictions. Substituting days for years might show that prophets have a mischievous sense of humor, (if they did it at all.)
And what part of the following do we not understand? "…EVERY PRIEST STANDETH DAILY MINISTERING and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: BUT THIS MAN, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD; (Heb 10: 11,12)

(George Tichy) #91

This is true. Now, imagine that this is the basic doctrinal beliefs of the church, which is so controversial, and flawed. How can we expect people to understand it?


10/25/18 - #11

Should never appear together in a sentence:


(Cfowler) #93

Seems pretty clear. I don’t think it could be stated any more plainly, could it?

(André Reis) #94

In the PDF version I explore the different Hebrew expressions which are all translated as “time of the end” in english but are different in Hebrew but have different applications according to context.

et qets; l’moed qets = the end period of the vision (Dan 8)
qets hayammim = the end of days = final end (Dan 12)

They point to different time periods in the prophet’s eschatological horizon. The only real eschatological time of the end appear in Dan 12:13 and coincides with Daniel’s resurrection.

The error of the Adventist pioneer’s interpretation was to consider these different expressions for the “time of the end” as referring to the same eschatological period.

(André Reis) #96

Let that sink in for a moment.

This novel approach being hurled at unsuspecting Adventists seeks to finally acknowledge that the biblical text as an obstacle rather than an asset for Adventist theology. No wonder Manea offers zero textual evidence for anything, just percentages, probabilities and a numbers’ game hoping that it will stick. He sees no value in the biblical text of Daniel, finds it irrelevant, unreliable and undecipherable, a relic of time which needs to be replaced by more sophisticated, authoritative and a superior Adventist hermeneutics dissociated from obscure texts and complex enough to rise above silly attempts to exegete Scripture.

The lack of respect for authorial intention, the erosion of the authority of Scripture and the dismissal of serious biblical interpretation in favor of external presuppositions in this method are frankly disturbing.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is in a nutshell what is being offered here as the better alternative for the future of Adventism…

Caveat emptor!

(George Davidovich) #97

After reading most comments in this dialog I think this one exemplifies best the rational extremes to which educated and otherwise logical people will go in the course of a rational argument. Neither the SDA theology nor the church’s identity hang on Dan 8:14 as Nathan proposes – If we are going to pick one biblical verse I can think of others that fit this description much better, such as John 1:1. And since there are millions of other just as well educated and logical people who will ask what makes this verse unique as a vessel of truth or better than verses in other “holy” books I can confidently say that no other person claiming to be God had been predicted with such consistency throughout many prophetic books verses throughout the ages as we find in the Bible, and with such accuracy as the prophecy of Daniel 9.
Daniel, 7, 8, 9 are all contextual and consistent (along with the book of Revelation Etc. Etc. Etc.) using the historicist method of interpretation. Daniel 9 specifically is the greatest proof that Christendom as a whole has in answering the question “who do say that I am”. Those opposing Daniel 8 should use their critical thinking in convincing themselves why Preterism (or Futurism) are nothing more than a desperate attempt from a system that wants to disprove Jesus. Plain and simple

(Nathan Robinson) #98

Thanks for your feedback. I have never known anything other than Adventism all my life, both personally and professionally (until recently). And I have always tried to be careful about not going to theological, or even logical, extremes. I have family members who are part of the “Historic Adventist” movement on one side, and others who are on the lefty side of the church. I stand pretty much in the middle.

But . . . As a periodic thought experiment I like to wonder what would happen if certain verses in the Bible were different, or missing. How would that affect the rest of my theology? I confess that I am not a systematic theologian, but I do believe that the Bible is interconnected, that what is said in one place affects how I interpret the Bible in a different place. It is like the old game of Pick-Up-Sticks, where what you touch in one place will affect something else, often with unintended consequences.

For me, as an Adventist, born out of the Millerite movement and the disappointment of 1844, Daniel 8:14 is the most consequential verse for my apocalyptic identity and theology. That verse is the origin of the SDA Church. Without Daniel 8:14 the SDA Church would not exist in its current form. When I removed this verse, as a mental exercise, I had a hard time holding SDA apocalyptic eschatology/soteriology together. Remove this verse, and a great lacuna forms.

Quick Disclaimer/Explainer: I am a historicist in terms of my general approach to prophecy. I don’t buy futurism. I am not convinced by preterism. However, I don’t see why Daniel 8 has to be as forward looking as Daniel 2 or 7. Even SDAs are essentially preterist in their interpretation of Daniel 9, save the last half of verse 27 which no one seems to talk about much. I have never made a case for Antiochus Epiphanes as the fulfillment of Daniel 8’s little horn. But I will be honest and say that at this point I don’t see Rome in Daniel 8 - for reasons briefly mentioned in comments above.

(André Reis) #99

Too simplistic.

Any system of interpretation must rise from the text not be imposed on it.

I’m not a “preterist” for saying that Dan 8 applies to Antiochus, just as the interpreting angel is not a “preterist” for explaining that the vision has to do with the intersection of Greek and the Jewish history.

It’s all in the text. The burden of proof is with those who think the text doesn’t really say what it patently says.

(Theresa Tacconelli) #100

Lengthy, but powerful! As important as the WO issue is, it is a grand stumbling block to furthering the Great Commission! And oh, how we have stumbled!

(Harry Elliott) #101

Adventist theology seems to ignore Heb 10: 11,12. Hebrews is the only place in the Bible that speaks of Jesus as a Priest, and it says Jesus is NOT of the priesthood order that wore the vestments of Aaron and performed the rituals that Aaron did.

Add to this the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews was just that, a letter drawing the Jewish Christians’ attention away from their lost beloved temple to Jesus by using the temple services as an analogy.

Rituals don’t accomplish anything. Rather they illustrate. The Holiest represents “heaven, itself”, not another building. What Moses was shown on the mount was probably a vision of what the earthly was to look like, not a physical edifice in heaven.

It just occurred to me: EGW insisted that the Law can’t be changed, even by God, Himself. But,

"…there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Heb 7:12) So there’s another reason to believe we are mistaken when we get so tangled up in the rituals of the Old Covenant’s Sanctuary. Better to envision Jesus sitting beside the Father, rather than standing repeating the same thing over and over and over.

(Thomas J Zwemer) #102

Wm Miller got Dan 8:14 wrong. Ellen White Bought a Corn field vision. The word Cleased appears in the King James. more recent and scholarly versions have it restored. This firms up a Greek episode rather than an end time hypothesis. How many attempts were there to final get to Oct 1844? Adventism is on firmer ground on the Sabbath, but they have much too narrow view of Rev 14. The issue, has been and will be Who is worthy of worship. the timing may or may not be a correlary. In the mean time, I prefer to public worship with those who cherish and honor the Gospel and the Grace of God in finding a way to rescue a doomed race.