Why do you think it is obscure? this message was given by the same author, recorded by the same “transcriber”, and interpreted with the same method as the message in Dan. 9:24-26, which is considered by Chritianity at large as one of the best proofs Jesus is the Messiah, do you disagree? If we believe one as being so clear and transcendental, why not treat the other one equally?
Well, it seems people cannot get in agreement about its real meaning. It’s certainly not because it’s clear and unequivocal. My guess…
Good to see that the lounge (or alternative chat forum) seems to have disappeared and that there’s a good conversation going again.
ok , I can accept that there is no clear consensus, but as Christians, or even from a basic logic position we just can’t conclude that it is too cryptic to even bother trying to understand it, deride those who do, or just ignore it as if it was never written, so ultimately we all have to decide if we are willing to accept Scripture itself.
That’s exactly my point about the book of Hebrews. It reveals clearly what happened right at the time of Jesus’ ascension. That’s why I prefer this report rather than one obscure verse in the OT to explain what really happened.
But I understand that my logic and reasoning may not be palatable to everyone.
Yes, this is much better now.
The Lounge still exists, but basically only one thread is active with an ongoing conversation between old friends, those who dwelt there during the years of ostracism…
I see, so really what I hear you saying is Hebrews is ok (a specific interpretation of it) but Daniel 8 is not so let’s ignore that one?
I agree with you on this for the most part, that using any modern writing that either amplifies accepted scripture adding material that is not there or contradicts scripture is wrong.
But please consider two related items:
- Much of what you and I likely accept as acceptable Christian teaching and practice, while perhaps reflected in the bible, is neither really supported or directed as theologically important or correct. For example:
- Baptism, especially as a ticket to join either the Body of Christ or a denomination. Not required the bible.
- Paying 10% of your salary to the church as tithe. Convenient for the church, no doubt, but not directed in the bible as is claimed.
- In many cases, it seems, when the writers of the bible were writing, they did not view their own writings as scripture. In NT times for example, Paul referred to scripture in his letters, but he wasn’t referring to anything contemporary including his own letters, which he doesn’t appear to have considered scripture at all. But at the same time he seems to have claimed the same authority as scripture and made statements to that effect.
Note also that the selection criteria, as recorded by the council(s) for the books of the NT in the 4th century, included popular widespread acceptance and whether the books threatened the developing theology of the Roman church (compared to outlying and less powerful groups), but did not include inspiration as a factor. Many books that were regionally accepted as authoritative were rejected and then systematically destroyed in the following centuries.
This, and our knowledge of how the Christian bible was finally assembled, by committee and under orders from the Roman Emperor, makes me wonder a bit about the nature of what we consider scripture. Are we missing something important? Should everything that is in the bible be there? I read there was a huge debate over whether or not Revelation should be included, for example.
Just thoughts I had while thinking…
The irony of this is that in biblical times a tabernacle for a god was the god’s residence on earth when present among the worshipers. The Israelite’s copied this idea from everyone else around them who were doing the same thing.
A god does not need a tabernacle in the divine heavenly realm, their realm. It is needed when they visit the earth, the realm of mortals.
Compared to Hebrews, Daniel 8 is a very obscure text on which to build an entire scenario of eschatological atonement. Hebrews is built on the death, resurrection, enthronement, and intercession of Jesus as the reality beyond the temple ritual and covenant life of Israel. It was written to people who were in danger of abandoning Jesus, and going backwards into the ritual and national identification associated with that former covenant. The writer is urging them not to, because access to God’s presence, and full, eschatological atonement, is to be found only through Jesus and the way he had made. This did not include a way station into an outer compartment for 1810 years… such reasoning can’t be found in the book. What is clear, is that the way was fully opened by Jesus through his resurrection and ascension and subsequent intercession.
The Adventist usage of Daniel 8, on the other hand, relies solely on a particular English translation, a disputed numerology, and a highly questionable linguistic connection to Leviticus 16, in order to support a cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary beginning in 1844. It totally ignores the context of chapter 7 that speaks of judgment being made in favor of the saints/ Israel as good news for them as they endured under the domination of anti God powers. It ignores their longing for restoration of their destroyed temple, and return to their land, or even later, their longing for the ouster of Antiochus and his desecration of the temple, and turns it into a personal examination of every individual’s life record to see if they’re in or out. The context just doesn’t bear this out, and is a very tenuous interpretation at best.
Frankly, (sorry, couldn’t help it) and IMO, your biblical clarity is outstanding. What is your background/testimony?
I have no formal theological training. I’m just a music teacher/ musician who reads alot. I’ve been blessed to learn from some really good people, who taught me how to study the bible in context and how to exegete passages. It comes in handy, because I’m also an elder, and do quite a bit of preaching and teaching!
Frank, These are very strong assertions, I expect you can support each with a little more detail:
- Usage of Daniel 8, on the other hand, relies solely on a particular English translation.
- A disputed numerology
- A highly questionable linguistic connection to Leviticus 16
You see? You are a diligent student of the Bible who seems to be very committed to what is written. This is why you got your conclusions right.
It is obvious you are there for the most important of reasons. I’ve been a student from here.
Since the “days” of creation couldn’t possibly be 24 hour days before the earth was set in motion around the sun, the days had to have been periods of time, how ever long. When the days are counted in Genesis, the seventh day is described differently. All the other days have a beginning and an end - “evening and morning”, but the seventh day, the day God rested, has no such designation. With that in mind, when God rested on the seventh day, He had finished creating, and He blessed the day, which lasts through OUR history, as inhabitants of this creation. God blessed what He had created and asks us to respect His creation. All time that God has given us is HOLY time in this last period of earth’s time.
When Jesus answered those who accused him of breaking the sabbath, by saying, “it was lawful to do good on the sabbath” he described the Christian’s life in total. When is there a time in our lives when it’s appropriate, or even possible, not “to do good”.
For the Christian, God’s law is a way of life, not as a follower of a list of don’ts; but a Christian will be defined by those basic precepts of the law, summarized by Jesus as “loving God and loving our neighbour as ourselves”. The book of Hebrews explains this expanded meaning of everything the Jews held to be holy, including the sabbath. The sabbath rest is promised as a “rest in Christ’s finished work of our salvation”. We are denying that rest when we insist on “working” our way to salvation by strictly following a list of behaviours. Those behaviours will show up in a Christian life once we allow ourselves to be changed from the inside. Pasting good behaviour (following list of commandments) on the outside for others to see and us to depend on, will not cut it.
Jesus said the Sabbath was made for Humanity.[Mankind]. It was not made for the billions of
stars, other solar systems throughout space. I would think “Sabbath” in the Garden would be
a whole lot different than “Sabbath” after – when man would work by the “sweat of his brow”,
a new phenomenon, and a new mind set toward survival.
GOD made the Garden.
When man left the Garden that GOD had made,
Man then had to make His Own Garden without God’s help.
If there ARE other solar systems with created beings on them, God probably relates to each
one according to where they are. Even the different planets in our solar system do not have
the same “length of a day” as Earth does, nor the same length of time as an “Earth week”.
The Apostles Creed has been used for a very long time and is a statement of faith for millions of christians. A few lines from the apostles creed explains the work of Christ in heaven. Note that the right hand in Jewish thought is for judgement. Creeds were used as baptismal statements and all have the same basic structure some have been found going back to the second century.
On the third day he rose again,
He ascended into heaven,
He is seated at the right hand of the Father,
And he will come to judge the living and the dead,
The Father is always assumed to take the CENTER spot on the seat.
I have always understood that it is a “wide bench” for three.
Our reading for yesterday from Psalms was No. 98. 3 sections to the Psalm.
vs. 1-3, vs. 4-6, vs. 7-9.
Vs. 9 has the Lord coming to “judge the earth”. One reading I found stated
this – "He is bringing truth and justice, order and balance to all of His
creation, to all the nations of the earth."
THIS is why God’s appearance is a joyous celebration and NOT fear laden at
The detail of these issues would be overwhelming and too long to handle. Briefly, the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 relies on the KJV translation of tsedaq in the niphal as cleansed, and ties it to Leviticus 16, thus concluding that Daniel 8 is all about the individual, “investigative” judgement of individual believers, in order to see if their life records merit their salvation at the end of the age. Considering that Chapter 7 portrays a judgement against the anti God powers by the divine tribunal, and that the good news that the vindication of the saints is assured, this extrapolation doesn’t make contextual sense, and seems to undercut the encouragement of the message that was intended in its historical setting.
Additionally, most contemporary translations render cleansed, in 8:14, as restored, rededicated, reconsecrated, restored to its rightful state, put right again, etc. This seems to speak in context to a) 6th c. B.C. E. Jews who were exiled in Babylon, and longing not only for their restoration to the land/eretz, but to the rebuilding and restoration of their temple, or b) if one takes a 2nd c. B.C.E. dating for Daniel, as many scholars do, to the ousting of Antiochus from Jerusalem, and the ending of his abominations of idolatry and pig sacrifice in the temple and on its altar. The restoring and reconsecration of the sanctuary was a monumental victory for the Maccabees and Israel, and the Feast of Dedication/Chanukah became a commemoration that even Jesus himself celebrated. Considering the historical context, the linguistic proof texting to Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur, and throwing the meaning of this text to 2,000-2,400 years in the future seems tenuous, at best, to me.
Thirdly, the 2300 days itself relies largely on importing the year for a day calculation from essentially two or three other unrelated places in the OT. This is then laid on this text as the key to unlock a two millennia long time period and fulfillment. In light of everything outlined above, I fail to see how this is the primary meaning of this text, while absolutely bypassing the needs of Daniel and his contemporaries in their own life situation. Prophecy is meant to exhort, correct, and in this case especially, to comfort its hearers. How would Jews in exile, under persecution, or threat in Daniel’s day ever have received any of that from something that didn’t speak at all to their present need and situation, and would have no meaning until 1844…over 2,000 years later?