Who is sufficient for these things?
Who is sufficient for these things?
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
Signing off… 
Who is sufficient for these things?
The Lesser Light and the Greater Light in the context of 2Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Not enough, my friend. Not for this ordeal…
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
1 Like
I won’t say a critical word about Daniel and Revelation, but I agree that we have not made the best use of them.
1 Like
Thank you, Floyd. I hear the rude and the caustic, too; it is disheartening. But it is not the whole story. As things stand, many thoughtful SDAs avoid Revelation, worried that they might get into a street fight. In fact, I think the current Quarterly will aggravate the cynicism that is already there among many members. The good this book can do is in my view enormous, but it will take a lot of work to get there.
It is _yad _in both places, and in both places it can be ‘hand’ (literal) or ‘power’ (metaphor).
As you wish.
What does Revelation 5 say about why John was weeping, and why did you deflect attention away from the Bible answer and insert a story that is not supported by the actual text of the Bible?
…
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a divine curse!—Galatians 1
…
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ..
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
—II Corinthians 11
1 Like
[Hi Sigve,
I am aware yad is the same in both places, the clarification I was seeking is whether you consider the power, the hand, is the same in both places.
Thank you .
In Daniel 12, the ‘hand’ (yad) is specified as “the hand (power) of the holy people.” This suggests that the community of faith is reduced to a state of powerlessness–in that state they will be redeemed. In Daniel 2, the owner of the ‘hand’ must be inferred; it is not explicit. There is no other candidate for this ‘hand’ (power) than God.
1 Like
Ranald –
Usually in church we only hear snippets of Revelation.
Rev. 3:14-21. Laodicea. And that this time period is the picture of the SDA church.
Rev 7:4-9. 144,000.
Rev 14:6-13. The 3 angels.
Rev. 21:9-22. [sometimes] Description of the New Jerusalem.
Like other churches that use the Lectionary Readings, we read it in church only a
couple of times a year. So not much different than our Sunday keeping friends.
Sigve,
Thank you for confirming this point.
However as both the NIV and the KJV say, " the power of the holy people," the application of this word appear to be critical. As you quote the NIV translation, are you saying the Papacy finally breaks the power of God, as opposed to breaking the “power of god’s holy people”? Is it the power of God that is finally broken, or is it the power of “God’s holy people” that is “finally broken?”
Furthermore, the words “final” and “broken” provide a very different interpretation of this verse, especially when compared with Strong’s application of the word “yad,” hand or power (of man).
Have you considered the alternative KJV translation along with Strong’s, where the Papacy is only allowed to "scatter" the "power of the holy people " for 1260 years?
Hi Steve,
The main problem arises from the Daniel and Revelation series. It is considered to represent the church’s position regarding these books, however this series did not reach a consensus. Furthermore various authors take different positions in their own presentations in this series.
Consequently it is left to the readers to apply Acts 17:11 to the various positions presented in these volumes and to the SS quarterly in particular.
Sigve, when I first started reading your commentary here I didn’t know who you were and read very fleetingly, but soon I slowed down and read carefully, and now I await your next missive with anticipation. I am currently re-reading Des Ford’s brilliant commentaries on both Daniel and Revelation, and I would love to read a commentary by you on Revelation. Can you tell us when it might eventuate and even possibly the series it will appear in? In the mean time I might get hold of R.H. Charles commentary and read it.
I am coming to the conclusion in my own mind about what you suggest, that Revelation primarily comes from the Cosmic Conflict school of interpretation, with, I feel, shots at a Preterist and Futurist understanding, and then it is possible to see how it can apply to certain historical situations through history.
I find nothing about this relevant to my salvation which Jesus purchased on the cross! Nor do I find anything about this relevant to my living as a disciple of Jesus Christ in the present.
Is all of this, perhaps, a distraction from the primary message of the Gospel?
2 Likes
Hi Steve,
If Daniel 8:11 and 25 is repeated and expanded upon in 9:27, Then we have a savior in Dan. 8:11 who has paid the penalty for my sins in verse 11. Consequently, if I am faithful, I have nothing to fear in the judgment associated with verse 14, cf. Rev. 22:11.
Those who say Rome is missing in chapter 8, and that the 2,300 years applies to the persecuting rule of the Papacy certainly appear to be entertaining a very different gospel.
Thank you for fresh new insights and stimulating study. Our understanding of scripture should not be stagnant.
In my youth I worked as a secretary in the Religion Dept of LLU. In the 70s I took all the courses in theology then being offered… I studied with SDA luminaries Jack Provonsha, Graham Maxwell, Edward Heppenstall (he retired to LLU), R A Anderson (a prolific writer on D&R). I hope that their influence is still reflected in our scholars. That experience gave me the desire for learning that Spectrum still nourishes. They taught me not to be afraid to ask questions or debate and I’ve been doing both ever since!
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.