Timeout: Revelation and the Crisis of Historicism

As it is generally accepted the first horn of the ram and the goat represents the first king to rule Medo-Persia and Greece, then the first little horn of 8:9, as opposed to the second LH of 7:8 and 24, that represents the Papacy, if we are to be consistent represents Caesar Augustus and the iron kingdom of Rome, Then in verse 11 after crucifying Christ, persecuting the Jews and the Christians, Rome destroys Jerusalem, “the place of His sanctuary,” cf. 8:24-25 and 9:26.

In this view, the little horn’s magnification of itself “even to the prince of the host” (vs. 11) applies to Rome’s attack on the earthly Jesus. (2). This application is consistent with the prepositional phrase, ûmimmēnû , later in the verse translated, “but by him” (i.e., “by the ‘prince of the host’”), the waw conjunction being read as adversative and the preposition min being read as indicating a causal agent. Cf. its use in Gen 9:11; Lev 21:7. See Bruce K. Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 213.
It appears this rules our Greece and the Papacy.

  1. You need more than a visit on Dedication day to say Jesus supported the preterist view.
  2. There are problems with the Preterist view. The prophecy does not fit Antiochus so well. He was not powerful, he did not destroy the Jews, but failed in his endeavors. 2300 days do not fit the desecration no matter how you slice it. So instead of accusing me of eisogesis, when you view does not fit that well either, think about accepting that there may be more than one way to look at this reasonably.
  3. The verifiable event is the proclamation of the judgment day message: “The hour of his judgement has come.” Such a propclaimation has not been given before in history. If you don’t like that, fine. it is a verifiable event.

Daniel 8 is complicated. Neither view hits is exactly on the head, and I really accept the Historicist view. But the Hsitoricst view comes as close as the Preterist view, and with the other prophecies of Daniel really Historicist, I think the balance in the Historicist side.

The problem is trying to make one "theory"of prophectic interpretation fit every particular situation.
I see Daniel and Revelation presenting a metanarrative of God’s covenant faithfulness from the beginning to the consummation of history to save and deliver His chosen people.
We are given wide pictures of how nations and at times false religions ride the beast and occasionally more detail of those that work against God’s kingdom and in His faithfulness to deliver. Ultimately, they dont succeed. It is not a nightly, weekly, annual ouija board book to satisfy our interest.
Neither is the kingdom in the present age to be realized on earth. The kingdom is both now and not yet. It’s final realization is at the consummation of Christ appearing when he puts assunder all those things offending Him, His kingdom and the faithful of His kingdom.
There are multiple repetitive acts by many “antichrists” in history against His developing kingdom. You will be hated by all nations for my names sake…yet He will in faithfulness deliver.

You are sounding like a Historicist here!

As I have said, all have truths but none all.

True, Robert. But West Coast academic Adventism has done a remarkable job of convincing a large swath of Christendom that it is possible to logically deduce what is impossible for God to know.

Where does one have to imagine oneself standing in order to specify what God cannot know?

As I said…

Adventists are shrinking the horizons of what God can know, while imaging they are “expanding their epistemic horizons” though placing an extrabiblical LGT overlay on Bible prophecy.

Flying to the sun on waxen wings never ends well.

It reminds me of a story from the long defunkt youth magazine “Guide”. In the late 70’s/early 80’s there was a short story about a computer with advanced intelligence. The only problem was that it refused to acknowledge its creators, believing it was from a long line of ever improving models. In the end they had to pull the plug on it.

There are so many analogies/stories we could write about this topic, but all of them revolve around one thing - He is great, and we are not.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” John Heywood 1546


Guide is still going. It’s Insight that ceased publication.


That’s kind of consistent with the SDA mentality. They provide you guidance, and you are supposed to just follow (obey?) it.

Providing Insight may not be safe since people may start thinking by themselves and even ask questions that may not be “convenient.”

No wonder they killed Insight… :roll_eyes: :innocent:

1 Like

Launched in 1953 as Junior Guide. With the segmentation of the church into “junior” and “earliteen” divisions the name of the magazine was changed from Junior Guide to Guide as of January 1, 1964 and it was focused on elementary school grades 7-8.

1 Like

Insight was a weekly magazine published from 1970-2017. Its predecessor magazine known as The Youth’s Instructor was established in 1852.


1 Like

Thanks for the correction. I lost touch with all of those on the way out…

Yes. “Insight” magazine was for those 13-14 to 17-18 or so.
The time in a persons life when they can begin CRITICAL THINKING.
No longer just thinking in black-white, yes-no, true-untrue.
Critical Thinking allows for looking at things with a 3rd Eye.
Understanding that there can be “Both-And” and being comfortable with “Gray Areas”.

Can it be that the way SDAs train up their children that they never develop the
Critical Thinking abilities. Unable to understand the “Both-And” and the Gray Areas
concepts, and miss the Development of one’s 3rd Eye?
Without Critical Thinking abilities one is an Adult with a Child-like reasoning and dangerous
when it comes to Bible Study – seeing the same things over and over with no new Light
Bulbs being turned on, OR the Ability to screw in an additional Light Bulb.

1 Like

It really can be explained very simply. Yes, Revelation was to tell the people in those specific literal churches what was to take place, but that does not exclude everyone else. It applies to both time periods, then AND now. If the people who were alive in those churches were the only people the book of Revelation was written to, then why would they need all the information in the rest of the book of Revelation that addresses the second coming and the events leading up to it. According to your interpretation, God wrote a lot of important information that no one could use since they would be dead.

The accidental undertone of that interpretation is that the rest of the people on earth after that time should ignore the text as it does not relate to later ages.

You have a tendency to read a verse try to figure it out, and ignore all of the thousands of verses in the Bible that add to specific understandings. The Bible was not written for historical, cultural, or philosophical reasons, the Bible was written to show us God’s character which in turn shows us what true morality and love are like. We search for the moral impact of the verses, not peripheral stuff. In John 17:3 it specifically tells us that eternal life is only found by discovering what God is like. Luke 24 tells us that the disciples, who had already been with Jesus 3-1/2 years only BEGAN to understand the Bible when they understood in the verses what it said about Christ. When people fail to try to understand the moral tracing of any text, they lose the entire meaning as to why the Bible was written in the first place.

1 Like

We live in a gray world. The entire reason why the Bible was written was to gradually make everything black and white and remove the gray. The Bible when understood guides our cognitive thinking. When we do cognitive thinking without God’s help, we are simply a runaway humanistic freight train headed for destruction.

1 Like

If God gave us the book of Revelation, told us that there was a blessing for those who read it, then isn’t it important to take Him seriously and read it? If He gave it to us, then read it. It would be a serious thing to ignore the creator of the universe if it is a message from him.

Here is the reality. If it is from God, then we must seek to understand it. If we don’t believe it is from God, then reject the book. That is the real discussion.

As I read all of these posts, I am extremely saddened by all of the complex theological pseudo intelligence that tries to make the Bible astronomically complex with all the fancy words and crazy hermeneutics promoted. Christ said that that even little children can understand the Bible. Why do we make it so hard?

Romans 1:16 & 17 tell us that the power God uses to save us is found in the revelation of the righteousness of God being revealed to us. The moment we fail to see the character of God in EVERYTHING we read, we learn NOTHING!

The disciples were with Christ in person for 3-1/2 years but Luke 24:44-45 tells us that only after Christ explained the Bible as each passage related to his character that they BEGAN to understand the Bible.

Over and over again I see post after post about theological ideas but totally divorced from any insight as to what the text tells us about God in that text. Until we learn the simple truths about God found in each verse of the Bible, we become nothing more than the blind leading the blind.

As for me, I’m going to try to find out what the little children know about God that all of us hermeneutical, theology experts don’t have a clue of.

If salvation is this hard, then when every knee bows, there will be many hands raised telling God that He is not fair.

This reminds me of my “bible studies” classes in Jr. Academy in the mid 70’s. It was actually just a memorization course of seemingly unrelated verses without context leaving students discombobulated; never really understanding the bible at all. This technique was to allow for listening to topical sermons the rest of your life filled with familiar proof texts from bible and “SOP” without questioning the interpretation since none were actually produced.


For about 20 years I was a teacher at an Academy that had a 50-bed nursing home.
It was a work-study program. In the nursing home the girl jobs were primarily nursing
assistant, housekeeping, food service. Boy jobs were nursing assistant, housekeeping,
sometimes food service. They would keep their jobs 9 weeks and then move on, either
in the nursing home, or other areas of campus.
I was an RN. Also Administrator. Sometimes taught the nursing assistant class. I also
taught Health to the Seniors, several years also taught 11th grade Chemistry.
9th and 10th grade students one had to BE VERY SPECIFIC about the tasks, how to
do them, very regimented instruction.
11th and 12th grade students with brain development could think in the Abstract. One
taught them the needed tasks and procedures, but one could also discuss outcomes
and what should look like when finished. They required only minimal supervision as
they could picture the finished job. Once in a while come up with an idea how to
improve doing it.
In other areas of the campus one could use the 11th and 12th graders as junior
supervisors over several students doing tasks.

FVThere are many mistakes being made here.

First , one author citing another. The Bible is very clear that there is only one author of the Bible. It is not authored by different people. Different people wrote what God wanted them to write, and their writings were guided by the Holy Spirit so that they wrote what God wanted them to write. This means that there is no need to have the authors specifically refer to each other. The Bible tells us that ALL SCRIPTURE can be used for learning, and that all scripture never contradicts other scripture because all the writings in the Bible came from a God.

Second, margin references should be taken with a grain of salt. God did not write the margins, humans did, so a margin reference can easily be false. The reality is that a margin reference is nothing more than a single persons idea that two verses MIGHT be linked. Often, the marginal references are totally wrong. No serious Bible scholar pays any attention to marginal references.

As long as the Biblical subject matter is in context and they are talking about the same subject matter, that is the only thing needed. Putting people’s views and opinions above how God wrote the Bible is a fast track to misunderstanding the Bible.