Brian,
It sounds like your saying that the 2300 days did not start until Jesus began His heavenly ministry in the 1st century. How then does 1844 fit the picture?[quote\]

It sounds like your saying that the 2300 days did not start until Jesus began His heavenly ministry in the 1st century. How then does 1844 fit the picture?

Oops, trying to figure out how to use fast reply so I can see the posts and not be stuck in the post a new reply screen…

Again, the end of the 70 weeks (69 1/2) was at Jesus cross.  You can work backwards and forwards to figure out the 2300 days if you believe they both start at the same time.

Bill - 14 May 2008 08:21 AM

It sounds like your saying that the 2300 days did not start until Jesus began His heavenly ministry in the 1st century. How then does 1844 fit the picture?

Oops, trying to figure out how to use fast reply so I can see the posts and not be stuck in the post a new reply screen…

Again, the end of the 70 weeks (69 1/2) was at Jesus cross.  You can work backwards and forwards to figure out the 2300 days if you believe they both start at the same time.

I don’t believe they both start at the same time. I don’t believe they’re even related. I assume you believe they are and I would like to see the proof of it.

During the 2300 “days” something was trampling the host and the sanctuary. SDA position is that it is the heavenly host and heavenly sanctuary and ended in 1844AD which means it started in 456BC. It seems you said previously that this couldn’t have begun until Christ ascended.

If it did start in 456BC then then what was it?

The question asked in Dan.8:13 refers to the casting down of the sanctuary in verse 11. Therefore, the count should begin from that point rather than the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

The prophesy doesn’t say that the sanctuary and heavenly host are trampled the whole 2300 days.  Sounds like thats one area your confused with on the Adventist views....

This is way off topic with this thread.

Have a good one.

Bill - 14 May 2008 09:30 AM

The prophesy doesn’t say that the sanctuary and heavenly host are trampled the whole 2300 days.  Sounds like thats one area your confused with on the Adventist views....

Sounds like a dodge. It’s clear the trampling will last at least 2300 “days”

(ESV) Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”

(HCSB) Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the speaker, ”How long will the events of this vision last--the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and of the host to be trampled?”

(KJVA) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

(NASB) Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, ”How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?”

Bill - 14 May 2008 09:30 AM

This is way off topic with this thread.

Have a good one.

U2

Interesting Points on the “2300"(I don’t remember where I found these.) Can anyone else confirm?

The Massoretic text uses 2300 whereas the Consonantal text (from which the Septuagint was made) uses 2200. The latter text predates the former by several centuries. Also, Jerome’s commentary on Daniel is based on a third manuscript that also uses 2200.

Per verse 54 of the First Book of Maccabees, Chapter 1, Antiochus IV erected a dreadful desecration upon the Jerusalem temple altar on day 15 of the month of Chislev in 168 BC, and, per verse 18 of the Second Book of Maccabees, Chapter 1, the Jews celebrated reconsecration on day 25 of the month of Chislev in 165 BC. As historically recorded in the Maccabean account, there were approximately 1,100 days, or 2,200 mornings and evenings, between desecration and reconsecration.

Bill - 11 May 2008 06:40 PM

You try to confuse atonement and final punishment and portray them as the same.  Stop trying to portray SDA’s as saying satan atones for our sins!

I will stop only when adventists will reject the idea that Satan is the scapegoat.

Bill - 11 May 2008 06:40 PM

I do not believe that the goat for Azazel represents Jesus and based on all the evidence, believe that it much more closely represents satan.  You don’t have to agree with me, but are free to make your own mistakes…

You’re insinuating that my view about the Scapegoat is a fake, something I made up and imposed on the text. We’ll see…

You told Dennis:

Bill - 11 May 2008 06:40 PM

Your focus, and others so far, have been on one issue, bearing sin, and ignore that Satan bears an equal responsibility through his temptations and deceptions.  Have you forgotten that he got us into this trouble?

According to Adventist interpretation, Satan as the scapegoat bears only the responsibility for the sins of those who are saved, not for those who are lost. 

According to Jesus, tempting somebody to sin is sinful, Jesus pronounces a woe to the tempter.
“Woe to the world for temptations to sin!  For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! Matthew 18:7

Had not Satan sinned also in tempting those who will be lost? Certainly. But strangely, in the Adventist version, he escapes the responsibility for these sins, only the sins of those who are saved are put on his back. Is he not deserving punishment for these sins also? I don’t see justice in him being punished only for some temptations and not for others.

Beside this, Azazel is not the name of the goat. The goat is a sacrifice, something given to Azazel, aka Satan in your interpretation.

And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.  And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. Lev. 16:8-10

The goat is not himself Azazel, he is something given to Azazel, as the other goat is given to the Lord. It is something in relation with Azazel, not Azazel himself, not Satan himself. Even for the sake of argument we assume that Azazel is Satan, he cannot be the scapegoat which is offered to him.

Bill - 11 May 2008 06:40 PM

You ignore the illogic of having two goats if they both represent the Lord and why one has a proper name for the Lord and the other has a proper name for what early Rabbinic writers considered the Devil!.

Both goats on the Day of Atonement were spotless because a lot was casted to establish their role (Lev. 16:8), and both of them potentially had the necessary characteristics to represent Jesus. Beside this, both of them are described as being together one sin offering.

And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. Leviticus 16:5

This shows that both goats were selected to represent one sin offering, and we know that only Jesus is a sin offering. Satan is never presented in the Bible as being even partially a part of a sin offering. It is a single offering, and this does not makes illogic to think of both goats as representing Jesus, since both of them were one single sacrifice.

Now, for everyone who still thinks that he can believe that the goat for Azazel is Satan watch closely the following text

the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it , that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.Leviticus 16:10

It cannot be more clear that biblically the scapegoat is involved in atonement:  “make atonement over it” . Coupled with Leviticus 16:5, where the scapegoat is said to be part of a sin offering, the scapegoat fits only with Jesus, because only Jesus is the fulfillment of sin offering and made atonement for our sins.

Gabriel

SDAs assume that the sins of the Israelites “accumulated” for the entire year and then they were all cleansed along with the sanctuary on the day of atonement.  Leviticus 1-15 gives an overview of how sins were taken care of during the year.

How long did a person have to remain “unclean” before being allowed to fellowship with the rest of the people? Usually until “even,” because the priest could make an atonement for him or her all through the year.

There were all these laws for various sins, and illnessess that could be “atoned” for and then on that one day, a “sabbath of rest unto you"(Israel) , ALL the people came collectively and Aaron made an at -one- ment for them and the sanctuary.

The SDA church should concentrate more on the whole of Leviticus, instead of jumping all over for proof texts.

Verse 7: Aaron takes 2 kids of goats-- presents them before the Lord.
Verse 8:Aaron casts lots upon the 2 goats (for sin offering)
a) For the Lord b) for the scape goat

Verse 9: Aaron brings the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell-- offers him for a sin offering.

Verse 10: BUT the goat on which (scapegoat) lot fell-- present alive before the Lord to make an ATONEMENT with him and let him go.

Now how does one make an atonement if Satan is involved somehow?

( I see someone beat my post on Leviticus 16:10.)

Excellent biblical points, Gabriel and Phen B!  It is most mind-boggling how simple, clear, easy-to-understand, biblical truths can be made into complicated and/or complex SDA Christological, hamartiological, and soteriological views.  The primary problem here is once again with the extrabiblical authority of Ellen White, the foundress and prophetess of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

Changing or modifying their stance on any aspect of the atonement would directly nullify the “inspired” counsels of Ellen White.  Truly, she remains the apple of the Adventist eye.  Moreover, the current GC President, Jan Paulsen, has affirmed that there are absolutely no changes in SDA dogma.  In short, they are stuck with Ellen White’s views.

Dennis Fischer

Dennis,
I have in my possession, books like The National Sunday law, Bible readings for the home, Memorable Dates (from our Adventist past) by James R.Nix, a few Bibles with all the SDA Basic Study Helps which are given away at ‘soul winning crusades’ , which I NEVER read while I was an SDA.
The first time I opened and read from them was after I left the “fold of safety.”

I say this because there are many SDAs who do not really know the doctrines of the church to which they belong, but would fight and claw and give their eye tooth for the church, without the foggiest idea of what it really believes. I was one of them.

I am guessing that there are many like this , because in casual conversations, SDAs with whom I am in contact, do not discuss the scripture or talk about spiritual things. This only happens on “Sabbath,” whereas, the people of “Babylon” are usually excited about Jesus any day of the week.

When I started just reading the bible and enjoying what I read, and comparing it to what I thought I knew, especially the 2006 Adult Sabbath School Basic Study Guide,(thank you Jesus for having Clifford Goldstein and associates put out that book), the contrast was stark. I could not believe the blatant manipulative jargon used in that booklet in all seriousness. I had for a long time lost interest in the rotation of the lessons every four years, but that lesson study book I just had to read.

I was shocked, surprised, embarrased,among other things, because,a few years before, my Catholic colleague with whom I carpooled , had said to me one day that there was a certain church who followed a false prophet, and asked if I knew the church in question. This was not the SDA church, but the way the person spoke, I started thinking that our church had a prophet too and I wondered what might happen if my colleague knew I belonged to the SDA church. Thank God that person never found out.

The way people react on this forum when confronted with the actual words that they never heard but thought they knew, is a good example of this. Basically, few really know what Adventism is all about at its core.

Brian,
Sounds like a dodge. It’s clear the trampling will last at least 2300 “days”

Not clear to me.

Dodging you is not the case at all.  I’ll be happy to discuss this with you further, just direct me to an appropriate thread.  In our correspondence yesterday I can tell that one questions answered leads to many others and it would hijack this thread in the direction of prophetic periods.

Let me know if you want to keep going…

PhenB
I say this because there are many SDAs who do not really know the doctrines of the church to which they belong, but would fight and claw and give their eye tooth for the church, without the foggiest idea of what it really believes. I was one of them.

I don’t believe thats the churches fault.  Its the members responsibility to study the Bible for themselves.  Fortunately it sounds like you are now studying.

I am guessing that there are many like this , because in casual conversations, SDAs with whom I am in contact, do not discuss the scripture or talk about spiritual things. This only happens on “Sabbath,” whereas, the people of “Babylon” are usually excited about Jesus any day of the week.

I am guessing that there are some like this in every church.  In my experience, with traveling overseas, this is not the case for Adventists in many other countries.  As for me, I am excited about Jesus all week including ‘Sabbath’.

The way people react on this forum when confronted with the actual words that they never heard but thought they knew, is a good example of this. Basically, few really know what Adventism is all about at its core.

Tragic that you were like this.  I wouldn’t say that “few” know what Adventism is all about at its core, but your entitled to your opinion…

Dennis,
In short, they are stuck with Ellen White’s views.

That may be your view.

I can continue to tell your bitterness against the Adventist church and in particular EGW… Of course, I do notice alot of bitterness on this forum…

Very sad, and I’m sorry for you and your wife…

Bill.

Gabriel,

What did you mean by the following?

I knew that Ellen White, the third Person of the Godhead for the early adventist was a white woman, but we are in the era of political correctness.

You may think it a small thing to make such comments, but I found it offensive ‘on the surface’ and would like to know if this is something you are accusing our church of or if it was intended as some kind of bad, politically incorrect joke.

I don’t want that my testimony about truth to be distorted by my innate pride, so I’m willing to correct what I had affirmed, if convincing proof is brought on the scene.

I don’t understand why everyone is so bent on trying to tell me that Adventists believe the Devil makes atonement for sins, even though there is ample proof and emphatic denial to the contrary.  Here are some more authoritative quotes from “Adventist” sources.  If you can’t accept these, I don’t know what else will convince you… All I can think of is that you WANT to believe that Adventists believe Satan atones for sin.  That is NOT the case.

Our position is one that is consistent with the Protestant Christian community throughout its history.  We have not changed our views or adopted some new teaching regarding this subject.

From ‘Questions on Doctrine’.

We take our stand without qualification on the gospel platform that the death of Jesus Christ provides the sole propitiation for our sins. (1 John 2:2; 4:10); that there is salvation through no other means or medium, and no other name by which we may be saved (Acts 4:12); and that the shed blood of Jesus Christ alone brings remission for our sins (Matt. 26:28).  That is foundational.

Further, we hold to the recognized principle that no cardinal doctrine or belief should be based primarily upon a parable or type, but upon the clear unfigurative statements of Scripture, and understood and defined in the light of explicit declarations of gospel realities.  In other words, the type should be understood in the light of the antitype, and not the reverse.  Moreover, no parable or type can be applied in all details.  It is the central truth that is to be sought out and applied.  And it might be added that we do not place upon the scapegoat the emphasis that some of our critics would indicate.

In Leviticus 16, two goats entered into the service of the great Day of Atonement.  One, in type, made atonement for sins.  The other goat, for Azazel, was not slain, but was kept alive, and hence made no atonement for anyone’s sins.  The first goat represented our Lord Jesus Christ, who, on the cross, made atonement for our sins.  The other goat, in antithesis, symbolized Satan, who must bear the responsibility not only for his own sins but for his part in all the sins he has caused others, both righteous and wicked, to commit.  This live goat, it is to be remembered, was not slain…

Two goats were obviously required, and used, on the Day of Atonement, because there is a twofold responsibility for sin – first, my responsibility as the perpetrator, agent, or medium; and second, Satan’s responsibility as the instigator, or tempter, in whose heart sin was first conceived…

Now concerning my sin, Christ died for my sins (Rom. 5:8).  He was wounded for my transgressions and bore my iniquities (Isaiah 53).  He assumed my responsibilities, and His blood alone cleanses me from all sin (1 John 1:17).  The atonement for my sin is made solely by the shed blood of Christ.

And concerning Satan’s sin, and his responsibility as instigator and tempter, no salvation is provided for him.  He must be punished for his responsibility.  There is no savior, or substitute, to bear his punishment.  He must himself “atone” for his sin in causing men to transgress… It is in this sense only that we can understand the words of Leviticus 16:10 concerning the scapegoat, “to make an atonement with him.”

Courts of law recognize the principle of dual responsibility.  Thus a criminal father may teach his child to steal… Parental responsibility in such cases is crystal clear.  The instigator of a crime is punished, as well as the instrument that actually committed the act.  When the members of “Murder Incorporated” were brought to book for a whole succession of killings, the master mind, who had never technically taken a life, went to the chair as instigator, along with the perpetrators.  And under criminal law, the instigator, or master mind, may be punished more severely than his agents.

In like manner, Satan is the responsible master mind in the great crime of sin, and his responsibility in the sins of the whole world – of the wicked as well as of the righteous – must be rolled back upon him.  Simple justice demands that while Christ suffers for my guilt, Satan must also be punished as the instigator of sin.

That is why, on the Day of Atonement, two goats were necessary.  One was “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:7) to provide the atonement through the shedding of his blood; the other was “for Azazel (Lev. 16:8…).  These two were, in the text, placed in antithesis…

Now two vital points involved are to be particularly noted: (1) that the transaction with the live goat (or Azazel) took place after the atonement for the sins of the people had been accomplished, and the reconciliation completed; and (2) that the live goat was not slain, and did not provide any propitiation or make any vicarious atonement.  And without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22).  None of the blood of the live goat was shed, or poured out in propitiation, and none was taken into the sanctuary and sprinkled before the Lord, or placed on the horns of the altar.

Satan makes no atonement for our sins.  But Satan will ultimately have to bear the retributive punishment for his responsibility in the sins of all men, both righteous and wicked.

Seventh-day Adventists therefore repudiate in toto any idea, suggestion, or implication that Satan is in any sense or degree our sin bearer.  The thought is abhorrent to us, and appallingly sacrilegious.  Such a concept is a dreadful disparagement of the efficacy of Christ and His salvation, and vitiates the whole glorious provision of salvation solely through our Saviour.

Satan’s death, a thousand times over, could never make him a saviour in any sense whatsoever.  He is the archsinner of the universe, the author and instigator of sin.  Even if he had never sinned, he still could never save others.  Not even the highest of the holy angels could atone for our sins.  Only Christ, the Creator, the one and only God-man, could make a substitutionary atonement for men’s transgressions.  And this Christ did completely, perfectly, and once for all, on Golgotha.

It is our primary concern that all men shall come to a knowledge of full salvation in and through Jesus Christ.  Just how God finally disposes of sin, although an interesting subject to contemplate, is something we can safely leave to the infinite justice and mercy of God.  It is evidently revealed in part in the typical transaction of the scapegoat.  But our fundamental concern is that all who will respond shall come under the full atoning provisions of the shed blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.