What was Changed in the Fundamental Beliefs Document?
From ANN and NAD News, July 12, 2015: The official statement of the doctrines of the Adventist denomination is the Fundamental Beliefs document. It is seldom revised. So why were so many changes made at this year’s General Conference (GC) Session?
There are at least seven reasons why a denomination might consider a revision to its belief statements. It might wish to (1) Find smoother language and sentence structure. (2) Find language that is easier to translate into other languages. (3) Update terminology when the meaning or usage of language has changed. (4) Clarify language that may not clearly state where the church stands. (5) Address new situations that call for clarification. (6) Add an emphasis that was not mentioned in prior statements. (7) Change or add new statements that add to or change the meaning of the prior statements.
There were no changes in the revisions adopted last week that represent the last category. While there were no major additions (category 6), there were a few minor ones. For example, belief number 2, the doctrine of the Trinity, added the phrase, “God, who is love.“ Belief number 11, entitled “Growing in Christ,” emphasizes the social dimension of biblical Christianity. Affirming the love of God and emphasizing community welfare has always been important to the Adventist denomination.
Many changes fell into the first two categories. For example, in number 17, the doctrine of spiritual gifts, a word changed from “which” to “that.” In number 25, the doctrine of the Second Coming, a phrase changed from “Christ’s coming is imminent” to “Christ’s coming is near.” This change not only has the advantage of using biblical language, but it makes for easier reading and is easier to translate.
There were also many changes under category 3, changes in the meaning of language. Belief number 7, which was labeled “The Nature of Man,” is now “The Nature of Humanity,” representing gender-inclusive language. In number 23, “Marriage and the Family,” the term “partners” was changed to “a man and a woman.” The meaning of the word “partners” with reference to marriage has changed in social usage to indicate a commitment to either same sex or opposite sex marriages. The current meaning was not prevalent in 1980 when the document was originally created. This editorial change signals that the church will remain true to the Biblical concept of marriage in spite of changes in contemporary culture.
Significant changes took place in category 4. In number 9, “The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ,” the term “bodily” was added in front of “resurrected.” We have now clarified that the resurrection of Jesus was not a continuing influence nor a spirit experience, but an actual resurrection of Christ in His total person, including His body. Although Scripture emphasizes this point, it is rejected by many theologians, who do not acknowledge the historicity of the biblical account. Thus, it was important to add the word “bodily.”
In number 18, “The Gift of Prophecy,” some felt that the prior version gave Adventist Church cofounder Ellen G. White authority comparable to that of the Bible. Changes were made to remove this potential ambiguity. White herself emphasizes that her authority is subject to the Scriptures. The new wording of this statement does not in any way diminish the church’s understanding of the authority of the Bible or the prophetic role of White.
In number 8, “The Great Controversy,” the previous version contained a phrase on the “worldwide” nature of the biblical flood. The intent of that statement was to represent the biblical teaching that the flood covered the entire world. It was not anticipated that “worldwide” would be reinterpreted by some who do not accept the historicity of Genesis 1-11 to mean “the then known world,” portraying a large regional flood. Thus, this GC session changed the word to “global.”
Ahead of the session, the proposed statement on Creation had resulted in considerable discussion. Some Adventists expressed concern about language in the revision that seemed to further restrict views on the age of the earth and length of the creation week. As delegates pondered this statement on Tuesday morning (July 7), Dr. Angel Rodriguez, a member of the drafting committee, stepped to the podium and affirmed that the statement on Creation was purposefully drafted to exclude any potential allowances for long-term evolutionary chronology.
Departing from literal biblical language, the revision changed the description from “In six days … “ to “In a recent six-day creation …” It also added a phrase characterizing the Sabbath as a memorial of God’s “creative work, performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today.”
Paragraph 6 on the doctrine of Creation was a major reason why the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs was reviewed at this GC session. There was a concern that the previous version might have been reinterpreted by some to mean almost anything they wished on the topic of origins, including theistic evolution. In 2004 the GC executive committee produced a statement that clarified that life on this Earth began just as stated in Genesis 1 and 2.
Those who chose to reinterpret Belief number 6 maintained that the 2004 statement was not authoritative since it was not voted at a GC session. Thus, the 2004 statement was affirmed at the 2010 GC session, with the request that the substance of the action be worked into the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. The revised statement voted by this session makes it clear that God created life in six actual days, and with the addition of the Sabbath, it was a week as we know it today.
The small drafting committee was chaired by Dr. Artur Stele, director of the denomination’s Biblical Research Institute (BRI). Along with Rodriguez, the other members of the committee were Dr. Bill Knott, editor of the Adventist Review, and Dr. Gerhard Pfandl, and associate director at BRI.
Most of the revisions were minor semantic efforts to clarify the original wording or add textual support for the statements of belief. For example, the suggested revision for Fundamental Belief Number 1 on The Holy Scriptures changed the descriptive phrase for the Scriptures from “authoritative revealer of doctrines” to “definitive revealer of doctrines.” Those concerned that the authority of Scripture was therefore being diminished in the statement found reassurance in another revision earlier in the paragraph which described the Holy Scriptures as “the final, authoritative, and infallible revelation” of God’s will.
Often the nuances of just one word were enough of a catalyst for active discussion among the delegates. Fundamental Belief Number 4 on The Son originally stated that Jesus became truly man. Rodriguez explained the rationale for a change: Scripture describes Jesus as becoming flesh, or in other words, human. He came to earth, not just to identify with the male gender, but with all mankind — the human race. While a few delegates actively challenged this proposed change, they eventually approved the revision that used human instead of man.
Stele reminded delegates that all revisions by the writing committee were an effort to most accurately describe each belief within the English language. Yet attention was also given to words more easily translated into other languages. An example was highlighted in the Fundamental Belief 20 on The Sabbath. The writers suggested describing the Creator as gracious instead of beneficent. Such changes for clarity and to accommodate the nuances of other languages were efficiently explained and quickly approved.
It would indeed have been a laborious process if each of the 28 statements had inspired long lines of delegates at the microphones. But, in fact, most were approved without much deliberation. But four of the revised statements garnered significant discussion in Monday’s meeting: Number 1 on The Holy Scriptures, Number 6 on Creation, Number 8 on The Great Controversy and Number 24 on Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary. These statements were sent back to the writing committee on Monday with instructions to consider additional revisions for further discussion on Tuesday.
When delegates reconvened for the Tuesday morning session, Knott addressed an undercurrent of concern about cultural influences. He assured delegates that the committee had worked hard to avoid political or cultural biases. They sought only to clarify positions in a way that Adventists around the world could fully embrace.
Yet, the revisions brought back by the committee on Tuesday were minimal. They recommended the change of one word in Fundamental Belief Number 24 on Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The phrase “His intercessory ministry, which was symbolized by the work of the high priest …” was altered by replacing the word symbolized with typified. In the Fundamental Belief Number 8 on The Great Controversy the committee changed the term worldwide flood to global flood.
It may be surprising that such seemingly minor alterations engendered such vigorous discussion. But it was also quickly obvious to even the casual observer that the delegates took guardianship of the church’s core beliefs seriously. They have devoted extensive time to keep these 28 Fundamental Beliefs consistent with the church’s traditional biblical interpretation. In doing so, it seems the majority of delegates concurred with an earlier statement by Stele.
“Looking at all the changes,” he said, “I must say there are none that bring anything new to our beliefs. This is what we have always believed. The commission only sought to express this better and help to avoid possible misinterpretations.”
The 28 statements are an ongoing effort by the world church to succinctly describe the theological parameters of Adventist belief. The world church adopted 27 Fundamentals at its business session in 1980. The current Fundamental Belief Number 11 on Growing in Christ was added in 2005, bringing the present total to 28.
The Adventist News Network (ANN) is the official news agency of the denomination and NAD News is the bulletin of the denomination’s North American Division (NAD).
I think the belief on creation and that of the family is worth modifying to reflect the conservative stand of the church on creation and marriage. We must affirm the Bible more even as our society more trample on it
So far so good. Let’s continue to hold to the biblical authority passed on to us. The Bible is God’s guide to all mankind without exception. May God bless His church as we disciple people for the kingdom.
Ron, in your desire to support the Bible and biblical authority, are you bothered that FB#6 was changed to move *away* from the language of the Bible? The added words to FB#6 reflect a historical Adventist interpretation, but they do NOT reflect the language of the Bible itself.
Trouble is there are stars and galaxies that we can see the light from that are more than 10,000 light years distant. Which means that it took over 10,000 years for that light to get to earth. How does that comport with a 6000 year old creation? I don’t have the answers, I’m just asking.
If the stars and universes we see in the sky existed long before our earth, the light would have been reaching our place in the galaxy before our planet was formed.
Voila.
I was always taught that the earth existed a long time before life. That is why we are not part of the young earth group so popular in evangelical churches. There is a period of time between Gen 1 and 2. Maybe the church has moved away from that, but I don’t know how they could and be honest with the scriptures and science.
Which means that Genesis should not be taken literally. Because if we did, the literal reading is that stars were also created during creation week, which Ellen White said happened about 6000 years ago.
I don’t believe that the fair solution of this problem is that Genesis 1:1 describes a Creation of the universe, before the Creation of our planet. Rather the Biblical language is popular and phenomenologic, not scientific, even though it describes a real fact. Earth does not mean planet in the Bible, and heaven(s) does not mean universe. In the biblical languages, the earth is land, country or continent; and heaven means sky vault / dome. The plural heavens is artificial, since it is a literal translation of the Hebrew term SHAMAH’YIM (heaven / skies), which is a plural. But the Hebrew term has NO SINGULAR FORM. It is always in the plural, just like the usual term for water (MAH’YIM), which is always in plural.
Thus Genesis 1:1 does not deal with the universe in the modern cosmologic sense, but in the ancient (classic) cosmologic sense, where the universe was our visible, geocentric (or anthropocentric) world, with just a few intuitive or immaginary additions. So in Genesis 1:1 is first a short statement, similar to a title, which is further developed in the next verses, and put in a summary in Gen 2:1-3.
Regarding the luminaries (including stars), the language is also phenomonelogic. They are “put” in the “sky-dome”, where the birds will fly in the next day… This is language for children, and describes what might have seen a human observer on the earth. Please note that before the first day of Creation there was a material presence (the deep global ocean).
That’s not what I’m saying. If, as the new statement says, the universe was created just 6000 years ago and these stars and galaxies are over 10,000 light years distant then how is it we can see their light? That would not be possible. Not so simple.
Those who first told and repeated the creation story for thousands of years both told and later read it with their understanding of the world at their time.
We today do not interpret as they did but with our knowledge of the earth and universe that was impossible for them to know. If the Bible is a living book for people of all time, it cannot be static and the context as well as content must be understood accordingly.
Ginman, I’m not sure where the language the universe comes from. We are told there are other worlds and brings that were created before we were. God’s foray into creating did not start with out world. When the term the stars was used I believe it was our galaxy. God created our solar system and our galaxy on that day when he spoke it into existence. The light from those other galaxies that he created long before ours has been traveling since they were created.
I believe that some of the big bangs that we see that astronomers say are exploding stars creating other solar systems may in fact be that when something so far away suddenly appears our human minds can’t conceive it, but may actually be the existence of that galaxy being spoken into existence by God, we just no other explanation for it, so it must be a dark star exploding for no reason and creating a galaxy. And that light from that creation event has been traveling for hundreds of millions of light years and is just now reaching us.
Greg, are we not told that there are other worlds and that the test of God’s love and his nature were brought to question by Lucifer?
God is eternal and that means he has no beginning and no end. One of the hardest concepts for us humans to comprehend. We can understand forever going forward, but going backwards with no beginning? That’s hard, but that’s what God is.
The trinity has been creating worlds and galaxies for billions of malinium. But our world, it was so very special.
The light from all those galaxies billions of light years away has been traveling all that time. We will continue to discover new stars as their light finally reaches out Galaxy. And that light will continue to travel long after our earth has been transformed into a new earth. When the concept of time and distance will be erased and we will live with our Heavenly Father forever.
JonPaul: While I agree with your points they do not reconcile the idea that we see light from stars which are at a greater distance from us than the time allowed for their light to travel to us if all were created exactly 6000 years ago. This additional language goes beyond anything that can be supported by the Bible and I have a big problem with that. In addition, since the Bible does not tell us how long ago creation began, adding this definite time to the creation belief just adds fuel for those who wish to call out Adventists as heretics or what ever else they can dream up – it helps to make us a laughing stock before the world. It was not necessary to add this explicit language to the creation belief and I believe it does us harm.
Amen.May the Lord continue to strengthen and unify His Remnant Church.
Were there changes made to the Church Manual regarding the autonomy of unions to determine ordination within their territory?
Did the “No” vote on WO affect the previous manual’s wording?
Elaine, that is a topic not covered by the Church Manual. — Monte Sahlin, CEO/Executive Editor of AT
I have no problem with the creation story, but wonder about the focus the church puts on it in declaring the Sabbath commandment can’t be maintained if the seven days aren’t equal in time to today’s evening and mornings. How can we know that since time is relative around the cosmos and could have been different.
More important to me is that long-eras of evolution could not have been God’s way of creation because it would be through violence which is against God’s character. Then sin would have come after death occurred. This turns Christianity on its head and, in fact, invalidates it. It makes Christ’s sacrifice null and void. Yet this is rarely mentioned in defense of creationism. Are we leaving Christ out of the picture again? If creation isn’t Christ-centered what difference do the days make. Are we making Sabbath (which is Christ’s rest for us) as a day more important than Christ or the creation more important than the Creator?
Adding extra wording to a “Fundamental” belief which goes beyond what text of Bible actually says is a mistake. Such extra language would appear only to aid those who wish to advance personal opinions when they have been unable to find justification for those opinions elsewhere. That should not be the purpose of a church.
Ronald,
Maybe it was true long before I realized it but, until 2009, I preferred to believe that the majority of the members of our denomination did not consider the statement of “Fundamental Beliefs to be a creed. What is a creed? A creed is a statement of doctrine that is used as a measure of orthodoxy. It is understandable that people who consider the list of “Fundamental Beliefs” to be a creed would prefer that few or no changes be made.
Although I had evidence before 2009 that SOME members of our denomination considered the statement to be a creed, it wasn’t until that year that I realized that, in spite of the disclaimer in the preamble of the “Fundamental Beliefs” a majority do.
Some weeks before the 2015 GC session, I requested that the delegates from our union move to make a change to the KJV “they” in reference to the remnant instead of the word, “it”.
I haven’t heard whether such an attempt was made but failure to make that change is not the only indicator that creedalism and dogmatism are alive and well in our denomination.
Why the quotation marks for “Fundamental Beliefs”? Because if the list were of only beliefs that are actually fundamental (essential to the faith), the list would be much shorter.
If I were able to pay an evangelist, he would be someone who could at least make suggestions about ways to change the statement of “Fundamental Beliefs”. Otherwise, I would consider the candidate to be merely a reflector of other…
Good points, Roger.
Adventist pioneers eschewed creedalism, to say nothing of being loath to adopt a church manual and opposing early attempts to formally organize as a denomination.
It’s ironic: as Adventism has emphasized education and now has hundreds if not thousands of PhDs with accompanying nuanced views on a number of faith-related topics, our fundamentalist-leaning church seems to be eliminating any wiggle room for formerly prized individual conscience.
It’s a sad development that calls for serious rethinking on the part of Adventist institutions and individuals who adhere to the historic valuing of some room for individual freedom of thought.
FB 6 needed the clarification. In light of the 4th commandment the creation of a biome took a literal week. How long ago that week took place is properly under question, but certainly God didn’t bring about a development of life forms through the mechanism of death and restarts over millions of years.
The Flood was of a catastrophic scope that we cannot know everything as to how the aftermath developed. I think there is most likely a level of divine intervention that we know not of. The anomalies in Science v bible need not disposes us from confidence in God’s outline of creation and the flood (a reversal back to chaos that was started with when God said, ” Let there be light.”
I am thankful the bible’s discription is retained and clarified in the revisions.
There was NO Sabbath commandment until Sinai and no evidence that anyone knew or observed it until then. Centuries later when the Torah was written (in three different accounts) the Fourth Commandment was given to remember the Creation completed in six days and the two other accounts (Ex. 34 and Deut. 5); the one in Deuteronomy was NOT given to their forefathers but only with those at Sinai. In Ex. 23:12 work shall cease so that you ox and your donkey may rest and the son of your slave girl have a breathing space (no rest for his mother?).
But it was ONLY given to the Israelites, and no other people, and never to Gentile Christians who were exempt by not being circumcised which was the mandatory requirement for observing all 613 laws of Judaism.
People will try anything to escape accountability, Elaine, but it won’t do you any good.
You say, Elaine, that “there was NO Sabbath commandment until Sinai”. The Sabbath was not given in the beginning as a commandment, but rather as a divine example, which is more effective than a commandment. Since God blessed it and sanctified it, this can mean only that it was made for humankind, as a blessing, for a special, sacred purpose. You say that “there is no evidence that anyone knew or observed it until then [Sinai].” Actually the presence of the expressions “seven days” and “week(s)” in Genesis, regarding the Flood Story and the story of Jacob, is for me a good evidence for the continuity of the weekly cycle. If the Sabbath had not been kept uninterruptly by a lineage of people, the week would have disappeared in a single generation. But when we read about the seven days’ week and its Sabbath in Exodus 16, they are not introduced as new notions, but they are referred as a very known things. Ex. 23:12 in the Masoretic text and most Versions and translations does not mention the complete range of people who ought to rest in the Sabbath. But we cannot build strong arguments from silence. Actually, the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch has “your slave and your slave-woman just like you, and all your animals (cattle)”.
What is your evidence that Sabbath was given to Israel ONLY? Did you ever read Genesis 2:1-3 or the Isaiah 56? Did you ever read AA 16? And what about Rev. 11:19 that shows us God’s covenant on the tables, as a heavenly and universal criterion in…
Thank you, Ron, for your clarification. I appreciate your faithfulness to the Bible. Kevin, when you say “I am thankful the [B]ible’s d[e]scription is retained and clarified in the revisions,” you do recognize that the Bible’s description is NOT retained, don’t you? The church leaders, and then the GC delegates, decided that the Bible was not enough for them and added language for what they thought the Bible should have said rather than what it did say.
You mean to tell me that there was no Sabbath until the Ten Commandments were given to the Children of Israel. Why does Genesis 2:2,3 that after the creation God rested on the Seventh Day and sanctified it? The 2015 General Conference got it right with making the changes to the Creation Statement. I was a bit disappointed with the vote on women’s ordination. So not every thing went the way I wanted. The question is, are we going to be like rats and jump into the sea because we think the church is going down. We may not agree having Elder Wilson as General Conference President. We still have the Gospel Commission to tell the good news to the world. The good news of salvation.
That is a very common assumption but there is no evidence from Scripture that Adam and Eve were told to observe Sabbath, only that God rested from His work.
There is also not one word regarding Sabbath until Sinai which is where manna was given. Yes, the Fourth Commandment refers back to Creation, but it never included that anyone prior to Sinai observed Sabbath; only that the Israelites were to remember Creation was a six-day event, for which Sabbath was a memorial THEN, not before.
Read the entire passage. Not only did God rest from His work of creating earth, He made the Sabbath Holy. He inaugurated the concept of Holy Time. One day after He created humans.
Coincidence? I think not.
Undisclosed to humans created one day prior? I think not.
Throughout scripture Holy things that are Created, are devoted to the Service of God. This principle applies to Holy Objects both animate and inanimate, to Holy Places and also to Holy Time. So from Genesis 2 onwards, the Sabbath is Holy Time devoted to the Service of God. This is the clear implication of the passage.
Of course, if you do not believe this narrative was inspired, then you are free to selectively ignore any or all of it as you please.
Elaine, the “common assumption” that the Sabbath was given to the humankind at the Creation is not so common, as you know. Most Christians do not agree, or rather do not care. You say that the Bible speaks only about God who rested in the seventh day. You make me laugh at such author who just described God’s rest as a simple curiosity. Or at some God who made the week just to have a play number, and sanctifying the Sabbath for His own rest. Poor tired God! Maybe tired of so much unbelief and childish opposition.
Surely the sabbath was known to man long before Sinai.
God sanctified it and made it holy.
Surely He didn’t hide that from Adam. He would have wanted Adam to know of the sabbath so they could share it. God would not have wanted Adam working on sabbath.
Also, the sabbath was mentioned to the Israelites before Sinai. Think of the manna that fell six days with double portions on the sixth.
And, remember that God referred to it as “My Sabbath”. He didn’t just give it to the Israelis, he made it for all mankind before there were any “Jews”.
Greg Nagley;
If the stars and universes we see in the sky existed long before our earth, the light would have been reaching our place in the galaxy before our planet was formed.
Voila.
Sherlock Holmes used to suggest, “Rule out the impossible, and all that remains is the possible.”
I know, he was a fictional character, but those are still good words.
How do you know what is (im)possible? Doubters have minimalist or different horizons of possibilities…
So how many of the 28 do I need believe in to continue my membership in church?
My question exactly, Floyd.
For those individuals who are concerned to stay with the actual words of the Scriptures, does that mean the fundamental beliefs should be in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
The biggest issue I have with some of the changes is the move towards a more fundamentalist understanding of creation that completely ignores scholarly debate over the way the passages might be interpreted. The literalistic reading is only one possible way and this locks out legitimate alternative understandings of the text.
I’m also concerned about the idea of the fundamental beliefs being described as theological parameters. It implies that thinking outside of these parameters may be illegitimate and feels to me even more like it is seen as a creed.
The changes to FB are defensive, as Goldstein has openly stated, and reflect the anti-science mindset of the current administration. The lack of humility shown is astounding to me. In the past, conservative SDAs would differ on whether YEC or OEC better reflected the text, but OEC are gladly and rudely dismissed, although they built our science departments and encouraged generations of new adventist researchers, following where the evidence led. Nowadays, when the evidence for the old age of the earth is extremely convincing, it is dismissed because it cannot be countered. Religious dogmatism on things outside its domain has reared its ugly head and we are headed for a new dark age in Adventist education.
“The lack of humility shown is astounding to me.”
Why such judgmental statements from the left keeping in mind Cliff is not my spokesman?
Humility seems to be expected only of those who oppose your views. That’s sad.
This is very helpful. Thank you. One quick question: Why was #11 added as #11 and not #28? Are the beliefs numbered according to importance?
You’re expecting a rational explanation?
I thank God that His Church Is able to concur on Fundamental Beliefs. It shows a higher degree of unity of mind in our understanding of Bible truth as we ideologically or theoretically hold it.
Plausible as concurrence on 28 Fundamental beliefs may be, I find it untrue that Jesus, the Living Truth can be reduced to or summarized into any number of Fundamental tenets.
It sometimes bothers me to find that as a church,we seem to equate “preaching Christ” with advancing and/or advocating our doctrines.
What astounded me at the General Conference Session of 2015 was the NO vote to WO. It had no biblical support at all, neither had it any bearing on our Fundamental Beliefs, yet the Church was engaged in a five years’ Bible study exercise by Division BRCs and by a worldwide TOSC only to divide the church irreconcilably into two, with headship theologians carrying the day in appointments to positions and in dictating their theological opinions and imposing their hermeneutics upon the GC Session as reflected in the NO vote to WO.
It is indeed disheartening that the doctrine underlying debates on WO was hidden from voters at the General Conference Session.
How would it be if delegates were allowed to give the same attention they gave to FB analysis to the theology behind NO mentality against WO?
What a monumental waste of money and time that GC event was! Pussyfooters don’t need conventions to celebrate the status quo. The whooshing sounds from Texas weren’t from tornadoes, but the release of pent up breath by the Glorious Guardians of Good (GGG) who exited in relief that their desperate grasp on the defunct past escaped unsullied. They, the frantic guardians of Adventist myths retreated victoriously from this shindig joyfully with doctrinaire balloons unpunctured.
Old Adventism is a bust, a reality totally ignored, but celebrated, by the re-coronation of the old regime and a minor tinkering of quasi-creedal details. The “fundamental beliefs” are “fun” for every one by avoiding anything “mental.” Nothing ventured, nothing gained, nothing lost. Nothing.
Because of its past, Adventism has no official place to go. This convention was a failure because Adventism was a failure at its birth based on a miscalculation of prophecy and then the face-saving device of its self-appointed role as God’s special guide through its imaginary end time scenario. Its creation of a crumbling a 140 year structure of strange doctrines (heavenly sanctuary, for one), to which some still cling, aren’t easily shed. This doctrines are rusting anchors to a past that didn’t happen.
Adventism will energetically go on because the body of it has brains, energy, and little use for rusting anchors. They will happily let what happened in San Antonio stay there!
Bugs, I always wonder why critics like you (former or formally SDA) still remain in this Church, to expect a great Reform according to your liberal-apostate vision? Adventism is committed to the Scripture, it has no other purpose to exist, so why can you dream of some liberal reform in this Church? You may freely follow the present path of the Grace Communion International, a denomination that only 15 years ago advocated and kept the Sabbath, but meantime they hurled overboard most of their past, and now they say they are glad because they have found Jesus. Whatever will we change, we will still remain Adventists with the same landmarks since 1844. Yes, we believe that God’s Judgment has begun, that this is the most important event that all the world must know. The Biblical Christ is our advocate in this Judgment, while the popular (anti)Christ prepares the world for the last phase of rebellion and revelation of wickedness.
This may be a good time to remind ourselves that an Organization and the true Church are two different things entirely. The actions of the recent GC session are simply another reminder of this.
You might need to remind the SDA organization that they are not God’s ‘true church’. They don’t know ‘The Truth’ nor do they speak for God.
I have an email from ‘the’ church saying “RH, you need to trust the procedures and processes of the Union (God).”
It appears most people (even trained Bible scholars) are not concerned the revisions relate to a variety of interpretations. For example consider the following interpretations of Daniel 8:9-14 that are directly associated with FB 24.
1. The pioneer position to Glacier View: The LH represents Rome pagan and papal, verses 9-11 apply to Rome, the identity of the daily is left open.
2. The interim position post Glacier View. The LH represents Rome pagan and papal, verses 10-12 apply to the Papacy, and the daily represents Christ’s ministry.
3. The current position, post 2002. The LH represents the Papacy only, verses 9-14 apply to the Papacy, and a Papal host currently controls the ministry in the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary.
4. A proposed interpretation of FB 24. The LH of 8:9 represents Rome alone, vss. 10-11 apply to the Roman persecution of Gods people, the crucifixion of Christ, and the destruction of the earthly temple by Roman soldiers in 70 A.D. In verse 12, the Papacy, the LH of 7:8, appears on the scene and casts the truth, the holy covenant truth to the ground.
Since virtually no one in the field believes position 3, the current church teaching regarding Daniel 8:9-14, which, if any of the above interpretations represents the Church’s official understanding of FB 24?
Ronald,
Is yours a question that the church needs to answer, or are we OK with FB 24 just as it reads? I just read it again, and it doesn’t mention horns and symbols other than Jesus the High Priest and the heavenly sanctuary the Jewish sanctuary being its earthly type.
Hi Bill,
This is a question that I have been asking our leaders for the last four years or so, that no one from the President’s office down, has been prepared to clarify.
As any one can see, the four positions are quite different. The current church teaching, position 3, supported by the BRI, recent SS Lessons, 12 BC, and leading scholars, consider Rome is not present in Chapter 8. Consequently the Little horn of Dan. 8:9 and verses 10-12 are applied a papal host that has overthrown the heavenly host, and the heavenly temple. The 2,300 years of verse 14 is said to represent 2,300 years of papal persecution.
Consequently it appears the delegates have voted a wordage of FB 24 unaware as to how the wordage relates to the church’s current interpretation of Daniel 8:9-14, and the sanctuary doctrine.
As the FBRC supported position 2, prior to the vote, it appears the church is in a catch 22 situation, that will not go away any time soon, as anyone who pursues the matter faces the charge of being in violation of the Fundamental Beliefs under the provisions of the Church Manual.
Evolution is an unintentional theory of origins that uses death and violence to evolve. Thus sin would be after death. That invalidates it for Christians.
Having established that, what I say next will sound like heresy to the literalist. How time and space intersect; how they work is still a mystery. Quantum mechanics has opened up questions we have no answers to and problems we can’t solve with what is known in a cosmos beyond our imaginings.
Why not honestly say we don’t know the length of the “mornings and evenings” or what they met to the ancients whose worldview was so different from ours? They believed in a flat earth and many other bizarre ideas that became distorted over the centuries. “Mornings and evenings” is also used in the 2300-day prophecy.
Did they have a concept of time as we do today? Maybe this explains how humans could live a thousand years or millions came out of Egypt (with no known historical evidence of such a large number).
A solution: Time was different to them. Maybe it was not important and still isn’t. What is important is that
God created (we don’t need to know how or when). We are losing the spiritual in trying to prove or demand the material be true to fact as we believe it. Believe what the Bible tells us about God and His character–that He loves us and sent Christ to die for us. If we have that it matters little what the material evidence shows. It’s all about the meaning!
I wrote my below comment before reading your above comment. We’re two peas in a pod. Too bad our pod is outside ‘the’ church tent getting rained on. We’re pretty fit peas, so I’d bet on our survival. We’ll sprout anew and grow into a plant that will shade many who are also outside the suffocating stale air inside the collapsing tent. Proverbially speaking, of course.
If evolution is invalidate for Christians, as you say (and I agree with you), why then are you so ready to accept that the Creation time, with evening and mornings, day 1, day 2, 3, to 7, was different? How can we “honestly say we don’t know the length of the ’mornings and evenings’”, if the time is expressed in so familar terms for any time and culture and especially for the Hebrew culture?
While the old geocentric cosmology was not scientifically corect, it was nevertheless useful to describe the world in a phenomenologic language. The true cosmologic model of the universe is good to be known for our curiosity and for some limited technical purposes, but this knowledge is completely useless when you try to understand the Scripture and the way of salvation. Are astronomers the best prepared people to go to heaven?
We must read the Bible according to its proper language and proper meaning, and better do not venture to speculate that “time was different to them” since it wasn’t different. It is important to believe as Genesis says, because to spiritualise the 6 days of Creation is to undermine the whole world of God. This is not a general lesson to teach us that God created, but to know that “in 6 days God created the heaven and the earth and in the seventh day He rested”, as Himself cried out from Sinai, and which Rev. 14:7 repeats. This is IMPORTANT, since it is the basis for God’s holy command. If the Bible lies in Genesis, we surely do no have much hope for the…
Regarding FB6: how is it possible to say the 7 days of creation ‘constituted the same unit of time as we call a week today’? (1) the earth’s spin is slowing down – so a week as we know it today is longer than a week 6000 yrs ago and thus it is NOT the same unit of time. (2) the sun was created on day 4, how can anyone know how long the previous 3 days were?
They have re-written the Bible to make sure it says what they want it to say. To add significance to the amazing gift of the Sabbath, they have made fools of themselves. I pitty those who would sign their name saying they believe all 28FBs.
My list of things I’d be willing to die in defense of is short. (1) The only God is a God of Love. (2) God loves me (3) Jesus is God (4) He died for me (5) through my acceptance of His gift, I am assured of Salvation.
All the other stuff is not worth putting in a creed and not worth staking my life on.
The comment from Ryan that the first 3 days of creation week could possibly be of a different length of time is a bit difficult to understand. Why would God ask us (or anyone for that matter) to keep the seventh day Sabbath (every week) if the original week was something else. Not everything in the bible can be explained by science. How does the sun stand still in Joshua and how does a donkey talk to Balaam. So for stars that are 10 000 light years away appearing during the creation week is not hard to believe if you believe in an omnipotent God. Otherwise we will start questioning how God can speak things into existence. It’s interesting that in Revelation 14, the first angel commands us to worship God the creator. The third angel talks of the saints who keep God’s commandments.
while this is miraculously possible it is does not fit with “let us reason together”
The “come now let’s reason together” concept was in the context of forgiving sins even if they be red as scarlet. Isaiah 1:18. When it comes to creation God does not even attempt to explain how He pulled it off, in fact He challenges Job “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” Job 38:4. To try and force the fundamental beliefs and the bible to accommodate evolution and all the fossils they are digging up every single day, would be to venture on a slippery slope and we might as well close shop and join the Church of Nazarene, the Catholics and others that allow the congregants’ “creation week” to stretch as long as their imagination can accommodate…
Not until the 14th verse was light separated from darkness and light. Lights in the sky were made for seasons, days, and years (no mention of weeks or a weekly period until Sinai).
He made the stars, also, but nothing about when; the writer was attributing God’s creative act to the stars which could have been there thousands of years. Is there a light from stars until it is seen? We are seeing light from distant stars today that were not seen before and are millions of light years away. Were they not there all the time?
Elaine, if you want to believe evolution over the bible you are free to do so, but please don’t condemn a bible believing people for exercising their God given right. That is what distinguishes them as the “remnant…that keep the commandment of God..”. Unfortunately the bible also explains that the devil is very angry with the “remnant” of God and goes out to make “war” with them.
It appears to be very clear that those who claim to be “A bible believing people” today, are not necessarily “the remnant.”
For example if this was the case one would expect Bible believing Adventists to be fully conversant with Daniel 8:9-14, and the First Angels message of Revelation 14.
A loving God has included these passages as part of His Everlasting Gospel, the gospel of God’s love for fallen man, that is to be preached to all the world, before the Second Coming.
Consequently it appears this same loving God is waiting patiently for his remnant people to present this message, in its fullness, as a token of His love for a dying world.
What has changed is that the SDA Fundamental Beliefs have become more Exclusive and less Inclusive. This seems the exact opposite of the message conveyed by the Gospel of the New Testament.
Hi Ronald
I would not necessarily go to church headquarters for clarification on Daniel 8. I would prayerfully read my bible with assistance from many websites written by our members. I highly recommend Amazing Discoveries, and yes God has his remnant.
Hi Ronald,
While I respect our church leaders, I have found that they do not have answers for basic questions regarding Daniel 8:9-14.
Unfortunately the same applies for the various ministries such as Amazing Facts. In fact these ministries are divided some supporting position 3, others position 2, hardly any present position 1, the pioneer position.
I propose position 4 is not only Bible based, it is in harmony with the counsels of the SOP regarding Daniel 2:33, 41, and history.
Thus the question. As it appears position 3 is the natural progression of position 2, Does any one really believe position 3 is a credible interpretation of FB 24?
Hi Ronald
The change in FB24 was “replacing the word symbolized with typified”. I would go along with the website I recommended, which is http://amazingdiscoveries.org
Professor Veith has done a lot of research and study on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and also on evolution. Incidentally he studied evolution and lectured on it for years before he became a Christian. He has an Amazing testimony and can be a great help to answer some of your questions. For Elaine I recommend Genesis Conflict Book by Professor Walter Veith.
Hi Owen and Ronald,
You are right the wordage of belief has not made any significant change to the belief, it is the evolving interpretations of Daniel 8:9-14 that is making a mockery of FB 24.
Re Amazing Discoveries, I have not found anything regarding Daniel 8:9-14, on their site, nor have I received any response to basic questions regarding this issue.
It appears the various ministries generally hold to one of the first three positions, while at least one does not agree with any.
Thus it appears it is time we considered following counsel “When the books of Daniel and Revelation are better understood, believers will have an entirely different religious experience. — ” TM 112.
Hi Ranald
From Amazing Discoveries
8:9-12 We know from Daniel 2 and 7 and from history that the power which followed Greece was Rome. In chapters 2 and 7 it was shown in two phases: Pagan Rome and Divided Rome. We saw in Chapter 7 that the religious power of Papal Rome rose to dominate the divided empire.
This vision represents power. The physical actions of Pagan Rome against God’s people are “symbolic” of Papal persecution of God’s people and their true worship.
My own understanding.
If I compare the interpretations you listed 1 to 4, I would say the above is closer to position 1 and 2. The Hebrew word that was translated “daily” in verse 11 is “tamid” which can be translated as “continual” or “regular”..and the word in the same verse translated “by him” is the Hebrew word “mimmennu” which may also be rendered to mean “from him”. Now with this understanding verse 11 may read “He magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and from Him the continual/regular sacrifice was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.”
I believe once you deconstruct verse 11 the progression and confluence of the positions you describe are understandable – at least to me.
Hi Owen,
You say, “8:9-12 We know from Daniel 2 and 7 and from history that the power which followed Greece was Rome. In chapters 2 and 7 it was shown in two phases: Pagan Rome and Divided Rome. We saw in Chapter 7 that the religious power of Papal Rome rose to dominate the divided empire.”
This two phase application of the little horn can be traced back to the Hellenistic teachings of the Jews in the time of Greece.
However as a careful study of Daniel 2 reveals the iron carries right through to the toes, it is clear the iron represents the political or statecraft powers of the fourth kingdom age. Rome being the first.
In verse 33 we have the clay symbol, that represents the religious, or churchcraft powers. The Papacy being the first churchcraft power.
In Daniel 2:41 we see the iron mixes with the miry clay, in the first instance we see Rome ruled till 1453, when the Muslims finally overthrew Rome, cf. Rev. 9. The papacy, on the other hand, continued until 1798. The iron and the clay did not cleave together.
In the book, Graffiti in the Holy of Holies, p. 8, Goldstein poses the question:”Why haven’t critics tackled, point by point, it’s (the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series),powerful chapter on the pagan and papal aspects of the little horn? — ”
Positions 1 and 2 are very different. When verse 11 is applied to the actions of the Papacy, on earth position 2, or in heaven position 3, it makes a mockery of FB 24, and the Everlasting Gospel.
Hi Owen,
You say, “Now with this understanding verse 11 may read “He magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and from Him the continual/regular sacrifice was taken away, —”
Have you considered the alternative position?
That the little horn of Dan 8:9 applies to the Roman Empire only, and verses 10 and 11 to Rome’s persecution of God’s people, the crucifixion of Christ and the subsequent ratification of the holy covenant, and the destruction of the earthly temple.
In this view, the little horn’s magnification of itself “even to the prince of the host” (vs. 11) specifically represents Rome’s attack on the earthly Jesus. The prepositional phrase, ûmimmēnû, later in the verse is 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. In other words, the Roman little horn attacks “the prince of the host,” but this little horn power does not take away “the daily,” (the continues). Paradoxically it is the prince himself, who, by His death at the hand of Rome and the Jews, established, (min) the daily, the continual or everlasting, covenant. The sad event of the Jews rejecting their Saviour was also prophesied, (Matt. 23:37-39; John 19:36 and 37), as was the ratification of the holy covenant (Dan. 9:27; when type met antitype at the cross, the ratification of the daily, was confirmed by the rending of the temple veil…
Hi Ranald
The interesting explanation of the word (ûmimmēnû, as “but by him”) ties in nicely with the brief explanation from Amazing Discoveries that the fulfilment of the prophecy finds itself in Pagan Rome in the first instance, and only links to Papal Rome through “symbolism”. That’s why I highlighted “symbolism” when I extracted their explanation.
I personally would prefer to read it as “from Him” but I don’t think it changes much.
You certainly sound like someone who is well read in these matters, I am not. I am just a layman – and you need to engage with Amazing Discoveries. I believe they will respond, their turnaround time from my past experience with them is about 2 to 3 weeks.
May I suggest that you use your God given talents and write an article for this website and other websites run by our members – and let the likes of me drink from your fountain of knowledge.
“In all fields, nigh and afar off, men will be called from the plow and from the more common commercial business vocations that largely occupy the mind… they will proclaim the truth with power. Through most wonderful workings of divine providence, mountains of difficulty will be removed and cast into the sea…. Men will know what truth is. .. the work will advance until the whole earth shall have been warned, and then shall the end come.” Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 96
Hi Owen,
Thank you, I am just a layman also.
May I make two points.
(1). as the word ûmimmēnû, can be translated “by him,” or “from him,” it is critical which interpretation is applied in verse 11.
If verse 11 applies to the time of first century Rome, then it is clear the Papacy did not take away the daily of verse 11.
(2). As horn symbols never represent two different powers, i.e. Rome and the Papacy, it is logical the little horn of Daniel 8 represents the Roman Empire, the fourth beast king and kingdom of 7:17
Cf. the following regarding the LH of 8:9.
“Seventh-day Adventists have always recognized from the biblical data itself that certain of the classical prophecies (in the major and minor prophets) give clear evidence in their contexts that a more complete fuffillment may be expected after a partial application (for example, Joel’s prophecy about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit [Joel 2:28-32] and Malachi’s prophecy of an Elijah message [Mal 4:5-6]).
However, we have never taken such a position on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. To give dual and multiple fulfillments to these grand revelations of divine foreknowledge is to give the face of prophecy a nose of wax to be turned this way and that. Dual and multiple fulfillments rob these great prophecies of real significance and evaporate their contribution to our spiritual certainty. Ellen G. White and the Interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, prepared by Biblical Research…
Hi Randal
There’s more to this that meets the eye and if we confine ourselves to a narrower view of the application of prophecy we can easily paint ourselves into a corner. On another view the 4th beast of Daniel has ten horns (Dan 7:7), the dragon/devil/Satan has ten horns (Rev 12:3,9). The “blasphemous” beast in Rev 13 has ten horns and gets his power and his seat from dragon (Rev 13:2). Who is the dragon that gives his seat and power and great authority to this beast? If you take a narrow application of these symbols you can easily come to a dead end.
Hi Owen,
In Dan 7 there are four beast kings cf. 7:17. Until recently Adventists generally believed Rome, represented by the LH of 8:9 was the fourth beast king of 7:17.
In 7:7, Daniel was transported to a time in history, the fifth century, when the 10 horn kingdoms had arisen in the Roman Empire, represented by the fourth beast king of 7:17, and the LH of chapter 8.
In 7:8 Daniel saw another horn, a little one arise among the 10 horns.
In 7:24 Daniel says the LH of 7:8 is different to the previous horns of the fourth beast.
Consequently the fourth beast has 12 horns in Daniel 7 and 8.
As the time period between the rise of the first LH of 8:9, Rome; and the second LH of 7:8, the Papacy; is over 500 years, it is not only a historical fact, it is logical there are two little horns to represent Rome and the Papacy.
Two little horns to represent two different powers who were small before they became great.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you consider this is a narrow view that can easily come to a dead end?
Hi Ranald
Sir Isaac Newton said words to the effect that you cannot understand Daniel if you do not read the book in conjunction with Revelation. This is why I asked who the dragon that gives power and his seat to the ten horned beast in Revelation 13. If you unpack that you will be able to unpack Daniel.
Hi Owen,
As the Dragon and his 10 horns is a very different subject to the fourth beast and its 12 horns, I do not understand your question/ statement.
Hi Ranald
Revelation 12:3 talks about a dragon with 10 horns (in verse 4) “his tail drew a third part of the stars of heaven” and Revelation 12:9 explains that the dragon in question is the “Devil..Satan..”. Revelation 13 then talks about a “blasphemous” beast that comes out of the sea and has 10 horns (Rev 13:1). In Rev 13:2 it says “the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.”
What I was trying to draw from you (and I know you picked it up) was to illustrate that the biblical symbols may have dual meaning, a direct application symbolising the greater controversy between God and Satan. If we apply those symbols in a limited view we may lose a portion of the message.
I have no problem applying this broader meaning to the 10 horned “blasphemous” beast in Daniel 7. By the way there was no beast with 12 horns – he had 10 horns of which 3 fell off (plucked up) and were replaced by the little horn.
Hi Owen,
Thank you for the clarification.
In Daniel it is clear the metals, the miry clay and the beast symbols have dual applications, but the horn symbols do not.
Re your position, “By the way there was no beast with 12 horns – he had 10 horns of which 3 fell off (plucked up) and were replaced by the little horn.”
In Daniel 7 and 8 the horn symbols always belong to an animal or the fourth beast.
Consequently the LH of 8:9 parallels the fourth beast king and his kingdom of 7:17, Caesar Augustus, and his kingdom, The Roman Empire.
Then in 7:7, approximately 4/500 years later, another 10 horns arise on the head of the fourth beast, representing the 10 kingdoms that settled in the western division of the Roman Empire.
Then in 7:8a, while Daniel was counting the 10 horns, he saw another LH arise in the midst of the 10 horn kingdoms.
1 + 10 + 1 = 12 horns and Kingdoms.
Then in 7:8b the second LH uprooted 3 of the 10 horns. It did not replace the 3 horns, cf. 8:12, 11:31, 12:11.
Consequently there are 9 horn kingdoms remaining, the first LH, The Roman Empire, the 7 horns kingdoms in the Western division of the Roman Empire, and the second LH, the Papacy, the kingdom that is different because it is a religious kingdom that is not restricted by national boundaries. All of these kingdoms are on the scene of action in Dan.7:8b.
It is simply a matter of paralleling the 12 different kingdoms represented by the 12 horns that belong to the fourth…
Hi Ranald
I am enjoying this discussion but I think you have done some serious double counting. Dan 7 verse 4 lion, verse 5 bear, verse 6 leopard, verse 7 dreadful with 10 horns. Consider that in Rev 13:1,2 there’s a beast with 10 horns with features of a leopard,bear and lion exactly in reverse order of Dan 7. These two prophets were being shown the story and you need to read them together.
Hi Owen,
Surely you agree that the little horn, of 7:8 is another horn that is different to the previous horns, cf. 7:24.
Daniel is very clear The Papacy is another horn in 7:8 and 24. , otherwise there is no papacy in chapter 8.
If the fourth beast only has 10 horns then there is on Roman Empire or Papacy in chapter 8.
Hi Ranald
I am trying to get us to study Dan 7 and 8 with the rest of the bible and not in isolation. Dan 7 speaks of blasphemous beast with 10 horns. John talks of dragon with 10 horns, a blasphemous beast with 10 horns in Rev 13 and 17 (a whore with blasphemous inscription and the word mystery…) 2 Thess 2 “mystery of lawlessness”.
Daniel was written as an immediate message to the Jews and their future desecration of the temple, all explained in the Macabees.
Revelation was written for the early Christians and the persecution they had already experienced and that would continue. It was to give hope that at last, God would prevail.
The projection of either book is a journey wild imaginings of a few sincere, but poorly educated in the biblical languages, anxious to find answers in what they believed was hidden code. Something that has been the topic of numerous books read by people who seek answers to the future.
Why can’t it be both things? John clearly is writing to 7 literal churches in Asia with real problems. There is no indication that these 7 churches didn’t exist – the contrary seems true, especially in light of Emperor Diocletian’s persecution of Christians in the area. But why can’t John’s words also have prophetic meaning for the future too?
Hi Elaine
Elaine, I am glad to see you are following our discussion with Ranald.
For you I recommend the book “Genesis Conflict” by Professor Walter Veith for clarification on the creation week. He is a former agnostic who studied and lectured on evolution before he became a Christian. The book is available on eBooks and it would clear all the questions you had about creation.
John the disciple of Jesus wrote (around 96 AD) in the book of Revelation about the same story of the 10 horned beast (of Daniel 7) from a slightly different perspective long after the destruction/desecration of the Jewish temple which was in 70 AD. So to say the whole story was about that would not be correct. John had a disciple called Polycarp who in turn had a disciple called Irenaeus. It is from the writings of Irenaeus that the reformers like Dr Martin Luther and Sir Isaac Newton managed to identify the 666 (the beast of Revelation 13) whom both these reformers called the “anti-Christ”. This is why I am trying to get Ranald to discuss the book of Revelation together with the book of Daniel.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I will check it out.
Extending both Daniel and Revelation thousands of years later is not warranted as they were directed toward the current situation.
Isaac Newton was a remarkable individual but he is best known for his scientific discoveries but his biblical analysis was no proven as were his earlier ones in science. Many before and after him have assigned the 666 to different individuals, but none have yet been shown to be correct. This number has been demonstrated as adding up to Hitler, even EGW! Prophecy is only as good as its fufillment.
Is that Walter Veith who was expelled from Germany for anti-semitism, and prohibited by the German SDA Church from speaking from the pulpit?
Hi Elaine
The interesting thing about Irenaeus is that he wrote these things before 200 AD long before the Hitler’s and all the other names that are being thrown around as 666 were even born. This 666 (anti-Christ) and the little horn.
Hi Owen,
Daniel takes us on a prophetic journey to the kingdom of the new earth. It is also the cornerstone for the book of Revelation.
Your point stands or falls on whether the fourth beast only has 10 horns.
Your strict adherence to Daniel 7:7 regarding the 10 horns, at the expense of 7:8, 7:24, and 8:9, tells me that in this case you are applying 7:7 as a proof text to justify your position.
Have you considered Dan. 2:39, the word translated another, “ochority” H317, is from H311, and it means other or another.
In 7:24 the word translated another, “orchoran” H321, is also from H311, and it also means other or another.
Furthermore you say, “Dan 7 speaks of blasphemous beast with 10 horns.”
In Daniel 7 it is the another little horn, 7:24, the 12th horn power of the fourth beast, the Papacy, that is the blasphemous power, cf. 7:25.
One of the great principles of Bible interpretation counsels is as follows. When the plain word of Scripture makes sense we are to seek no other explanation —.
I encourage you to consider this counsel as it applies to the horns of the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and 8.
As prophecy is the foretelling of history, a careful study of history reveals Rome (an iron power) and the Papacy (a clay power) were two different little horn powers who ruled concurrently from 538 A.D. to 1453 A.D.
Consequently we see Daniel and history reveal there are 12 horns that belong to the fourth beast that represent 12 different…
Hi Ranald
We are never asked to count the horns, in fact the number is given to us (I guess God knew we would end up double counting).
I am glad though to see that you are ready to consider the new testament teaching of the little horn also represented by 10 horns:
1.(little horn) Daniel 7:25, “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” (That’s 3½ years)
2.(Woman vs Dragon with 10 horns) Revelation 12:6, “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” (That’s 3½ years)
3.(666 – the first beast with 10 horns) Revelation 13:5, “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.” (That’s 3½ years)
Hi Owen,
Is this the position presented by Amazing Discoveries, or is it your own interpretation.
Hi Ranald
This is the position presented by the bible as you can see I copied and pasted verses from the bible. The bible explains itself and before we can even begin to dig up the understanding of various entities, the starting point should be a prayerful study of the holy scriptures.
The Bible explains itself except in all those times it doesn’t, and our Daniel and Revelation seminars are then made full of archaeological and historical accounts.
But I do agree broadly with the principle. But proof texting supposedly ‘line by line precept by precept’ can be just as dangerous as the anti-supernaturalism of the historical-critical method if one isn’t careful.
Hi Owen,
I recommend you consider the Historical Grammatical Method of interpreting Scripture when studying prophecy.
Hi Ranald
We are agreed on the Historical method as compared to preterist.