Featured Observations Upon Sister White & SDA Doctrines

The Bible says, let your 'yea' (yes) be 'yea' (yes):

Mat_5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Jas_5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.​

Not 'yea' and 'nay':

2Co_1:17 When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?
2Co_1:18 But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay.
2Co_1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.​

The question was specifically asked about conversation by email.

The question was not about PM conversation on this very limited (text, etc) board.

Here is what I asked in the PM:

"Malo!, George Antonios, a dialogue, if you please about the video:

[video link provided again]

I am currently in the process of downloading this video, but will use the time indexes from the youtube presentation for our consideration together.

I would like to have this conversation take place by email if you are not adverse to that. I only have one specific restriction in so doing, and that is, all of the correspondence (answers, comments, questions, in other words the contents of any reply) may be completely shared with anyone or anything in full, as long as my specific email address is not made public, or shared in private, or given away by intimation (hinting), with any one or thing, without my express permission. The email address is not to be forwarded to anyone or anything. The contents of the email may be forwarded or copied and distributed as you will, and even may be made public on this forum as you will. The only way in which this restriction may be violated is if you are married, and need to share the email address with your wife, but in so doing, she would agree to the same restriction. I expect if you are married to not have to hide anything from your wife, but that you are one together, and that your vows together, in this thing, as a Christian, stands before the bar of God in Heaven, and any violation would stand on record there. If you are not married, this restriction would still stand the moment you become married and continue unto Jesus coming in the clouds of Heaven in His own glory, the glory of the Father and the glory of all the holy angels. If you desire me to also not share you personal email, I agree, here and now to not share your email also.

If you agree to that restriction, we may continue by email, and I will, in the next reply, provide my contact email for our conversation (which you, personally, may use at any time to contact me, even after our conversation about the materials in the video are accomplished)."​

Here is what I received in response by you (George Antonios), after the "yes" to my original question.

"How about we much more simply chat here?"​

Here is my response to this question:

"Thank you for your time."​

With that being stated, I am now free and clean. I withdraw the original offer. I am most disappointed in that those who say "yes", do not really stand by their "yes", but attempt to go another route not proffered, especially after waiting nearly 24 hours for a simple response to an PM to find a suggested change of venue.

If you, George Antonios, decide to change your mind again, please let me know, about email discussion, and a new offer will be made at that time to you in private, but it may carry differing conditions based upon what has taken place here.

 

Ok, I have no idea what all that was about. It's so odd I don't even know what to say, except, "good day".

 

I will be responding publicly to your video presentation, and I expect, that you, as a Christian, will publicly correct the video errors that are therein when pointed out to you factually. If you do not, my previous message to you, will make all the more sense.

 

This video, is absolutely riddled with errors, some minor, some grievous. I will begin with pointing out the minor errors, with time indexes so that any may see for themselves. I expect, that the author of the video material, George Antonios, a Christian, will publicly correct those errors in the video and notify all on this board of those corrections with apolgies where needful. Youtube has an easy editing system, and anything may be added or deleted quickly from said video (as seen at Time Index 3:53 - 4:00 with the 'red flag' rectangular quotation). I know this, as I present and post material on youtube quite a bit (thousands of videos). Therefore, there is no excuse, especially for a Christian, for not correcting any documented errors.

Let us begin with the most common error in the whole video, which appears multiple times, with time indexes:

"Mary White"​

Time Index 10:57 - "... Mary White is born ... " [Which you rightly self-correct, in part, at 11:01-11:02 to "Ellen White", and likewise started to say "Mary" at Time Index 12:18, and also self-corrected]

Time Index 14:32 - 14:33 - "... Mary White ..." (no self-correction)

Time Index 14:36 - 14:37 - "... Mary White ..." (no self-correction)

Time Index 18:20 - 18:21 - "... Mary White ..." (no self-correction)​

Brother George Antonios, you stated, publicly, at

Time Index 27:04 - 27:10 - "... Let me know what you think. If I was wrong on anything, or if I misquoted anything. Let me know, and I'll do my best to correct it."​

I (as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian), call upon you as a Baptist Christian, to correct, publicly and in the video, those mistakes. In so doing, you will have shown me that you are willing to do what you have stated in the small things, so that when I bring forward the major errors, I pray you to continue with your corrections, in the same manner.

Sister 'White' was not born, or named "Mary", neither "White". She was born (a twin) and named "Ellen Gould Harmon".

A connected error:

Time Index 10:55 - 10:58 - "... So in [AD] 1821 Mary White is born ..."​

Sister 'White' was actually born in AD 1827, not AD 1821. See:

"née Ellen Gould Harmon; November 26, 1827 – July 16, 1915" - Ellen G. White - Wikipedia​

One might say, "Well, they are simple mistakes, a slip of the tongue." All well and good, then it ought to be just as easy to correct so simple a mistake by placing word flag overlays at each point in the video above. Also, the date of her birth is easily documented at wikipedia even, along with her full 'maiden' name. This is also verified by your own words, when you state in the video that she, at the age of 12, circa AD 1840, etc.

Please note, that I have prayed, before God, for brother George Antonios.

I ask that you correct these minor errors, and I will also address the more grievous errors in further response.

 

George Antonios (Adventism, Seventh-day Adventists, and Ellen G White) -- 00:00 - 27:21

Time Index 00:00 - 01:49 - is basically intro, nothing really to discuss per se (other than the erroneous assumed (apriori) position, which will be discussed in detail further in).

As a side note: I have personally viewed and listened to the entire video two full times (all 27:21 minutes of it), and am going through it a third time completely, and hand typing every single necessary word therein and time indexing it, for discussion and to point out the minor and grievous errors therein. I will be presenting the feedback at each point, whether correct or not.

 

Time Index 01:49 - 01:55 -- "... So there is William Miller [image on screen of 'William Miller' with text to the right of 'WILLIAM MILLER, FATHER OF ADVENTISM"], the Baptist preacher, also, farmer. And he was 'stu...' [studying, changed to], 'reading' his bible I guess. ..."​

This is a simple mistake, but it involves character, or intent, which is much more serious. There is an implication by brother George Antonios about the late brother William Miller in so doing, and that is the more offensive thing. Brother George Antonios began to say the word "studying" in regards the Baptist William Miller, but at the beginning of the word, "stu ...", subbed it with the word "reading" instead, and followed that up with the words, "I guess". To "guess" is to not actually 'know', but to stand upon an unsure foundation. It is always best to actually "Study to shew thyself approved unto God ..." (2 Tim. 2:15), and not have to "guess" at anything. Br. William Miller's life and record is well documented and recorded for any to "prayerfully read" or "study" for themselves. Brother Miller, was not 'reading', but truly and diligently "studying", and "prayerfully reading" the Bible to know what God's will was for him. Here is the documented evidence from the Memoirs of William Miller, by Sylvester Bliss, page 69-72 [PDF; bracketed words added by myself for clarification, contextually, bold, underline and colouration added by myself for highlighting the key phrases] - https://ia801600.us.archive.org/19/items/memoirsofwilliam00blis/memoirsofwilliam00blis.pdf

"... He [William Miller] then devoted himself to the prayerful reading of the Word. He laid aside all commentaries, and used the marginal references and his Concordance as his only helps. He saw that he must distinguish between the Bible and all the peculiar and partisan interpretations of it. The Bible was older than them all, must be above them all; and he placed it there. He saw that it must correct all interpretations; and, in correcting them, its own pure light would shine without the mists which traditionary belief had involved it in. He resolved to lay aside all preconceived opinions, and to receive, with child-like simplicity, the natural and obvious meaning of Scripture. He pursued the study of the Bible with the most intense interest. -- whole nights, as well as days, being devoted, to that object. ...

... His manner of studying the Bible is thus described by himself"

"I determined to lay aside all my prepossessions, to thoroughly compare Scripture with Scripture, and to pursue its study in a regular and methodical manner. I commenced with Genesis, and read verse by verse, proceeding no faster than the meaning of the several passages should be so unfolded as to leave me free from embarrassment respecting any mysticisms or contradictions. Whenever I found anything obscure, my practice was to compare it with all collateral passages; and, by the help of Cruden [Cruden's Concordance], I examined all the texts of Scripture in which were found any of the prominent words contained in any obscure portion. Then, letting every word have its proper bearing on the subject of the text, if my view of it harmonized with every collateral passage in the Bible, it ceased to be a difficulty. In this way I pursued the study of the Bible, in my first perusal of it, for about two years, and was fully satisfied that it is its own interpreter. I found that, by a comparison of Scripture [page 69-70] with history, all the prophecies, as far as they have been fulfilled, had been fulfilled literally; that all the various figures, metaphors, parables, similitudes, &c., of the Bible, were either explained in their immediate connection, or the terms in which they were expressed were defined in other portions of the word; and, when thus explained, are to be literally understood in accordance with such explanation.

I was thus satisfied that the Bible is a system of revealed truths, so clearly and simply given that the 'wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err there.'"​

In thus continuing the study he adopted the following:

RULES OF INTERPRETATION.

I. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible. Proof, Matt. 5:18.

II. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by a diligent application and study. Proof, 2 Tim. 3:15-17.

III. Nothing revealed in Scriptures can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering. Proof, Deut. 29:29. Matt. 10:26,27. 1 Cor. 2:10. Phil. 3:15; Isa. 45:11. Matt. 21:22. John 14:13,14; 15:7; James 1:5,6. 1 John 5:13-15.

IV. To understand doctrine, bring all the Scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let ever word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Proof, Isa. 28:7-29; 35:8. Prov. 19:27. Luke 24:27,44,45. Rom. 16:26. James 5:19. 2 Pet. 1:19,20.

V. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed or wisdom, is my rule, and not the Bible. Proof, Ps. 19:7-11; 119:97-105. Mat. 23:8-10. 1 Cor. 2:12-16. Ezk. 34:18,19. Luke 11:52. Matt. 2:7,8.

VI. God has revealed thing to come, by visions, in figures and parables; and in this way the same things are oftentime revealed again and again, by different visions, or in different figures and parables. If you wish to understand [page 70-71] them, you must combine them ll in one. Proof, Ps. 89:19. Hos. 12:10. Hab. 2:2. Acts 2:17. 1 Cor. 10:6. Heb. 9:9,24. Ps. 78:2. Matt. 13:13,34. Gen. 41:1-32. Dan. 2d, 7th & 8th. Acts 10:9-16.

VII. Visions are always mentioned as such. 2 Cor. 12:1.

VIII. Figures always have a figurative meaning, and are used much in prophecy to represent future things, times and events, -- such as mountains, meaning governments, Dan. 2:35,44; beasts, meaning kingdoms, Dan. 7:8,17; waters, meaning people, Rev. 17:1,15; day, meaning year, &c. Ezk. 4:6.

IX. Parables are used as comparison to illustrate subjects, and must be explained in the same ways a figures, by the subject and Bible. Mark 4:13.

X. Figures sometimes have two or more different significations, as day is used in a figurative sense to represent three different periods of time, namely, first, indefinite, Eccles. 7:14; second, definite, a day for a year, Ezk. 4:6; and third, a day for a thousand years, 2 Pet. 3:8.

The right construction will harmonize with the Bible, and make good sense; other constructions will not.

XI. If a word makes good sense as it stands, and does no violence to the simple laws of nature, it is to be understood literally; if not, figuratively. Rev. 12:1,2; 17:3-7.

XII. To learn the meaning of a figure, trace the word through your Bible, and when you find it explained, substitute the explanation for the word used; and if it make good sense, you need not look further; if not, look again.

XIII. To know whether we have the true historical event for the fulfillment of a prophecy: If you find every word of the prophecy (after the figures are understood) is literally fulfilled, then you may know that your history is the true event; but if one word lacks a fulfillment, then you must look for another event, or wait its future development; for God takes care that history and prophecy shall agree, so that the true believing children of God may never be ashamed. Ps. 22:5. Isa. 45:17-19. 1 Pet.2:6. Rev. 17:17. Acts 3:18.

XIV. The most important rule of all is, that you must have faith (italics original). It must be a faith that requires a sacrifice, and, if tried, would give up the dearest object on earth, the world [page 71-72] and all its desires, -- character, living, occupation, friends, home, comforts and worldly honors. If any of these should hinder our believing any part of God's word, it would show our faith to be vain. Nor can we ever believe so long as one of these motives lies lurking in our hearts. We must believe that God will never forfeit his word; and we can have confidence that He who takes notice of the sparrow's fall, and numbers the hairs of our head, will guard the translation of his own word, and throw a barrier around it, and prevent those who sincerely trust in God, and put implicit confidence in his word, from erring far from the truth." ..." - Memoirs of William Miller, by Sylvester Bliss, page 69-72 [PDF] - https://ia801600.us.archive.org/19/items/memoirsofwilliam00blis/memoirsofwilliam00blis.pdf​

 

Time Index 01:49 - 01:55 -- "... So there is William Miller [image on screen of 'William Miller' with text to the right of 'WILLIAM MILLER, FATHER OF ADVENTISM"], the Baptist preacher, also, farmer. And he was 'stu...' [studying, changed to], 'reading' his bible I guess. ..."​

Continuing this evidence that brother William Miller was not merely 'reading' the Bible, but most thoroughly studying it to understand all of it, citing every reference for his position on the Anti-Christ [Papacy], which also belonged to all of the Reformers before him in regards the Papacy (documentation upon request), and those even before them, as well as on other positions:

"... I found that the only millennium taught in the word of God is the thousand years which are to intervene between the first resurrection and that of the rest of the dead, as inculcated in the twentieth of Revelation; ... and that the horn of the Papacy is to war against the saints until his [Christ Jesus'] appearing and kingdom, when it [the Papacy] will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ's coming ... ¶ ... ¶ Matt. 13:37-43; 24:14; Dan. 7:21,22; 2 Thess. 2:8." - Memoirs of William Miller, by Sylvester Bliss, page 73 - https://ia801600.us.archive.org/19/items/memoirsofwilliam00blis/memoirsofwilliam00blis.pdf
​

Have you brother George Antonios been so careful to "study" to shew thyself approved unto God as he? Where is so thorough a listing of personal rules to engage in the prayerful reading and study of the word of God amongst yourself? I have not seen it in your video. I have documented several simple errors already, and the greater to come. From my perspective, brother William Miller, is far a superior example of the life of Jesus Christ in his own life. Now, will I find humility or pride from here on out from you? Only you can answer that question, and it will not be by words that I will know.

 

Another simple error:

Time Index 01:55 - 01:58 -- "... He [William Miller] was studying Daniel Chapter 8 and verse 8. ..."​

No. Brother William Miller had already moved onward from Daniel 8 and verse 8 some time previous, and had moved onto verses 13-14, and that more particularly verse 14. It is quite well documented, here:

"... When, therefore, I found the 2300 prophetic days, which were to mark the length of the vision from the Persian to the end of the fourth kingdom ..."

"... that it came not by the will of man, but was written as holy men were moved by the Holy Ghost, and was written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope, -- I could but regard the chronological portions of the Bible as being as much a portion of the word of God, and as much entitled to our serious consideration, as any other portion of the Scriptures."

"I, therefore, felt that, in endeavoring to comprehend what God had in his mercy seen fit to reveal to us, I had no right to pass over the prophetic periods. I saw that, as the events predicted to be fulfilled in prophetic days had been extended over about as many literal years; as God, in Num. 14:34, and Ezek. 4:4-6, had appointed each day for a year; as the seventy weeks to the Messiah were fulfilled in 490 years, and the 1260 prophetic days of the Papal supremacy in 1260 years ..." - Memoirs of William Miller, by Sylvester Bliss, page 75 - https://ia801600.us.archive.org/19/items/memoirsofwilliam00blis/memoirsofwilliam00blis.pdf​

Again:

"... From a further study of the Scriptures, I concluded ... that the 2300 days commenced with the seventy weeks, which the best chronologers dated from B.C. 457; and that the 1335 days, commencing with the taking away of the daily, and the setting up of the abomination that maketh desolate, Dan. 12:11, were to be dated from the setting up of the Papal supremacy, after the taking away of Pagan abominations, and which, according to the best historians I could consult, should be dated from about A.D. 508. Reckoning all these prophetic periods from the several dates assigned by the best chronologers for the events from which they should evidently be reckoned, they would all terminate together, about A.D. 1843. I was thus brought, in 1818, at the close of my two years' study of the Scriptures, to the solemn conclusion ..." - Memoirs of William Miller, by Sylvester Bliss, page 76 - https://ia801600.us.archive.org/19/items/memoirsofwilliam00blis/memoirsofwilliam00blis.pdf​

Yet, at least at this time, I can acknowledge that you brother George Antonios finally used the word "study", though in connection with the wrong verse (vs 8). I do desire, that those who attempt to 'win over' Seventh-day Adventists, at least read a bare minimum historical account of the Millerite - Advent - Seventh-day Adventist (Great Awakening to Great Disapointment to Great Discovery) movements from original first and second-hand eye witness sources before making such videos. It would reduce their embarrassment quite a bit.

 

William Miller admitted was wrong and moved on, while EW continued in her heresy!

 

The Investigative Judgement is bogus, see Desmond Ford and others!

 

You ought to read a little more closely his Apology and Defense. He did not say any such thing.

What he said was [in regards what fractures took place after the Advent 7th month movement]:

"... I have no confidence in any of the new theories that have grown out of that movement, viz., that Christ then came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was closed, that there is no salvation for sinners, that the seventh trumpet then sounded, or that it was a fulfilment of prophecy in any sense. ..." [Page 29]​

He was a little "disappointed" you see, and could not see past the Tomb of his misunderstanding in regards the event, rather than to what he thought was incorrect "time".

Yet, in the same "apology" he states:

"... The "woman," or mystical Babylon, I regard as the fallen church, that ruled by means of the kings of the earth; and all churches that have the papal spirit of formality, or persecution, are partaking of her abominations. ..." [Page 32]

"... I have thus given a plain and simple statement of the manner of my arriving at the views I have inculcated, with a history of my course up to the present time. That I have been mistaken in the time, I freely confess; and I have no desire to defend my course any further than I have been actuated by pure motives, and it has resulted to God's glory. My mistakes and errors God, I trust, will forgive. I cannot, however, reproach myself for having preached definite time; for as I believe that whatsoever was written aforetime was written for our learning, the prophetic periods are as much a subject of investigation, as any other portion of the word. I therefore still feel that it was my duty to present all the evidence that was apparent to my mind; and were I now in the same circumstances, I should be compelled to act as I have done. I should not however have so done, had I seen that the time would pass by; but not knowing that it would, I feel even now more satisfaction in having warned my fellow men, than I should feel, were I conscious that I had believed them in danger, and had not raised my voice. How keen would have been my regret, had I refrained to present what in my soul I believed to be truth, and the result had proved that souls must perish through my neglect! I cannot therefore censure myself for having conscientiously performed what I believed to be my duty.

But while I frankly acknowledge my disappointment in the exact time, I wish to enquire whether my teachings have been thereby materially affected. My view of exact time depended entirely upon the accuracy of chronology: of this I had no absolute demonstration; but as no evidence was presented to invalidate it, I deemed it my duty to rely on it as certain, until it should be disproved. Besides, I not only rested on received chronology, but I selected the earliest dates in the circle of a few years on which chronologers have relied for the date of the events from which to reckon, because I believed them to be best sustained, and because I wished to have my eye on the earliest time at which the Lord might be expected. Other chronologers had assigned later dates for the events from which I reckoned; and if they are correct, we are only brought into a circle of a few years, during which we may rationally look for the Lord's appearing. As the prophetic periods, counting from the dates from which I have reckoned, have not brought us to the end; and as I cannot tell the exact time that chronology may vary from my calculations, I can only live in continual expectation of the event. I am persuaded that I cannot be far out of the way, and I believe that God will still justify my preaching to the world. With respect to other features of my views, I can see no reason to change my belief. We are living under the last form of the divided fourth kingdom, which brings us to the end. The prophecies which were to be fulfilled previous to the end, have been so far fulfilled that I find nothing in them to delay the Lord's coming. The signs of the times thicken on every hand; and the prophetic periods I think must certainly have brought us into the neighborhood of the event. There is not a point in my belief in which I am not sustained by some one of the numerous writers who have opposed my views. Prof. Bush, the most gentlemanly of my opponents, admits that I am correct in the time, with the exception of the precise day or year; and this is all for which I contend. That the 70 weeks are 490 years, and the 1260 and 2300 days are so many years are admitted by Messrs Bush, Hinton and Jarvis. That the 2300 days and 70 weeks commence at the same time Prof. Bush does not deny. ...

... Mr. Morris admit that the legs of iron and fourth beast are Rome, and that the little horn of Daniel 7th is papacy. While Dr. Jarvis and Mr. Hinton admit that the exceeding great horn of Dan. 8th, is Rome. The literal resurrection of the body the end of the world and a personal coming of Christ have not been questioned by several who have written against me. Thus there is not a point for which I have contended, that has not been admitted by some of those who have written to disprove my opinions. I have candidly weighed the objections advanced against these views, but I have seen no arguments that were sustained by the scriptures, that in my opinion, invalidated my position. I cannot therefore conscientiously refrain from looking for my Lord; or from exhorting my fellow men as I have opportunity, to be in readiness for that great event. For my indiscretions and errors, I ask pardon; and all who have spoken evil of me without cause, I freely forgive. My labors are principally ended. I shall leave to my younger brethren the task of contending for the truth. Many years I toiled alone; God has now raised up those who will fill my place. I shall not cease to pray for the spread of Truth. ...

...WM. MILLER.
Low Hampton, N. Y., August 1, 1845." [Page 33-36]​

Here - https://archive.org/download/willia...am Miller's Apology and Defence, August 1.pdf

Or Here - https://archive.org/download/willia...ence, August 1845 - August 13 V10 N1 P1-6.pdf

 

Consider the events leading up to AD 1888 with the Senator Blair Bill (here - Henry W. Blair - Wikipedia since voted down), which is the type of Cestius in AD 66-67. You can see the records of persons being fined, arrested, even before such an bill passed in A. T. Jones' - The Two Republics, the Appendix, citing Case before Supreme Court even:

The Two Republics (See Appendix) - https://archive.org/download/sda-a-t-jones-the-two-republics/SDA - A T Jones - The Two Republics.pdf

'Cestius' was merely the first attempt. The second came some time after with Titus.

'Titus' comes next, and is already approaching.

Feel free to view:

 

Sda is a cult, as their theology came from the teachings of EW, and not from the Bible alone!

 

You'd have to say the same thing about the religion of Daniel, using that standard. He got his theology from Jeremiah, and not from the books of Moses alone.

You'd have to say the same thing about Paul, using that standard. He got his theology from Jesus and John the Baptist, and not from the books of the OT alone.

Your standard is flawed.

 

All of them were inspired by God, EW was not!

 

Continuing:

Time Index 01:58 - 02:32 -- "... And it's [Daniel 8:8] is a prophecy of Daniel. And uh, here's what it says there: Look in verse, uhhh, ~ the little horn, which is we know [E-Sword now onscreen, of Daniel 8:8-17 KJV] as the Anti-Christ, look in verse 12. In verse 12, the Bible [KJB] says, "And an host was given him ("him", italics) against the daily sacrifice ("sacrifice", italics) by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered." So the little horn, the Anti-Christ, once the temple is rebuilt according to Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, he's actually gonna go into the temple and stop the sacrifices of the temple. He's gonna force everybody to worship him [the Anti-Christ] as God. That's what Daniel's talking about. These things have not happened yet. ..."​

What is amazing is that you, George Antonios, accuse William Miller of 'changing the text' (Time Index 04:09-04:11) and placing his own words therein, and what do you do in this video, in regards Daniel 8:8? You place your own words and theology (which is nothing but Roman Catholic Jesuit Futurism theology of Francisco Ribera SJ; Cardinal Robert Bellarmine SJ, etc, see for yourself here - The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism ;also - The Evil Empire of Jesuit Futurism - Historicist.com The Protestant Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy. The Historical Alternative also - https://amazingdiscoveries.org/RT_encyclopedia_Futurism_Jesuit_Ribera ) into the text!

You state that William Miller replaced the word "days" with "years" (Time Index 04:05 - 04:29), and yet you do the very same thing, by substituting the "little horn" with the word "Anti-Christ". I am not saying you are in error in identifying the little horn as Antichrist. I am stating that you do not give William Miller the same leeway, when he cites Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6 and the context of Daniel 8, etc itself, as identifying the "days" as so many "years" as numerous commentators also do (citations forthcoming in the next few replies to demonstrate this, as an historical understanding as held by many). Here are 20 reasons to use the day for a year in Daniel - https://archive.org/download/secret...pply The Day For A Year In Bible Prophecy.pdf

Brother George Antonios. Show me the word "sacrifice" in the text in the Hebrew underlying the translation of the KJB. It doesn't exist. Will you build an entire theology (a false Jesuit theology at that) upon a non existent word, a word that is added in italics into the English translation (KJB), meant as an help, pointing to something far greater?

Dan 8:11 ועד שׂר־הצבא הגדיל וממנו הרים התמיד והשׁלך מכון מקדשׁו׃

Dan 8:12 וצבא תנתן על־התמיד בפשׁע ותשׁלך אמת ארצה ועשׂתה והצליחה׃

Dan 8:13 ואשׁמעה אחד־קדושׁ מדבר ויאמר אחד קדושׁ לפלמוני המדבר עד־מתי החזון התמיד והפשׁע שׁמם תת וקדשׁ וצבא מרמס׃

Dan 11:31 וזרעים ממנו יעמדו וחללו המקדשׁ המעוז והסירו התמיד ונתנו השׁקוץ משׁומם׃

Dan 12:11 ומעת הוסר התמיד ולתת שׁקוץ שׁמם ימים אלף מאתים ותשׁעים׃​

In the King James it is purposefully placed in italics signifying this. The "daily" is not merely a 'sacrifice'.

Brother William Miller knew this, and that is why in his memoirs didn't write out the word "sacrifice" in association with the "daily".

"... From a further study of the Scriptures, I concluded ... that the 2300 days commenced with the seventy weeks, which the best chronologers dated from B.C. 457; and that the 1335 days, commencing with the taking away of the daily, and the setting up of the abomination that maketh desolate, Dan. 12:11, were to be dated from the setting up of the Papal supremacy, after the taking away of Pagan abominations, and which, according to the best historians I could consult, should be dated from about A.D. 508. Reckoning all these prophetic periods from the several dates assigned by the best chronologers for the events from which they should evidently be reckoned, they would all terminate together, about A.D. 1843. I was thus brought, in 1818, at the close of my two years' study of the Scriptures, to the solemn conclusion ..." - Memoirs of William Miller, by Sylvester Bliss, page 76 - https://ia801600.us.archive.org/19/items/memoirsofwilliam00blis/memoirsofwilliam00blis.pdf​

"The daily" is much more, as seen here throughout the whole of scripture - https://ia601500.us.archive.org/6/items/the-daily-daily/The Daily Daily.pdf

Where in the texts of Daniel 8:8-14 does it say anything about a temple being rebuilt in earthly Jerusalem? It doesn't. Anywhere.

Where in 2 Thessalonians 2 does it say anything about a rebuilt temple at earthly Jerusalem? It doesn't. Anywhere.

 

Continuing:

Time Index 01:58 - 02:32 -- "... And it's [Daniel 8:8] is a prophecy of Daniel. And uh, here's what it says there: Look in verse, uhhh, ~ the little horn, which is we know [E-Sword now onscreen, of Daniel 8:8-17 KJV] as the Anti-Christ, look in verse 12. In verse 12, the Bible [KJB] says, "And an host was given him ("him", italics) against the daily sacrifice ("sacrifice", italics) by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered." So the little horn, the Anti-Christ, once the temple is rebuilt according to Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, he's actually gonna go into the temple and stop the sacrifices of the temple. He's gonna force everybody to worship him [the Anti-Christ] as God. That's what Daniel's talking about. These things have not happened yet. ..."​

You cite 2 Thessalonians 2 as a proof text for rebuilding the physical structure in the 'middle east'? Why? Where does it say any such thing? It does not, unless you add a plethora of your own words to the text. 2 Thessalonians, as you rightly point out, is written by Paul under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and Paul identifies that "temple" as God's own people:

1Co_3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Co_3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Co_6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

2Co_5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2Co_5:4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

2Co_6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Eph_2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Eph_2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Col_2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.​

Peter agrees with Paul:

1Pe_2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.​

2Pe_1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;

2Pe_1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.​

The entire book of Acts unto this very day is the building of this "temple", the context??? People of God:

Amo_9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

Act_15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:​

Jesus Himself, spake of this Third Temple (as seen in Ezekiel in symbol), His body:

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Joh 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Mat_12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

Rev_3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Rev_21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.​

Ezekiel knew this:

Eze_37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.​

Jesus stated that the temple in the 'middle east' was left to the Jews, "desolate" (forever) and was no longer His

Father's house, never to be again:

Mat_23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Luk_13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.​

The real Sanctuary of God is in Heaven:

Heb_8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Heb_8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Heb_9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;​

It is the people of God that pollute the sanctuary, as it was in the past:

Zep_3:4 Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.​

It is always through sin, that pollution comes:

Eze_28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Eze_28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.​

Christians already have an "altar", and it has nothing to do with anything now in the earthly Jerusalem.

Heb_13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.​

You say the events of Daniel / 2 Thessalonians are yet future, but the context of each describe them as having already happened. For instance, Daniel 8:14, in response to the questions (plural) of Daniel 8:13, speaks the answer to the question, "How long the vision ..." The "vision" (Daniel 8:1,2,13,15,16,17,27) begins with the two-horned "Ram" (Daniel 8:3), which is Medo-Persia (Daniel 8:20). This is why, in Daniel 9 it refers to the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (earthly), which "commandment" is specifically found to take place in the Medo-Persian Kingdom, in Ezra 6:14, and again in Ezra 7. The "vision", and the "how long" question, shows that the start of the 2,300 days (evening/mornings, vs 26) begins in Medo Persia and continues through Greece (3rd Kingdom), into the 4th Kingdom (Pagan Rome), and beyond. The date as given in Ezra 6:14, Ezra 7 is historically verified. It is fixed to 457 BC, and I can and will cite numerous historical sources to demonstrate this point.

Daniel is chiastic in structure. Daniel 8:8-14 are not future events, but events that have already since passed. Consider the very structure itself, which is unbreakable in its parallelism (chiasm) - https://archive.org/download/michae...Revelation compared, 7 Branch Candlestick.pdf

This may be shown line by line if you desire me to.

 

Continuing:

Time Index 02:32 - 02:37 -- "... This happens during a period of time called "the tribulation", which is seven years long. ..."

Time Index 02:37 - 02:39 -- "... It's ["the tribulation"] 2,520 days ..."

Time Index 02:39 - 02:44 -- "... [2,520 days] divided into two halves of 1,260 ~ days. Ok? ..."​

Show me one single verse in scripture which states that "the tribulation" is "seven years long".

Show me one single verse in scripture which specifically uses the number "2,520" (as like the 2,300, 1,260, 70, etc). There are none.

Here are all the texts that use the word "tribulation". Show me from those verses, the "seven years".

"Tribulation":

Deuteronomy 4:30 [H6862]; Judges 10:14 [H6869]; 1 Samuel 26:24 [H6869]; Matthew 13:21 [G2347], Matthew 24:29 [G2347]; Mark 13:24 [G2347]; John 16:33 [G2347]; Acts 14:22 [G2347]; Romans 2:9 [G2347], Romans 5:3 [G2347], Romans 8:35 [G2347], Romans 12:12 [G2347]; 2 Corinthians 1:4 [G2347], 2 Corinthians 7:4 [G2347]; 1 Thessalonians 3:4 [G2346]; 2 Thessalonians 1:6 [G2347]; Revelation 1:9 [G2347], Revelation 2:9 [G2347], Revelation 2:10 [G2347], Revelation 2:22 [G2347], Revelation 7:14 [G2347]​

"Tribulations":

1 Samuel 10:19 [H6869]; Romans 5:3 [G2347]; Ephesians 3:13 [G2347]; 2 Thessalonians 1:4 [G2347]​

Thus the Primary words used, are:

H6862
צר / צר
tsar
Total KJV Occurrences: 103

enemies, 26
Gen_14:20, Num_24:8, Deu_32:41, Deu_33:7, 2Sa_24:13, 1Ch_12:17, Neh_9:27 (2), Job_19:11, Psa_27:2, Psa_27:12, Psa_44:5, Psa_44:7, Psa_60:12, Psa_78:66, Psa_97:3, Psa_105:24, Psa_106:11, Psa_108:13, Psa_112:8, Psa_119:139, Psa_119:157, Psa_136:24, Isa_26:11, Jer_48:5, Eze_39:23
adversaries, 21
Deu_32:27, Deu_32:43, Jos_5:13, Ezr_4:1, Neh_4:11, Psa_81:14, Psa_89:42, Isa_1:24, Isa_9:11, Isa_63:18 (2), Isa_64:2, Jer_30:16, Jer_46:10, Jer_50:7, Lam_1:5, Lam_1:7, Lam_2:17 (2), Mic_5:9, Nah_1:2
trouble, 17
2Ch_15:4, Job_15:24, Job_38:23, Psa_3:1, Psa_13:4, Psa_32:7, Psa_59:16, Psa_60:11, Psa_66:14, Psa_102:2, Psa_107:6, Psa_107:13, Psa_107:19, Psa_107:28, Psa_108:12, Psa_119:143, Isa_26:16
enemy, 9
1Sa_2:32, Est_7:4, Psa_44:9-10 (2), Psa_78:42, Psa_107:2, Isa_59:19, Lam_1:5, Lam_1:7
adversary, 6
Est_7:6, Lam_1:10 (2), Lam_2:4, Lam_4:12, Amo_3:11
distress, 4
2Sa_22:7, Psa_4:1, Psa_18:6, Isa_25:4
affliction, 3
Psa_106:44, Hos_5:15, Zec_8:10
strait, 3
2Ki_6:1, Job_36:16, Isa_49:20
enemy’s, 2
Job_6:23, Psa_78:61
foes, 2
1Ch_21:12, Psa_89:23
narrow, 2
Pro_23:26-27 (2)
adversity, 1
Isa_30:20
afflicted, 1
Isa_63:9
anguish, 1
Job_7:11
close, 1
Job_41:15
distresses, 1
Eze_30:15-16 (2)
small, 1
Pro_24:10
sorrow, 1
Isa_5:30
tribulation, 1
Deu_4:30 (2)​

H6869
צרה
tsârâh
Total KJV Occurrences: 73

trouble, 34
2Ki_19:3, Neh_9:27, Psa_9:9 (2), Psa_20:1 (2), Psa_22:11, Psa_37:39, Psa_46:1, Psa_50:15, Psa_54:7, Psa_77:2, Psa_78:49, Psa_86:7 (2), Psa_91:15, Psa_116:3, Psa_138:7, Psa_142:2, Psa_143:11, Pro_11:8, Pro_12:13, Pro_25:19, Isa_8:22, Isa_30:6, Isa_37:2-3 (2), Jer_14:7-8 (2), Jer_30:7, Dan_12:1, Nah_1:7, Hab_3:16, Zep_1:15
troubles, 10
Deu_31:17, Deu_31:21, Job_5:19, Psa_25:17, Psa_25:22, Psa_34:6, Psa_34:17, Psa_71:20, Pro_21:23, Isa_65:16
distress, 8
Gen_35:3, Gen_42:21, 1Ki_1:29, Neh_9:37, Psa_120:1, Pro_1:27, Oba_1:12, Oba_1:14
affliction, 7
2Ch_20:9, Isa_63:9, Jer_15:11, Jer_16:19, Jon_2:2, Nah_1:9, Zec_10:11
anguish, 5
Gen_42:21, Jer_4:31, Jer_49:24 (2), Jer_50:43
adversity, 4
2Sa_4:9, 2Ch_15:6, Pro_17:17, Pro_24:10
tribulation, 2
Jdg_10:14, 1Sa_26:24
adversary, 1
1Sa_1:6
adversities, 1
Psa_31:6-7 (2)
tribulations, 1
1Sa_10:19​

G2346
θλίβω
thlibō
Total KJV Occurrences: 10

afflicted, 3
2Co_1:6, 1Ti_5:10, Heb_11:37
troubled, 3
2Co_4:8, 2Co_7:5, 2Th_1:7
narrow, 1
Mat_7:14
throng, 1
Mar_3:9
tribulation, 1
1Th_3:4
trouble, 1
2Th_1:6​

G2347
θλίψις
thlipsis
Total KJV Occurrences: 45

tribulation, 18
Mat_24:21 (2), Mat_24:29, Mar_13:24, Joh_16:33, Act_14:22, Rom_2:9, Rom_5:3, Rom_8:35, Rom_12:12, 2Co_7:4 (2), 2Th_1:6,
Rev_2:9-10 (3), Rev_2:22, Rev_7:14
affliction, 11
Mar_4:17, Mar_13:19, Act_7:11, 2Co_2:4, 2Co_4:17, 2Co_8:2, Php_1:16, Php_4:14, 1Th_3:6-7 (2), Jas_1:27
afflictions, 6
Act_7:10, Act_20:23, 2Co_6:4, Col_1:24, 1Th_3:3, Heb_10:33
tribulations, 3
Rom_5:3, Eph_3:13, 2Th_1:4
trouble, 3
1Co_7:28, 2Co_1:4, 2Co_1:8
afflicted, 1
Mat_24:8-9 (2)
anguish, 1
Joh_16:21
burdened, 1
2Co_8:13
persecution, 1
Act_11:19​

The latter statement, of two differing 1,260's, is also erroneous. The 1,260's in scripture, when considered on the whole, are all one singular timeframe - in essence given 7 times (with an eighth mention by differing phrase, being Daniel 7:25, 12:7; Revelation 11:2,3, 12:6,14, 13:5; Luke 21:24). The language of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are Parallel, as are Daniel 12, Revelation 11 and 12, likewise, along with Luke. The language is the same in each.

We know that God was not enumerating normal "days", since they are given in prophecy, in "vision". They are as symbolic as the images of the Ram, He-Goat, etc. In fact, Daniel 8:26, in explanation, tells us that they are not so many normal days, but are a great "many" days, which is why Daniel fell ill. We also know from the explanation given, that the "vision" began with the "Ram" (Medo-Persia), followed by the "He-goat" (Greece), its broken phase (Greece divided), and finally the phases of the "little horn" itself, being the phases of Rome (Pagan (fierce countenance) and Papal (understanding dark sentences)). He could not understand why it was going to be so long, when God had promised through Jeremiah, that their release was to be in 70 years (see Daniel 9).