Dr. Walter
New Member
There is not point in further discussion as you have no common sense. Verse 13 explicitly tells the reader what "the vision" is "CONCERNING" but you do not care because your consience is seared by the hot iron of SDA hersey.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Distinction between visions - Dan. 8
- Thread starter Dr. Walter
- Start date
Dr. Walter
New Member
There is but "the vision" but yet verse 13 is restricted by the pharse "concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" to THIS ASPECT of "the vision." This aspect of the vision begins within "one of" the four Grecian kingdoms with one Grecian king and his specific acts recorded in verses 11-14
Dr. Walter
New Member
Now, Bob cannot charge me with plural visions. It is the same vision but not the same ASPECT of the vision! The phrase beginning with "concerning" defines explicitly what aspect of "the vision" Daniel is describing in verses 11-14 and it is:
1. not "CONCERNING" that aspect of the vision with the medes or Persians.
2. It is not "CONCERNING" that aspect of the vision of the first king of Greece.
3. It is not "CONCERNING" that aspect of "the vision" of the four kings and their four kingdoms.
4. It is not "CONCERNING" any other aspect of the "little horn" but that aspect which is "CONCERNING the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" and in particular "how long shall be" the aspect of that vision!
They are asking "how long" shall be that aspect of "the vision" concerning "THE DAILY OFFERING" or the evening/morning sacrifice and the precise answer is 2300 evening/morning sacrifices!!! Not 2300 years!!!!
The temple is ON EARTH during the GRECIAN KINGDOM not during the Roman kingdom.
This is the "little horn" that rises UP OUT OF THE NATION divided under FOUR KINGS whereas the "little horn" in Daniel 7 rises up out of TEN KINGS. Bob is mixing apples with oranges.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hint: Your own thread title "The Distinction between visions - Dan. 8 "
The Question in Dan 8:13 is NOT "How long is that ASPECT of the vision concerning just the portion where the little horn does damage" -- as much as you seem to like the idea of eisegeting In those words into the text.
So what DOES the text actually say?
Hmm... wait for it... it is coming...
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
Whahoo! It was not "How long is that PORTION of the vision that just deals with..." as you have so earnestly imagined.
And that is why the answer is of the form " And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed " -- rather than "until 2300 days then shall the little horn choose to do something else".
Think about it. This just isn't that hard.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Walter
New Member
My inability to express that the portion within the overall vision was the focus of verses 11-14 rather than the entire contents of the vision. This is undeniably true because of the modifying phrase "concerning the" that follows. That modifying phase excludes everything in the vision but the aspects of verses 11-14. It specifies and restricts and in every single quotation of this text by you, you never once emphasize that restrictive modifer! NEVER!
If the reader will ignore the perverted view of Bob and just look at verses 11-14 and especially the qualifying and modifying phrase that begins with "concerning" they will easily see that the question has to do with the time when the DAILY SACRIFICE is removed until the time it is RESTORED! That is why the modifying phrase "concerning" immediately follows the words "the vision" as Daniel is not concerned with the time from the Medes and Persians arose to power until the daily sacrifice is restored but the time the evil king removed the daily sacrifice (v. 11) until it was restored. If you read it this way it makes perfect sense with the natural wording of the text:
11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
It is the removal of the daily sacrifice and the defilement of the altar that defiles and thus transgresses the sanctuary. The daily offering cannot be restored until the altar and temple is ceremonially cleansed. The question is simply how long from the time it is removed and defiled until it is cleansed and restored.
Notice where Bob starts his quotation, purposely ommitting verses 11-12. Also take note what he persistently emphasizes in the quotation? Notice he NEVER places emphasis on what the text explicitly says this is "CONCERNING" - Never!
Why? Because Bob is simply a dishonest theologian when it comes to dealing with Scriptures that oppose his doctrines.
Dr. Walter
New Member
It is the common practice of cults and their false prophets and teachers to establish their primary teachings upon ambiguous scriptures, symbols, figures, parables instead upon clear and explicit commands and principles of Scriptures. Highly symbolic portions of scripture that deal with eschtalogy is their basis for their distinctive doctrines. Daniel 8 and Revelation 12-14 is the primary basis for distinctive SDA doctrine just as Revelation 7 is primary for JW doctrine. The JW's and SDA were closely related in their origins and leaders.
The true and sound basis for developing primary doctrine is clear and explicit precepts and principles which are then supported by passages containing parables, metaphors, allegorys, symbols and figurative.
The cults and their false prophets know that highly symbolic passages allows them the room to read into those passages their false doctrines.
The true and sound basis for developing primary doctrine is clear and explicit precepts and principles which are then supported by passages containing parables, metaphors, allegorys, symbols and figurative.
The cults and their false prophets know that highly symbolic passages allows them the room to read into those passages their false doctrines.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hint: Your own thread title "The Distinction between visions - Dan. 8 "
The Question in Dan 8:13 is NOT "How long is that ASPECT of the vision concerning just the portion where the little horn does damage" -- as much as you seem to like the idea of eisegeting In those words into the text.
So what DOES the text actually say?
Hmm... wait for it... it is coming...
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
Whahoo! It was not "How long is that PORTION of the vision that just deals with..." as you have so earnestly imagined.
Hint: Your own thread title "The Distinction between visions - Dan. 8 "
1. I am shocked that you would now admit that there is only one vision in Dan 8 when you were so committed to denying this most basic point of the text. Why the change of heart? Why embrace reality now?
2. Your innability to "edit the text" and make vs 13 say How long is that PORTION of the vision that just deals with the actions of the little horn..." -- is noted
If you see a movie about WWII that documents the mass murder of millions of Jews - and ask about the timeframe covered by the Movie - the Movie that speaks about the killing of the Jews - you get the number for the entire timeline of the movie.
Obviously.
But if you ask "What is the timeline for that portion of the movie that covers the killing of the Jews" then you get the scenario that Walter dreams of inserting into vs 13.
Of course when this glaringly obvious point is brought up - Walter will come back with some rant about cults and ad hominem this or ad hominem that. (As if pontification is the solution to every problem Walter has with the Bible).
Oh well.... free will being what it is.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Walter
New Member
Your analogy is a false one! If the film came to the part about the Jews being killed by a certain German officer and the commentator said, "How long in the movie clip CONCERNING the killing of the Jews to their liberation" no one in their right mind would interpret that question to mean how long has transpired since the beginning of the movie clip unto the liberation of the Jews. That would be the proper analogy but you do not have the honesty to state that objectively.
What you charge that "Walter dreams of INSERTING into vs 13" is actually inserted by Daniel and every reader on this forum can read that for themselves -
"How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
You have no ability to be objective or honest with the Word of God. This is evidence of a "seared conscience."
[/COLOR]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You just shot your own argument.
You need to speak about a "clip" from a movie -- asking how long a time is covered by just that one "clip" in the movie -- and AVOID at all costs the question "HOW LONG a time is covered by THE MOVIE" ... or in this case "HOW LONG at time IS covered by THE VISION"
How long a time is covered by the Movie concerning the killing of the Jews - still speaks to the entire time the Movie covers.
It is not the same as "How long a time is covered by just that one PART of the Movie" or "just that PART of the Vision".
That language is not in the text - it is only to be found in your determined eisegesis of the text.
I already mentioned your being married to the idea that ad hominem and ranting will help you solve the problems you are having with the text itself - yes? Who is teaching that losing "method" these days? You use it with almost everyone you talk with on this section of the board.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Walter
New Member
I forgot I am dealing with a "seared conscience" so let me restate it in terms you can grasp. If we had a movie of World War II that began with the rise of hilter and ended with the release of the Jews from concentration camps, and as we progress in this movie we come to a certain named German officer whose career is noted in breif but then the movie starts to document this man as the one who began the killing of Jews and putting them into concentration camps and then a commetator in the movie asked, "how long does this movie is concerning the killing of the jews until they are freed from concentration camps? And the reponse came, 4 years until they are freed!
A. The movie is rolling
8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
B. The German General comes into focus and his sins are summarized
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.[/COLOR]
11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.[/COLOR]
C. The Commentator and Specific Question about the length of his specified sin
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
D. The Specific answer14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
So you make the question: "how long does this movie is concerning the killing of the jews until they are freed from concentration camps?"
And you make the response: 4 years until they are freed!
Before we explore your idea further - turn that question into actual english.
I will wait.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Walter
New Member
Yep, got me there! That is some bad English. How about this?
"How long does this movie concern the killing of the Jews until they are freed from the concentration camps?"
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The text is "How long is the movie about the killing of the Jews"
You have changed it into an extremely strained "How long does the movie talk about the killing of the Jews" or "How much of the movie concerns the killing of the Jews" and to do it - you use the even more strained form "How long does this movie concern the killing of the Jews until they are freed from the concentration camps?"
So then Dan 7:13 becomes (in your edited version) "How long a time does the vision concern the little horn" rather than "How long is the VISION".
I have it as "How long a time is covered by the vision" .
In Dan 7 we have a vision dealing wtih 4 empires and the judgment of God.
in Dan 8 we have a vision dealing with the Ram, the Goat and the little horn trampling the sanctuary.
In Dan 8 the vision about the little horn trampling the sanctuary is said to cover 2300 years. It starts with Medo Perisa and it ends at the cleansing of the sanctuary.
You have it has "How long a time does the vision deal with the little horn".
A direct reading the text will show which view is actually IN the text itself.
hhmmm waith for it....
...
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
Bingo! Game over.
in Christ,
Bob
You have changed it into an extremely strained "How long does the movie talk about the killing of the Jews" or "How much of the movie concerns the killing of the Jews" and to do it - you use the even more strained form "How long does this movie concern the killing of the Jews until they are freed from the concentration camps?"
So then Dan 7:13 becomes (in your edited version) "How long a time does the vision concern the little horn" rather than "How long is the VISION".
I have it as "How long a time is covered by the vision" .
In Dan 7 we have a vision dealing wtih 4 empires and the judgment of God.
in Dan 8 we have a vision dealing with the Ram, the Goat and the little horn trampling the sanctuary.
In Dan 8 the vision about the little horn trampling the sanctuary is said to cover 2300 years. It starts with Medo Perisa and it ends at the cleansing of the sanctuary.
You have it has "How long a time does the vision deal with the little horn".
A direct reading the text will show which view is actually IN the text itself.
hhmmm waith for it....
...
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
Bingo! Game over.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Walter
New Member
The term "concerning" conveys restriction whereas your intepretation denies any restriction whatsoever but is all inclusive of all aspect of the vision.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The term "concerning " identifies WHICH vision in the book of Daniel is being explained. It tells us that it is the vision of Chapter 8.
The point remains.
"The movie about the killing of the Jews" that speaks to the Movie on WWII starting with the rise of Hitler to power.
Again - this point is incredibly easy to get.
You are simply trying to force the text into a direction that makes no sense.
You have it as "How long a time does the vision deal with the little horn".
A direct reading of the text shows which view is actually IN the text itself.
hhmmm wait for it....
...
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
in Christ,
Bob
The point remains.
"The movie about the killing of the Jews" that speaks to the Movie on WWII starting with the rise of Hitler to power.
Again - this point is incredibly easy to get.
You are simply trying to force the text into a direction that makes no sense.
You have it as "How long a time does the vision deal with the little horn".
A direct reading of the text shows which view is actually IN the text itself.
hhmmm wait for it....
...
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Walter
New Member
Reader take note of the kind of hermeneutics employed by Bob. He must agree that the term "concerning" is a restrictive term. However, he completely ignores what the following modifying phrase defines to be the nature of the restriction.
"concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation,
Instead, Bob wants us to foolishly read the text to mean as follows:
"the vision concerning this vision in chapter 8"
Furthermore, what verse 13 explicitly restricts the vision to "the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation" cannot be found in Daniel 8:1-10. There is no mention of these two events until verse 11.
Bob simply rejects what the text explicitly and clearly defines as the restriction being considered. Instead, he replaces the words of God with SDA words.
So, there you go! You can take what God's word says explicitly and clearly what is the restrictive subject or you can take Bob's revisionist interpretation.
"concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation,
Instead, Bob wants us to foolishly read the text to mean as follows:
"the vision concerning this vision in chapter 8"
Furthermore, what verse 13 explicitly restricts the vision to "the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation" cannot be found in Daniel 8:1-10. There is no mention of these two events until verse 11.
Bob simply rejects what the text explicitly and clearly defines as the restriction being considered. Instead, he replaces the words of God with SDA words.
So, there you go! You can take what God's word says explicitly and clearly what is the restrictive subject or you can take Bob's revisionist interpretation.
Dr. Walter
New Member
The word "concerning" demands a restriction is under consideration
The words "the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of deslation" define a restriction within the context of "the vision" as it is undeniable that this defined and demanded restriction has any application in "the vision" until verse 11 forward.
Both the demanding term and the defining phrase contradict Bob's interpretation which denies any restriction within the context of "the vision".
Since no other vision is being contrasted with "the vision" in Daniel 8:1-4 therefore the demand and definition must be confined within "the vision" rather than other visions that are nowhere alluded to in this context.
The words "the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of deslation" define a restriction within the context of "the vision" as it is undeniable that this defined and demanded restriction has any application in "the vision" until verse 11 forward.
Both the demanding term and the defining phrase contradict Bob's interpretation which denies any restriction within the context of "the vision".
Since no other vision is being contrasted with "the vision" in Daniel 8:1-4 therefore the demand and definition must be confined within "the vision" rather than other visions that are nowhere alluded to in this context.
Last edited by a moderator: