I pulled the following from the archives

From the Board ‘What Seventh-day Adventist Believe’ – Thread – Re: Salvation, Redemption, Restoration??? Post #113989 - 02/27/07 01:37 AM

thinking you may find it interesting. Sorry,

I didn't break the several posts down for easier reading (am watching the election returns - and am in a hurry).

>>It was Gd speaking through Daniel who declared the head of gold to be Babylon.<<

Indeed. Babylon created the usury/banking system that has been improved upon and utilized today. It reigneth over kings and commoners alike. Its base unit was gold and Babylon accumulated vast quantities of that metal.

>>It was Gd speaking through Daniel who declared the silver kingdom to be Medo-Persia.<<

Indeed. Persia has been historically associated with silver. They possessed a vast network of silver mines. Even today, some of the largest silver mines in the world are located in Persia/Iran. (Silver was more valued than gold in that it was much more difficult to obtain away back then – before heavy machinery…)

>>Likewise the kingdoms of Greece…<<

Greece could be said to have been THE bronze kingdom… best exemplified by its ubiquitous use throughout the Grecian world and its awarding in the form of a bronze tripod, rather than the more commonly known wreath of laurel, for meritorious acknowledgement. (The bronze tripod was also the seat/throne of its oracles)

>>…and Rome.<<

Indeed. Wherever Rome expanded its frontiers, when at all possible, they inevitably set up foundries for the smelting of iron. Tin, imported from the Jews of Wales (British Isles) was employed to alloy its iron. There are positions taken that this shipping was done, primarily, with the ships of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.

>>This group-sequence of kingdoms through time sitting atop the leadership of this world's governance system is locked in by Gd through His speaking through His servant, Daniel.<<

I fear we are, once again, in agreement [/grinning]

The foregoing four kingdoms, as precedent, require that we reappraise the feet of iron and clay with greater diligence… Clay is predominantly silicon. Aluminum is a noteworthy factor. Are these elements, in major part, interwoven with and describe our present civilization?

So, it seems, indicators are that there exists a ‘gap’ between the legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay. That time period would provide for

the ‘silent’, or unmentioned, kingdoms – the Holy Roman Empire, Mohammedan, Turko-Ottoman, Mongol, Spanish (not necessarily ordered or inclusive). They, contrastively the kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar’s image dream,

did not practice usury. Perhaps, there was reason why Gd

showed only those few kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar’s image dream. (note: largely, the ‘silent’ kingdoms were either greater or more vast than even Rome)

>>Daniel 7 is a re-iteration of the same sequence of kingdoms, using different symbols from Ch. 2, no doubt, but the connection is very much there.<<

I fear we are, once again, in disagreement [/grinning]

>>The lion cannot symbolise Babylon? Perhaps you've not read Jeremiah 4:5-9, …<<

I admit to having a casual acquaintance with Jeremiah 4. It is the result of a position I ran into that Jeremiah 4 describes a millennial desolation.

>>…where the coming invading nation - Babylon - is declared a lion by Gd Himself:<<

Is that really so?

>>Jeremiah 4:5-9

7 "A lion has gone up from his thicket, And a destroyer of nations has set out; He has gone out from his place To make your land a waste. Your cities will be ruins Without inhabitant.<<

Is it truly a lion as we perceive a lion – that is referenced?

>>And as the book of Jeremiah unfolds, these events to indeed happen.<<

Indeed, these events do occur.

>>Babylon is the lion nation which comes out of the north of Judah in a succession of sieges…<<

“Babylon is the lion nation…”

Is that a clear indication that Gd calls Babylon “the lion nation”?

Some few years back, the Bantu peoples of southern Africa killed with an assegai. As the kill was made its handler would cry out, “I have eaten!” …referencing not the spearman but the spear. It was a sort of anthropomorphism. It was a literary device

employed also – by the peoples of the Bible.

Jer 2:30 …your own sword hath devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion.

Note: that the text precedes and is proximous Jeremiah 4:7. Sometimes, proximity bears upon context and relevant relationship.

OT language is very poetic and metaphoric. Where we refer to the edge of a sword as – well, the edge, the OT peoples referred to it as the mouth of the sword – a mouth that devours and consumes... exactly as is described in later chapters of Jeremiah.

Keeping the OT peoples’ utilization of anthropomorphism and the poetic metaphor in mind… the text

Jer 4:7 A lion has gone up from his thicket, And a destroyer of nations has set out;

can equally be read: “A devouring sword has gone up from his thicket, And a destroyer of nations has set out; …”

>>Taken together, the application of the lion in Daniel 7 to Babylon is does indeed fit.<<

I beg to disagree, per:

Dan 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

I point out that verb tenses matter.

Daniel 7 places his vision in the first year of Belshazzar, who reigned not in the “rising” of the Babylonian Kingdom but during its final gasp – its expiring, which occurred not a score of years thereafter.

Upon that note, that is, the dates of the rising and the expiration of the kingdom…, Babylon could not have been one of the kings ”…which shall arise out of the earth”.

It remains that it is the COI who hold the signifier/symbol – lion.

>>Ergo, I would think it very premature, unwise, and short-sighted…<<

Ah, yes; to those and more – musing, I plead guilty.

>>…to simply dismiss the work of the Reformers through the centuries pertaining to Dan. 7-12 as invalid.<<

The parameters of Daniel 12 leaves only the two conditions: “men shall run to and fro; and knowledge shall be increased” – at which time it would be within man’s domain to search-out the meaning of ‘those things’.

As I’ve already noted…, whereas, two billion aeroflight tickets are sold annually (roughly a third of mankind – and not mentioning, “running to and fro” by other means…), the average person five centuries ago lived, had their being, and thereafter died within 20 miles of their birthplace. While alive, their primary means of transport was by mare’s shank – steam power

yet being over the horizon.

The remedy of choice by the practitioners of medicine during this same time was blood-letting by scarificator or rusty blade. Their most efficacious tool being

a bottle of distilled spirits – for themselves and their clients. Germ theory

yet being over the horizon.

>>"this or that only" arguments that inevitably arise when such statements as you made are used.<<

Were I constrained to accept/dismiss [either] Protestors who ran when they were not sent – [or] to accept/dismiss Gd who adverts a vision, words, and book … “until such time as…”, it would be to the

“this and that only” argument that I would apply.

Sorry, I could not respond earlier. I only became aware of your post this past Friday and had but moments to submit my “Too offending?” post.

I appreciate your posts as they reflect care.

From Thread: Re: Salvation, Redemption, Restoration??? #115054 - 03/05/07 08:25 PM

>>It was Gd speaking through Daniel who declared the head of gold to be Babylon.<<

“…head of gold to be Babylon.”

Silver, bronze, iron, etc…

The “Signs of the Times” (SDA periodical, I believe) archive contains an article with similar thought.

Babylon could not have been one of the kings ”…which shall arise out of the earth”. –jasd

The Brits have a quirky little courtroom procedure that some propose bears relevance to the above statement (though I dismiss it, as such, thinking it specious – for causes I won’t here dwell upon). It is that

the phrase “Shall we rise” indicates a ‘rising to leave’ by the bench. Some argue (Assemblies of Gd) that Daniel 7:17

obtains regard to the four beasts, that is,

they shall arise to leave.

Thank you for the welcome Jasd.


Short answer: No. Daniel explains quite clearly, and it logically follows, that he (Daniel) is talking about kingdoms. "They" can only be "those" of the kingdom, the subject of the preceding and subsequent statement. It's basic reading comprehension. If each material represented a kingdom, the clay, "the seed of men", must be others aside from, but concurrent with "them", self same kingdom, i.e. Rome. Iron is strong, and it "breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things". Clay is not as strong as iron, but a mingling takes place between the two, "so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken". "They" are the iron, Rome. Daniel himself stated, so it must be understood, meaning it's no inference on my part, that iron is strong and breaks and subdues, which mingled with clay renders the new mix partly strong and partly weak. Discussion regarding the levels of silica in clay is wholly unnecessary.

>>Or if we prefer: On 8/8/08,<<

Umm, perhaps, if you’ll revisit the lead post (08:08:08-08.08.08) you’ll notice the attendant quote marks – indicating that it’s a pull quote. I suppose divergent inferences might be drawn from its content...

>>...the orbiting UFO's will land,<< [ed.jasd]

I’d not intended to give the impression that “orbiting UFOs” required the definite article. Sorry, clarification would require that there are probably quite a few orbiting objects that were ‘parked’ there by our very selves... Anyway,

should there, indeed, be those of ETs presently ‘parked’ – I suggest they indicate only the smallest of vanguards – with the rest arriving in the manner Isaiah 66:16 indicates; that is, as an extraordinary spectacle. One might expect a ‘counterfeiter’ to take advantage of such a prophecy, mightn’t one? or, it may simply be – the natural order of things...; that is, you, me, fallen angels, other – may need, mechanical assistance (contrivances) to get from point A to point B in particular circumstances.

(most are familiar with what is above the Ark of the Covenant, but have you ever considered that depicted on its front/side?)

>>...and they (hailing from Omicron Persei 5).will mingle with us Terrans<< [ed.jasd]

Ahh, so..., the references above is the tell That aside,

Omicron Persei 5, Terrans, eh? and here, I’ve been laboring with the assurance that it was not such as Omicron Persei 5 but rather – from within Orion that ‘contact’ would arrive.

Well, that definitely puts the kibosh to my assurance :-o But then again,

reprising “prefer...”; thanks, but no thanks – I don’t :-)

>>Thank you for the welcome Jasd.<<

...still charmed

>>Short answer:<<

Okay, short answer: the level, or the uniqueness, of individual comprehension – is just that;

individual.

Happy landings, JamOne!

One, reading the passage under discussion without pre disposition, arrives at only the one conclusion; that is,

unless “the seed of men” is defined in a manner heretofore not put forward, or endued with a numenal unrecognizability – the passage identifies two constituent components – the “seed of men” and “they/themselves”, with clay and iron serving as two metaphorical units.

My question naturally arises; we know who the seed of men are, but who/what, exactly, are the “they/themselves” (Artificial Intelligences, cyborgs, ETs, etc)? And, naturally arising from that is the

conclusion that should “they/themselves” indeed be, as grammatical structure implies, other than ourselves/seed of men – THAT kingdom of clay and iron has not yet risen: THAT kingdom

is yet future.

How far distant in that ‘future’ is its arising? I suggest that it is even now forming – and will ‘rule’ for appox three quarters of a century.

Well, mebbe, it'll be "cut short" ;-)

Usury/Interest:

So..., usury/interest – so what? It is simply an OT issue and not applicable to NT exposition; therefore, unimportant to today’s Xtian. Right? or Wrong?

Is it important to an understanding of prophecy? or, has the issue been nullified by the crucifixion? or, is its abjuration hermeneuticaly misguided?

Deut 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
Deut 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Notice that, according to the OT, one may exact usury/interest from the foreigner. Usury/interest is forbidden amongst brethren. Notice also, the scope the OT addresses.

Eze 18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

Note: usury/interest is included among “abominations” and demands capital punishment. Wow! does that say that Gd takes the issue of usury/interest seriously?

Well, that’s OT. Okay...,

Matt 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
Matt 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine.
Matt 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Matt 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

New Testament, right? Jesus’ own words, right?

Let’s paraphrase:

jasd 12:12 ...if thou knewest that I was a bandit and a thief – taking up that which I’d laid not down and gatherest from whenst it was not lawful for me – why then didst thou not put my monies to exchange that I mightest have received usury/interest on mine monies? v12 Thine words bear witness against thee. Take from him that which I’d given ... [for he is not of me].

...if thou knewest I was a bandit and a thief

Here is how St Luke words the parable – note:

Luke 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

the summary judgement...,

“Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,” ... “Take from him...” (Lu 19:24).

Lastly,
“Deut 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother;”

Should the issue of usury/interest still obtain post-crucifixion, where might the principle obtain vis-à-vis the individual .org’s lending of monies to its several constituents? Should the Conference be rightly questioned for the practice of lending monies upon usury/interest – to the local church that it might improve its facilities? or to underwrite programs lacking for want? etc...?

4.5,6,10

So, is prohibition against usury/interest relegated to Old Testament exegesis? Well, yes, if parables are really synonymous with three-legged dogs; otherwise,

prohibition seems – to this observer – as still obtaining. Note: the analogous ‘man travelling to a far country’ to our Redeemer/King who also traveled to a ‘far country’ –

Matt 25:14 For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

and His return.

Matt 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

jasd 12:12 ...if thou knewest that I was a bandit and a thief – taking up that which I’d laid not down and gatherest from whenst it was not lawful for me – why then didst thou not put my monies to exchange that I mightest have received usury/interest on mine monies?

So, does the preceding obtain, however obliquely – or otherwise? Of course it does. Bearing in mind, the proscriptions of Daniel 12..., how can one legitimately, expositionally, exegetically, hermeneutically, or by any other ‘lly, embrace theories regard Daniel that have their origins half a millenium ago? or even a century and a half ago? It is now time to seek understanding of the Book of Daniel. It is now time for .orgs to put the matter to their own or equivalent BRIs. It is long time past depending upon the last parrot on the Orinoco.

Do I suggest that what I proffer is the cat’s meow? Nonsense! it is impossible that the truths of Daniel should be mine. I’ve simply explored the various prophecies of Daniel (tentatively, matter-of-factly speaking) – that whomever disagrees with what I proffer – may seek-out those matters, that s/he might provide better: because, prima facie, those currently espoused – are incorrect.

Let me leave, for the moment, Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘image dream’ – asserting that the question of a possible gap is supported by, that which Daniel 9 (among other texts) provides; that is, ...Gap: Gd's lacuna, if you will.

Gap!? in Daniel 9? c’mon. Mais oui, mon petite...

But yes; indeed, yes.

Dan 9:7 ...and unto all Israel, [that are] near, and [that are] far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.

Hmm, all Israel? Not just Judah [Southern Kingdom]? Seems tah be so, yes? no?

Dan 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us[/u], and the oath that [is] written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

ALL Israel, again? “therefore” ... “because we”? Whas wid dat? ALL Israel? not just Judah [Southern Kingdom]?

Dan 9:20 And whiles I [was] speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God;

“my people Israel”?

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

“upon thy people”? That’s ALL Israel, yes?

Okay, granted, ...the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem were to be accomplished in the desolations of Jerusalem – in the particular; that said, they are only parcel that of the larger subject, which prefaced and elicited the response of “the man Gabriel”, that subject being:

ALL Israel,

The subject of Daniel’s prayer was Israel, ALL Israel – with Judah [Southern Kingdom] being but parcel – that.

Should the above obtain..., I ask, “Where in present dogma is ALL Israel in view? Where, between the years 457 BC and AD 34 was ALL Israel, near and far off, in view?”

I purport that, of necessity, a Gap exists – until such time as both the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom, together,

share fulfillment of the Seventy-week prophecy.

Questions follow the above: "Would, or would not, Gd answer tangentially? Did Gd address Daniel's prayer in part only, as some might propose?"

That said, the constant voices on religious television purveying ‘the seventieth week will be fulfilled in present-day State of Israel’,

are misled, and mislead.

I consider the following subject to fall within the purview of ‘loose ends’. That being so, I’ve pulled it from the 'potpourri' thread, following:

Re: potpourri ... #24204 - 02/26/05 09:58 AM

and ask, “People, place, or thing?”

Re: cleansed #6663



Dan 8:11 …and the place of his sanctuary{4720} was cast down. …
v13 …to give both the sanctuary{6944] and the host to be trodden under foot?
v14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary{6944} be cleansed.{6663}

Why does Daniel transition from #4720 -- miqdash; verse 11? to…#6944 -- qodesh; verses 13,14? That noted,

let’s, rather, look instead at ‘cleansed’ #6663 – tsadaq; verse 14, again. Remember, in that

"All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to be just,’ ‘to be righteous.’ In 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive or passive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified,’ or ‘be made righteous’ ” [ed.]

the question was asked, “…is the ‘sanctuary’ --whether earthly or heavenly, that is, stones, cedar, gold, weave, etc, --a personification?”

Don’t think so. In fact, “…a review of, say, Young’s Analytical Concordance, and a careful reading of every form of the word sadaq listed there:

Gen 38:26, 44:16, Ex 23:7, Deu 25:1, 2 Sa 15:4, 1 Ki 8:32, 2 Ch 6:23, Job 4:17, 9:2, 9:15, 9:20, 10:15, 11:2, 13:18, 15:14, 22:3, 25:4, 27:5, 32:2, 33:12, 33:32, 34:5, 35:7, 40:8, Ps 19:9, 51:4, 82:3, 143:2, Prov 17:15, Isa 5:23, 43:9, 43:26, 45:25, 50:8, 53:11, Jer 3:11, Ezk 16:51, 16:52 (twice), Da 12:3.” [ed. Ps 19:9] --(Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175

with Ps 19:9 The fear of the LORD [is] clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD [are] true [and] righteous{#6663} altogether.

being an arguable exception(?), one rightfully, arrives at the conclusion that --Given the above texts, one can hardly put forward that the ’cleansing’ of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is anything other than a reference to the 'cleansing' of 'peoples' --by whatever denotation (in this instance, tribal units/kingdoms). The exegetical purport that the ‘cleansing’ is that of --a material or a ‘spiritual’ object of sorts, --is a very thin reed, thin…, very…

The ‘sanctuary’ of Daniel 8:14 is the House of Judah _qodesh_, and by extension (by implication, a synecdochic extension of the COI, which in turn, the crown/sceptre is a synecdoche of Judah), is --the whole House of Israel, the twelve tribes.

“Notice that every form of the word {#6663} applies to persons only; never to things. We therefore have a mystery. How can a sanctuary be justified or made righteous? The Interpreter’s Bible and other Bible commentaries are rightfully puzzled over the word meaning here. Many ignore the problem by giving nisdaq a meaning based on what they think Daniel 8:14 says. Many Hebrew dictionaries do the same. This is not honest. Words such as "restored" and "cleansed" are interpretive read-ins and do not belong in the text. The facts are clear. "The Hebrew word sadaq is used here, for which no variant reading is given in any Hebrew Bible” ” [ed. #6663 curly brackets] (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175). --courtesy, Eugene Shubert


Well, then, is the Sanctuary in Daniel 8

“people, place, or thing”?