Quote:

---

(1) The phrase in Gen and Dan is different
(2) The phrase in Gen has all three words evening, morning, and day
(3) That Daniel has a word for day
(4) That Daniel uses that word when he means '7 days'
(5) That some of the translations and say '7' instead of 'week' to avoid the confusion

---

What you are missing, Bevin, is the vital fact that Genesis is talking of literal time -- Genesis is a literal book -- giving HISTORY, whereas Daniel is a PROPHETIC book -- dealing with prophecy, and "there are none so blind as those who don't want to see".

OK, please give your interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel. You can't deny the historical facts of Babylon, followed by MediaPersia, followed by Greece -- all empires NAMED in the prophecy. And you can't deny that Greece - both in its whole and divided condition, was followed by Rome, in both its pagan and papal forms -- and that Rome is still with us today -- still in its pagan form, with its papal teachings still conforming to paganism.

This is an extract from "Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests", pp 258,259.

"We therefore confess that the Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself, once only, a bloody Sacrifice on the altar of the cross. The bloody and unbloody victim are not two, but one victim only, whose Sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of our Lord: "Do this for a commemoration of me".

"The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord: for the ministers who offer Sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself show, for the priest does not say; "This is the body of Christ", but "This is my body"; and thus, acting in the Person of Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of bread and wine into the true substance of His body and blood...

"This being the case, it must be taught without any hesitation that, as the holy Council of Trent has also explained, the sacred and holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice performed on the cross, but also truly a propitiatory Sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us. If therefore, with a pure heart, a lively faith, and affected with an inward sorrow for our transgressions, we immolate and offer this most holy victim, we shall, without doubt, obtain mercy from the Lord, and grace in time of need: for so delighted is the Lord with the odour of this victim that, bestowing on us the gift of grace and repentance, He pardons our sins."

But, you might say, that was from way back there, and they have modified their teachings these days. No, they haven't. I was studying with a Catholic lady, and so I decided to check up with the Catholic church as to its real teaching of the communion -- that the wafer became the ACTUAL flesh of Christ and the wine became the ACTUAL blood of Christ.

I was eventually directed to their Library here in Perth. When I asked my question I was referred to the chief Librarian, who firstly confirmed my understanding of their teaching, and then said, "let me read it to you from our latest official book. ' So here it is as dictated over the phone, from a current book, by the librarian at the Catholic Library of WA, Leederville, on Wednesday, 6 October 1999. After dictation the librarian requested that it be read back to her, which was done, and she confirmed that it was correctly written.
"

Mass -- Sacrifice Same as That of the Cross

Transubstantiation --
"Transubstantiation -- signifies the conversion or complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood, which occurs through the actions of a validly ordained priest during the Eucharistic prayer at Mass with the result that only the accidents or appearances of bread and wine remain.

"These accidents do not inhere in any substance whatever but are sustained in a miraculous way.

"Terminology derived from Aristotelian philosophy"

She was very particular that I got that last bit right! Confirmation that the focal teaching of the Catholic church comes direct from paganism!

Now, do you wonder that the old devil wants to hide these facts? Taking the Bible as it is written, and using only common sense, there is no doubt that Daniel was given an unbroken view right through to the end of the world. No wonder the devil tries to "deceive the whole world" in closing their eyes to the truth of the book of Daniel.

No other explanation is logical.

God bless,

Beryl

Quote:

---

The Statue of Kingdoms in Dan 2 and the 4 Beasts coming out of an angry sea in Dan 7 are not visions of the near future given to Daniel, but, of the distant future, near the very end of time as stated.

---

Gary, in all kindness, what you are saying doesn't make sense. God is a God of order, and He has made things very clear for those who want to understand. The visions of Daniel can be followed logically, through history. The first 3 kingdoms (Babylon, MediaPersia, and Greece) are actual ancient kingdoms -- and any history book will confirm their existence, and there is no-one who would deny that the demise of Alexander led to the kingdom being divided between his 4 generals, and then being taken over by Rome. In Daniel's vision, that kingdom was Rome, and has continued to be in existence ever since -- both as pagan and papal. In Daniel's vision, there is no such thing as these kingdoms "coming back" at the end of time. The vision very clearly shows that Rome in all its forms continues until the "rock that was cut out without hands" (the coming kingdom of God) comes and strikes the image on its FEET (the only part still current)and the kingdom of God is established -- and there are no further kingdoms. God's kingdom is everlasting.

He has given us a wonderful promise in James 1:5,6 "If any of you need wisdom, you should ask of God, and it will be given to you. God is generous and won't correct you for asking. But when you ask for something, you must have faith and not doubt."

I pray that God will bless you in your study of His Word, and that you won't be lead astray by those who would cast doubts on the truths contained therein.

God bless,

Beryl

Quote:

---

490 years remaining in the whole of Israelite history. It is the last 490 years of the Iraelite nation that are being described, not the first 490 years of something.

---

Bevin, your lack of logic astonishes me! Just ask any woman and they will tell you that when you go to purchase a length of material, from where is it cut? From the BEGINNING of the roll!! The end of the roll is called the remnant! Need I say any more??

OK, when you go for a trip, where do you start? At the beginning of the road map, of course! When you arrive at where you are going you are at the END of the trip.

So, when a person says that they are 50 years old, from when did they start counting the years? From their BIRTH, of course!! From the BEGINNING, not the END!!

The devil must think everyone is stupid to put a thought like that in their heads -- just proving that they are not logical!

Try again, Bevin, that one doesn't work!

Honestly, Bevin, do you REALLY believe that? I just can't believe that you do!

Quote:

---

Just ask any woman and they will tell you that when you go to purchase a length of material, from where is it cut?

---

Well, maybe not any woman...

Grasshopper

Okay - if you want "determined" (a word, in the original, that occurs NOWHERE ELSE in the Bible) to mean "cut off from the beginning of something", then it means "cut off from the rest of the history of the world".

It does NOT mean "cut off from the 2300" because the 490 and the 2300 are answers to two different questions.

/Bevin

Come on, Bevin, you have more brains that that! If you read the book of Daniel through -- LOGICALLY -- you will see that in each of the visions God has given to Daniel a preview of the history of the world from that time to the end. You doubtless accept that in the case of Daniel 2 -- but reject it when it comes to Daniel 8 and 9!

There are none so blind as those who don't want to see!

God bless,

Beryl

One should be careful to treat everyone, including their beliefs, with the same respect and dignity that Jesus gave to everyone he encountered, even if they were wrong, even if they were jerks. (I'm slowly learning this one the hard way.)

For all we know, the canned SS Lessons could be composed of spam, or mostly spam. Some of us have to question the SDA doctrines lest we fill ourselves with spam and begin regurgitating it like an SDA automaton. Each of us needs to search the scriptures carefully for ourselves and not accept without question other's explanations.

These issues dealing with prophetic images are not easily provable, that is, we'll probably be long gone before they are all fulfilled. We may wake up to find out we were wrong, after all.

Even so, interpreting prophecy isn't a core issue, but following Jesus' example in dealing with stupid-idiot-moron-brainless humans like ourselves is.

Quote:

---

Even so, interpreting prophecy isn't a core issue, but following Jesus' example in dealing with stupid-idiot-moron-brainless humans like ourselves is.

---

Like ourselves!!!

Cricket

The Book of Daniel has at least three recognizably different pieces

(1) The story of Daniel's times - the 3 Worthys, the Lion's Den, etc - clearly not prophetic

(2) The visions

(3) The discussion of those visions

The two questions and answers that we are looking at are in the Q&A section, not in the vision section.

As such, it is inappropriate to treat the Q&A as symbolic

/Bevin

please read...

http://clubadventist.com/adventist/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/229832