Actually, from the time of Moses, God had foreseen/planned for Israel to have a king and He always reserved the right for Him to be the one who would select it and set the regulations for that monarch. (Deut 17:14-20; cf. PP 603.1-605.1; PK 52.1-2). It was only Israel’s timing that was off, and as I understand it, GC wise see (here “Monarchy” Section), they were not yet Spiritually ready to be rule by a king, nor in a deserved position to need a king, in terms of kingdom expansion towards other accepting peoples/countries.

My challenge to all, and any, person who claims a future fulfillment of the time elements in time prophecies is to transparently and objectively (i.e., “unbiasedly”) show that EGW’s pointed “shown” revelations against this were wrong/not from God. (I.e., e.g., 2SM 73 (1885), 10MR 270 (1888); 272 (1891); 7BC 971 (1900); cf. LDE 35-36; RH, November 1, 1850 par. 12; cf. RH, Nov. 22, 1892 par. 7.) Otherwise, claiming that they are wrong by merely ‘figuring out a time in the future when they will be fulfilled’ is quite circularly illogical. (Indeed the reckoning of these time elements for current fulfillements would have to culminate in Christ immediate Return, which is why all claims involving past times have proven to be false.



By making such a claim, I think the onus and due responsibility is on you to show/“prove” why this is the case and substantiate your summary denunciation/decrying!



I don’t get the point of this question/objection!?? What else/more/other does he have to be than a “Ph.D. Professor of Historical Theology Brazil Adventist University College - Campus 2; Director of the Brazilian Ellen G. White Research Center” to address this issue??

[If this is faulting the apparent: ‘view of one person speaking for the whole Church, as it is customary in the SDA Church’s way of “individualistically” doing things, then I would agree that a wider consensus/collaboration/consultation should be transparently employed towards such Biblical interpretation/understanding issues. (Cf. this blog post)]



My straightforward observation would be, as with other similar issues, that most SDA Pastors, Evangelists and other Church leaders, believe what EGW has said on this which is here supported by the GC’s BRI findings.

However, as documented on my blog (see e.g., in this blog post [Note #4 and/or Search for “Brother Hewit”]), Doug Batchelor who previously did not accept this view, presented his time chart for future time fulfillments on his TV broadcast. So clearly SDA Pastors have the full freedom to do this. They just don’t believe it is Biblical and so do not. Indeed for the same substantive reasons why they do not discuss/preach the Secret Rapture!

You can however, bring up this discussion in your local Church and see how it goes!!

Indirectly, it has been set beforehand as 3.5 or 3.6 years after the beginning of the persecution, and when the persecution does begin, it will be definitely set.


Would you mind specifying the fallacies in his logic?

Yes, I think that was what I was trying to say.

Do you “think” or are you sure?? If you are not certain, then how can/should I??! Again providing more substantively contextualizing/specifying/qualifying statements would have helped.

True, but no one has set any date now, nor can be "accused" (falsely assumed or otherwise) of such. By the way, a date definitely set for what?

I had made notes and have not located them. Then I was thinking if I thought it was so obvious that you should be able to see them, there should be no reason why I shouldn't be able to find them a second time. And I think I'm spotting more and more of them besides the ones I first found while quickly reading it. For instance:
That makes logical sense. Whether one agrees with him or not, he is using a logical order here. One should be able to follow his progression.

Whoa! What happened to chapter 11? First he gets the reader saying yes, I suppose that makes sense, and then he makes a wild jump. Yes, he's making a comparison of one of the numbers which happen to appear in chapter 7 and then trying to tie chapter 11 in with it, but that comparison has nothing to do with the logic he just used.

If you still disagree, would "poorly written" be a better description?

Not spying, but found a "numbering" issue:


Sounds weird for God to "move" David to number Israel and then because they did, to "smite" them.

Let me reword it then:

Something to consider is that it wasn't God's will for Israel to have a king at that time. However, He helped them select one at that time.

Maybe with all your substantively contextualizing/specifying/qualifying statements, I'm not really sure if what you're saying is what I'm saying.

By the way kland, was is/was(?) your view/“conclusion” on Gerhard Pfandl’s BRI document on this issue? (He apparently was writing one year (2003) after Alberto Timm).