I hope Kevin will comment, since the ideas he expressed are his, but regarding PK 703, 704, that doesn't say that there had to be two advents. It simply says that it was God's will that the Israelites prepare the way for the first advent.

Regarding the second point, I would like to see the quote you're referring to before commenting.

Regarding the 2300 days question, I have some thoughts, but I'll let Kevin comment first.

Tom,

If there should be only one coming, Ellen White would have said that they were to prepare the way for Christ's coming, not for Christ's first coming. The Bible is clear that when Christ comes as King He will rule for ever. If you can show me from the Bible that He would come as King, but then be defeated by His enemies, captured and killed, and then would be raised and re-assume His throne, I'll believe it. His death for humanity makes it necessary that there are two comings.

Regarding the second point, the quote is from DA 628:

"Christ's words had been spoken in the hearing of a large number of people; but when He was alone, Peter, John, James, and Andrew came to Him as He sat upon the Mount of Olives. 'Tell us,' they said, 'when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?' Jesus did not answer His disciples by taking up separately the destruction of Jerusalem and the great day of His coming. He mingled the description of these two events. Had He opened to His disciples future events as He beheld them, they would have been unable to endure the sight. In mercy to them He blended the description of the two great crises, leaving the disciples to study out the meaning for themselves. When He referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, His prophetic words reached beyond that event to the final conflagration in that day when the Lord shall rise out of His place to punish the world for their iniquity, when the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. This entire discourse was given, not for the disciples only, but for those who should live in the last scenes of this earth's history."

Tom, you have often said my views are singular and do not represent the norm. The fact is, though, God knows precisely when Jesus will return. That date is not flexible. If it were flexible it would imply God does not know the future with certainty, which, in turn, would make prophesying the future impossible.

I hope Kevin will respond, because it's his idea, but I think Kevin's point may have been that the two events (Christ's first and second coming) need not have been separated. (i.e., Christ could have, upon being resurrected, set up His kingdom; I'm not sure what Kevin's point is). In any case, Christ would have been born, and died. These are events related to Christ's first coming. It makes perfect sense for Ellen White to refer to this as Christ's "first coming".

Regarding the second quote, I was familiar with that, but it doesn't say anything about Christ's not saying anything "because they weren't prepared to know that so many years would transpire between the two events." as you stated, right?

Tom, you have often said my views are singular and do not represent the norm. The fact is, though, God knows precisely when Jesus will return. That date is not flexible. If it were flexible it would imply God does not know the future with certainty, which, in turn, would make prophesying the future impossible.

[color:blue]Truth is not determined by majority. My comments regarding your "views" have not been directed towards your ideas, but your methodologies. You make statements like common words, such as "risk," "sin," and "repent," do not mean what everyone knows they mean when they are used in a way which disagrees with your view. Rather than adjust your view, or admit to the possibility that you might be wrong, you assert that the words cannot mean what they normally mean. Why not? Because then you'd have to change your mind, and admit to your error. That's what I've objected to.

It reminds me of this:



You challenged me for a long time to produce a statement which said that Lucifer had sinned. I responded that it wouldn't do any good, because even if such a statement were produced, you would say that "sin" did not mean "sin" as it normally does. When Rosangela produced such a statement, that's exactly what you did! It's similar to the position of those who reacted against what Waggoner wrote.

No matter how much evidence was given to demonstrate they were wrong, they refused to admit it. When evidence came that even included the possibility that it might lead down a path where they would have to admit they were wrong, they wouldn't accept that.

It's a good thing for us to not to be moved like a flag blowing in the wind, and change our positions willy-nilly, but OTOH we should be flexible enough to be able to admit to error.

For example, you say the date is not flexible. Yet both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy tell us it is. For example:



If the date were fixed, then we would have the privilege of looking for it, but not have hastening it.

Also often Ellen White wrote that Christ could have come before the time she was writing (i.e., as early as the late 1850's, Christ "could have come before now," in our parlance). If the date were fixed, Christ could not have come before now. That's obvious. He hasn't come yet, so the fixed date has not yet arrived. If He could have come before now, the fixed date would have to be at some other time than it is. But "fixed" means that can't be the case.

Except that we need to know just what Daniel was saying in that prophecy. Once again may I refer you to "Before Philosophy" by Henri Frankfort and others.

The ancient world though in terms of cycles that they saw as interchangeable. To an ancient Egyptian a day meant either the 24 hour cycle of the sun or the annual flooding of the Nile. If we were living in ancient Egypt and I was to borrow some money from you and say that "I will pay you back in two days" you would expect me to either pay you in two 24 hour cycles of the sun, or you would expect me to pay you back after the second flooding of the Nile, and either would have been fine with you.

Daniel 8:14 says 2300 evenings-mornings, which is ancient cyclic language. When you compare the cycles to the cycles in Levicitus, you would find that the 2300 cycles could mean 2300 days, 2300 months, 2300 half years, 2300 years, or 2300 Jublees. However Daniel is based more of Deuteronomy (which has cycles but does not have the cycles spelled out as nicely as Leviticus does) and Deuteronomy does not have the emphesses that Leviticus has on the Jublees, thus from a Deuteronomic foundation the options for Daniel are 2300 days, 2300 months, 2300 half years or 2300 full years, and could have been fulfilled with any of these.

Also, we base our 2300 cycles on the start of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9. This was an intertexual a re-application of the prophecy, making the setting of the prophecy in Daniel 8 to be the type and Daniel 9's re-application an anti-type. Daniel 9's re-application could have been fulfilled at the 2300 day mark, the 2300 month mark, the 2300 half year mark (but they were not and extended to the longest possibility) where the world conditions were ready for it to be applied at the 2300 year mark. Just because it was not fulfilled until the 2300 year mark does not mean that they could not have been fulfilled at one of the earlier marks. October 22, 1844 was the LAST time that cycle would come around, and the LATEST date that could have filled it.

Before I get back to the 2300 days in Daniel 8, I'd like to point out. I do not have the date, but there is a Signs of the Times article where Mrs. White says that Miller was right and that Jesus could have come on October 22, 1844,(if I recall correctly the words were something like "There was no reason why William Miller could not have diserned from the scripture the coming of the Lord") but she goes on to say that Jesus did not because he knew that too many were not ready so like with Nineveh, God gave them more time, and that instead of making fun of the Millerites they should have been greatful that God gave them more time.

Getting back to the 2300 evenings-mornings in the Daniel 8:14 setting... Some who study the text said that the text should be interpeted as 1150 days, and this has been used by people against our application to 1844. When both this 1150 day theory was formed, as well as when our Pioneers decided on it meaning 2300 days we did not know when Belshazzar lived, and the liberal critics said that there was no such person.

Well, Daniel 8:14 was given in Belshazzar's third year, and we have since learned that Belshazzar was indeed a historical person and unlike our pioneers as well as those who formed the 1150 day theory, we have an advantage over both groups. Today we know when Belshazzar's third year was. Now we don't know what day in his third year Daniel received the vision, but it is interesting that 1150 days after the vision was business as usual. However, 2300 days latter you get to a year that includes the Medio-Persions breathing down Babylon's neck, the fall of Babylon and the start of the Medio-Persia empire. Had the Hebrews preached the gospel in Babylon, with the escatology of Deuteronomy 4, the 2300 litteral days from Daniel's vision the Messiah could have come for the great exodus home. Now Daniel 8 does offer hints that the conditions for the Messiah's coming was not being fulfilled and that time might last longer... that made Daniel sick and was able to open for the prophecys of Daniel 9-12 and the re-application of the 2300 days for what is important for us.

But it encourages my faith that the specific timing of Daniel 8 is about 2300 days from the end of Babylon, showing that the Lord lead our pioneers to the correct application, as opposed to those who argued for the 1150 days.

I think the meaning of this quote is made clear two pages ahead:

“From the destruction of Jerusalem, Christ passed on rapidly to the greater event, the last link in the chain of this earth's history,--the coming of the Son of God in majesty and glory. Between these two events, there lay open to Christ's view long centuries of darkness, centuries for His church marked with blood and tears and agony. Upon these scenes His disciples could not then endure to look, and Jesus passed them by with a brief mention” (DA 630, 631).

Rosa: You need to put these quotes in the context of first how Mrs. White said she wanted her visions to be used and what she said the purpose of her prophetic ministry was. I have no problems with these quotes when you look at the bigger picture of what she teaches, and what point she was trying to get across. Be careful to use her words the way she wanted them to be used and not in the way you want them to be used.

Once again the only answer to your criticizism are the two chapters "Destroyed for Lack of Knowlege" in Prophets and Kings and "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the Bible commentary. These two chapters can answer you much better than I am able to to, and any answer I'd give would either be quoting, paraphrasing or looking at examples of applying those chapters. While there are other books out there on different Old Testament Escahtologies and New Testament Eschatologies that are useful, but "Destroyed for Lack of Knowlege" is still foundational for this whole field of study and one of Mrs. White's key chapters, and everything that I'm saying that you don't like is based on that chapter, and brief comments she has here and there that you notice when you've seen the principle of that chapter.

This is based on if the churches took John's advice to "Preach Again" and, despite martyerdom, preached with the same ferver as their first love that they lost, so that the gospel would have been preached into all the world and the end [could] have come. The millennium begins at the second coming of Jesus, and it would have begun at the second coming had Jesus come err this.

(and once again, we have a tension in both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. On the one hand "The Lord could have come err this" "looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God" and the prophecys given could be either fulfilled by that generation, or they could prepare for the next generation to fulfill the prophecys, yet on the other side, God sees the end from the begining and God's purposes know neither haste nor delay)

If the church had been ready before, the date would have been fixed earlier, but from the beginning God knows when this date will be, because He knows when the church will be ready.

"But like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God's purposes know no haste and no delay. ... So in heaven's council the hour for the coming of Christ had been determined. When the great clock of time pointed to that hour, Jesus was born in Bethlehem" (DA 32).

If this was true for the first coming, why not for the second?

"We are not to know the definite time either for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit or for the coming of Christ. . . . Why has not God given us this knowledge?--Because we would not make a right use of it if He did. A condition of things would result from this knowledge among our people that would greatly retard the work of God in preparing a people to stand in the great day that is to come." – LDE 33

"But the day and the hour of His coming Christ has not revealed. He stated plainly to His disciples that He Himself could not make known the day or the hour of His second appearing. Had He been at liberty to reveal this, why need He have exhorted them to maintain an attitude of constant expectancy? There are those who claim to know the very day and hour of our Lord's appearing. Very earnest are they in mapping out the future. But the Lord has warned them off the ground they occupy. The exact time of the second coming of the Son of man is God's mystery." DA 632, 633

These quotes make clear that God knows the day and the hour of Christ's coming, but deliberately chose to conceal this knowledge from us.