An additional note, hearkening back to the debate over "offered" in vs. 25, I was reading an Andrews University Seminary Studies article by Norman Young, of Avondale, tonight, Spring 2002 edition.

He notes that προσφερω (offered) is also used in vs. 7 in reference to the "high priest's blood manipulation on the Day of Atonement."

This is the direct parallel passage to verse 25, in which the same term is again associated with entry and blood ministration on the day of atonement.


Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;




Strongs:

prospherō
pros-fer'-o
From G4314 and G5342 (including its alternate); to bear towards, that is, lead to, tender (especially to God), treat: - bring (to, unto), deal with, do, offer (unto, up), present unto, put to.

Notice a few examples of the term used in referring to blood in the LXX:



Lev 1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Lev 9:9 And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the bottom of the altar:


Lev 9:12 And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar.

I assume that the above can also be applied to other issues in theology. For instance, counting from a time when we in the west still knew the respect for authority, lets say before the renissance and a thousand years or more before that, it would have been sinfull and receptive of Gods condemnation for christians to keep saturday sabbath rather than sunday. If people around 1880 could be condemned by God for sticking to the biblical warning against time-setting, then why would it be different for groups keeping saturday sabbath contrary to paradigm and general knowledge? Unless the principle to be used is, 'the majority is always wrong'...And here we are more than 150 years later still wondering what the divine definition of a short time might be.
Sometimes I wish people who like to come and preach "crusades" based on Daniel and Revelation would employ such a proper framework. Just as an example, the last effort in this category included an explanation of the ten kingdoms where Australia and South Africa were to join forces and become one of the kingdoms. Also, the EU would be split and those states which were once in the Warsaw pact would once again join Russia in becoming one of the kingdoms... Silliness...
So if this foundation you refer to was established, when was it forgotten?

Tall,

Miller had been preaching since 1831 and never set a specific date – day and hour, but just an approximate time. So the excuse of using Matt. 24:36 to reject the message was just that – an excuse. As Ellen White says in GC 372, just some verses ahead of Matt. 24:36 Jesus says that His followers should know when His coming was “near, even at the doors”, and it was this that Miller was preaching. It was only in August, 1844, that a date was set by Samuel Snow for the ending of the 2300 days – less than two months before the event.

However, I’m not going to engage in a discussion with you to defend Ellen White, as this would be useless. If you want to discuss the validity of the date, it’s OK. Otherwise, you can create a separate thread, as Daryl gave you already the “go ahead” for this.


The fact that Ellen White gave validity to the Millerite movement has never been the reason why I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I don’t know if it was your reason, but it’s surely not mine.


Because this makes much more sense than believing that 2300 evenings and mornings refers to 2300 or to 1150 literal days which can never have been fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes. Because the historicist method of interpretation makes much more sense than the preterist or the futurist methods.


Just in the book of Hebrews, it is unequivocally used in 5:1, 5:3, 8:3, 8:4, 9:9, 10:1, 10:2, 10:8, 10:11, 10:12, 11:4, 11:17 for offering sacrifices, and just in 9:7 for offering blood. But the word blood is used, as the word prayers, for instance, is used in 5:7. Now, offering oneself and offering blood are two different things.

he pointed to around 1843. Did Jesus say you do not know at which hour His coming would be?

Miller went to great lengths to argue for time prophecies ending in 1843. I think that is obvious.





It is the other way around. Ellen needs Miller to fulfill the prophecies as they perceived them in Rev., etc. The Adventist movement without Miller being the beginning of the 1st and 2nd messages, and without the disappointment being the fulfillment of Revelations bitter experience, etc. would not have its identity spelled out in the Bible.

She needs Miller to be right or there WAS no message regarding the 1844 date, and indeed no evidence that anything happened at all.

Therefore she props up Miller to support the Adventist movement.

So a solar year proves the historicist position and Miller's reckoning?

Yes, it is used for sacrifice. It is used for both. But the point is it is used for blood at times, and particularly in the context of the day of atonement.

Now why is it used of Himself? Because the NT fulfillment doesn't demand bringing actual blood, but is Jesus presenting (bringing to, προσφερω) Himself. He is the sacrifice. Presenting Himself presents all that is necessary.

Both passages speak of entrance.

Sure. Truth is progressive.



That's not the best example, since there have always been people keeping the Sabbath. But if one were unaware that the Bible taught that Sabbath kept the Sabbath, and one were convinced that the Catholic church, say, was the true church of God (which would be easy to do, since, much of the time, for many, there was only one visible church) and one decided to keep Sabbath on Saturday (or Tuesday) for no reason at all, but just because one felt like it, I suppose that would be a possible analogous situation.



That never happened.



Well, your premise here is fallacious, so the conclusion is moot.



A "short time" is a few years. This can be seen in a couple of ways. First of all, if you consider the amount of time that corresponds to the first compartment service (all the days of the year less one) to the second (one day of the year only), it's easy to see that in the type, the amount of time spent in the second compartment service was a short time. If one does the math, if memory serves, using 2300 days as a base (which would be 2300 years, of course), I think it comes to around 5 years.

A second way is that you can see that EGW uses this expression when talking about the preparation of Christ's coming. For example, in the 1888 era, she talks about how in a few years the world would have been ready for the coming of Christ, if the message presented by Jones and Waggoner had been accepted.



I'm with you on this point. I wish the crusades would use a framework based on the Gospel. But that's another story.

Regarding when it was forgotten, I'd say there's been a lot of fuzziness in our thinking since 1888 when the message God sent us to prepare for the coming of Christ was not accepted. I think that's an inevitable consequence.

Why did you not tell Tall that?So 5 years after there is a general acceptance of Jones and Waggoer?Is there a difference between the Gospel and what you refer to as 1888? If not, why not stick to talking about the gospel as this is something much more generally recogniseable than 1888?

I don't know, I'd have to look. Tall's been speaking mostly with Rosangela.



She said that J&W's message was the "beginning" of the loud cry, and the latter rain. Presumably, had their message been accepted, God would have continued sending more light, which would have blossomed into the full latter rain, and led to Christ's return. However, God could well have raised up others to present that message; it wouldn't have had to have been J&W.

Also I wouldn't say "general acceptance," as I don't think that conveys a right understanding of the issue. God was giving a message to prepare for the coming of Christ. If you read through the GCB's of the time, for example, the 1893 GCB, you can see that the people were well aware of what was happening. A "general acceptance" conveys an idea of "no big deal." But the return of Christ *is* a big deal! For example, here's a well know SOP quote:





The vast majority of posts I write, I don't mention J&W at all. I very much doubt I mention them in even 1% of my posts.

There were truths which God brought to light through Jones and Waggoner which are not generally known, or recognized as being a part of "the Gospel." The main reason I mention them in the hope that someone might get interested enough to look into what they presented, and be blessed by it, as I have been.

Yes, but He also said that we could know when it was “near, even at the door.” Besides, the last sign announcing Christ’s coming had been fulfilled in 1833 (Matt. 24:29). Even so, he always avoided to set a specific date.


New churches are founded every day without ever claiming that their identity is spelled out in the Bible, so I see no need for using Miller.
Ellen White was a teenager at the time. It would be necessary for her to have a privileged mind in order to make all those Bible verses fit the Adventist movement. Yet, how could a person with such a privileged mind contradict herself in elementary points of belief?


Miller, as everybody else in his time, held the historicist view, and the historicist view has as one of its concepts the “day-year principle.” What we have to check is if Miller’s reckoning makes sense.


The key element here is the purpose for which the blood was presented on the Day of Atonement – to cleanse the sanctuary from people’s sins. We have discussed this before and I don’t want to repeat myself, but how can a sanctuary be cleansed from sins which haven’t yet been committed? That’s why the blood was presented at the end of the year, not at its beginning.