The Distinction between visions - Dan. 8

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Dr. Walter, Feb 2, 2011.

  1. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. There is the comphrehensive vision as a whole inclusive of several different events -

    Dan. 8:2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.

    This verse defines all the VARIOUS aspects that follow from verse 3-26

    a. The Ram aspect - vv. 3-4 - its interpretation - v. 20
    b. The battle between Ram and Goat aspect - vv. 5-8
    c. The Four kingdom aspect - v. 9 - its interpetation - v. 22
    d. The Fierce king aspect - vv. 8b-16 - its interpretation - vv. 23-26

    2. The vision of the 2300 evening/morning is confined to the Fierce king aspect of the General vision:

    Dan. 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    Here Daniel intentionally separates and classifies this aspect within the general vision to be a distinct and separate vision from the rest. He says that this aspect is "CONCERNING the daily sacrifice, AND the transgression of desolation"!

    Secondly, note the question "CONCERNING" this particular vision! "HOW LONG" is the question "CONCERNING" this particular vision? The answer is immediately given:

    14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

    Notice carefully that the completion of this period is marked by these words "THEN shall the sanctuary be cleansed." That is at the end of the 2300 evening/morning period.

    Common sense dictates if the END of this 2300 evening/morning period concludes with cleansing the sancturay that the beginning of it commenses with the defiling of the sanctuary. The defilining of the sanctuary is explicitly explained in verses 11-13 as well as precisely what King within what Kingdom defiled it:

    11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
    12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
    13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    1. The person defiling the temple is named in verse 11 "by him"
    a. Not Medes and Persians
    b. Not the "first king" of Grecia
    c. Not the four kingdoms of Grecia
    d. The fierce king rising up in one of the four kingdoms of Grecia.

    2. The act of defling is defined in verses 11,12,13
    a. Not the rise of Medes and Persia
    b. Not the rise of the first King of Grecia
    c. Not the rise of the four kingdoms of Grecia
    d. The explict removal of the daily offering and defilement by the King out
    of one of the four Kingdoms of Grecia - vv. 11-14

    3. The length of time from the defilement and cleansing is explicitly defined
    in verses 13-14

    a. Not from the Medes and Persians to the cleansing of the temple
    b. Not from the rise of the first king of Grecia to the cleansing the temple
    c. Not from the rise of the four kingdoms of Greece to the cleansing temple
    d. The vision CONCERNS from the time of the removal of the daily
    sacrifice, desolation of the temple UNTO its cleansing

    4. What is called "the vision of the daily sacrifice AND the transgression of desolation" is called "the vision of the
    evening and morning" in verse 26.

    a. Not the whole vision from Rams to conclusion
    b. But the aspect within the whole vision from the precise point in time the daily offering is removed and the temple
    defiled until the time the daily offering is restored and the temple cleansed.

    Here is concrete undeniable evidence that the vision of the 2300 evening and morning in Daniel 8:11-14 is distinct and different WITHIN the whole general vision referred to in Daniel 8:2-3

    1. The General vision includes the ram, goat, four kingdoms and feirce king as a whole.

    2. The vision of the 2300 evening and morning begins with the defilement and removal of the daily sacrifice by the feirce king "by him" (v. 11) and conclude with the restoration of the daily sacrifice and cleansing of the temple (vv. 12-13).

    3. This is a temple ON EARTH that a king can remove the daily sacrifice from and defile it - there is no temple IN HEAVEN where the daily sacrifice is offered or that can be defiled by an earthly king.

    CONCLUSION: The vision in verses 2-3 CONCERNS all of Daniel 8:4-26. The vision in Daniel 11-16 is "the vision CONCERNING the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot." The two are not the same. The first is inclusive of the second but the second begins and ends differenly than the first. The first begins with the medes and Persians while the second begins "BY HIM" (v. 11). The first begins with the establishement of the Mede and Persian kingdom while the second begins with the removal of the daily offering and desolation of the temple.
     
    #1 Dr. Walter, Feb 2, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2011
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    The little horn in Daniel 8 is not the "little horn" in Daniel 7.

    1. The little horn in Daniel 8 arises out of the Grecian Empire or third Empire of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7


    2. The little horn in Daniel 7 arises out of the fourth or Roman empire of Daniel 2 and 7.


    PROOF:

    A. The little horn in Daniel 8 arises from GRECIAN EMPIRE:

    THE VISION

    Dan. 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
    9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

    THE INTEPRETATION OF THE VISION

    Dan. 8:21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
    22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
    23 And IN the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

    THE UNDENIABLE IRREFUTABLE FACTS

    1. In the vision the he goat is the first king of Greece - vv. 8a, 21

    "Therefore the he goat waxed very great....And the rough goat is the King of Greece"


    2. In the vision the four notable ones are the four kingdoms that "the nation" of Greece is divided into - vv. 8b, 22

    "for it (the first king of Greece) came up four notable ones....whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of THE NATION (Greece).


    3. In the vision the feirce king is a Greek king who rises up from within one of the four kingdoms of Greece - vv. 9, 23

    "And out of one of them [four kingdoms] came forth a little horn....IN the latter time of their kingdom [four Grecian kingdoms]...... a king of fierce countenance....shall stand up.


    B. The Little horn in Daniel 7 arises out of the Roman Empire

    THE VISION

    Dan. 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.


    THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION

    Dan. 7:19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
    20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

    24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

    THE UNDENABLE FACTS:

    1. Daniel is speaking about the fourth Kingdom and the little horn rises up in this FOURTH kingdom - Rome. - Dan. 7:19,20, 24

    behold a fourth beast....ten horn were in HIS HEAD (fourth beast)...ten horns OUT OF this kingdom....and another shall arise up AFTER them"


    CONCLUSION: If you take God's Word for what it explicitly says then you cannot confuse the little horn of the Grecian kingdom in Daniel 8 with the little horn of the Roman kingdom in Daniel 7.

    CONCLUSION: Nothing can be more clear that the little horn in Daniel 8 is a GRECIAN KING but the little horn in Daniel 7 is a ROMAN KING.
     
  3. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE VISION

    Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
    9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.


    THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION

    21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
    22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
    23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.


    Bob wants to force the "fierce" king (v. 23) to rise up out of the Roman Empire and be equal to the "little horn" in Daniel 8.

    In order for Bob to accomplish this feat of mental gynastics he has to assert that the Roman Empire arose out of the Grecian Empire - Historically incorrect as the Grecian kingdom NEVER included Italy or Rome.

    In order for Bob to accomplish this feat of mental gynastics he has to assert that the words "four notable ones towards the four winds of heaven" refers to the extent of the four kingdoms under the four Generals of Greece that includes Rome from the North. Biblically incorrect as both the vision and the interpretation of the vision define these simply as the four kings following "the first king" Alexander the Great and the four different divisons of his kingdom that were different in area and direction from each other:

    whereas four [kings] stood up for it, four kingdoms [four directions in geographical area] shall stand up out of the nation


    1.In 321 B.C. Ptolemy took possession and eventually ruled Egypt (the southern part of the empire).

    2.In 317 B.C. Cassander assumed the government of Macedon (Macedonia), the western part of the empire.

    3.In 311 B.C. Seleucus took over Babylon and Syria (the eastern part of the empire).

    4.In 306 B.C. Antigonus declared himself king of Asia Minor (the northern part of the empire). He was slain in battle in 301 B.C. and was succeeded by Lysimachus.

    Hence, "the four winds" refers to this four compass divisions of "THE NATION" - Greece. Rome was never within any of these four divisions.


    Finally, the Vision and Interpretation of the Vision demand that this "little horn" arose out of the GRECIAN kingdom in one of these four divisions:

    "OUT OF one of them" - the four divisions in four directions

    "IN the latter time of THEIR KINGDOM" - the four divisions in four directions.

    Hence, Bob is both historically and biblically wrong!
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    That is the flaw in your argument. You need "vision-S" plural in Dan 8 where there is only "Vision" singular.

    There is NO TEXT in ALL of scripture where a single vision is split into "visionS" so that one is free to eisegete into the text that "vision" no longer refers to the actual vision itself - but to some notion of seperate and distinct visions within a single vision.

    When you say "There is the comphrehensive vision as a whole inclusive of several different events " you are correct. But when you later bend this into what is essentially "There is the comphrehensive vision as a whole inclusive of several different VISIONS" you do err. Yet you need such an extreme eisegesis so that when you get to Dan 8:13 "How long is the vision" you can simply go to one of your imagined "subvisions" for the start.

    In Dan 8 there is only ONE vision - it is the vision of the 2300 evening and mornings and it starts in vs 3! Impossible to rewrite the text of scripture.

    The bible-bending needed to revise "How long is the VISION" question in Dan 8:13 into "many visions given in this chapter how long is the vision that is just about the little horn" -- is beyond the limit of many sincere objective Bible students reading Dan 8 -

    But those who "need" to appeal to that singular form of eisegesis may simply turn a blind eye to the inconvenient detail mentioned above.

    Oh well -- free will being what it is.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #4 BobRyan, Feb 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2011
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is the part where "you quoting you" is not serving your argument at all.

    The record of posts shows - that I stated that "toward the four winds" in Dan 8 is the same as we find in Dan 11:4 "toward the four points of the compas" -- it is out of one of the four directions of the compas that Rome arises - not out of one of the Greek subkingdoms.

    8 Then the male goat magnified himself exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the large horn(fem) was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous (horns – inserted text) toward (direction) the four(fem) winds (fem) of heaven(masculine).


    The Little Horn

    9
    Out of one (fem) of them(Masculine) came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land.

    Your own appeals to characterizing and ad hominem on the other threads have done you disservice because it has become the more difficult for you to distinguish between these happy fictional straw-men you invent - vs what is actually being posted as my position.

    Which only makes it all the easier for me to point that you are headed off down the road of tilting against a windmill of your own making.

    Have another run at it.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #5 BobRyan, Feb 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2011
  6. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    No flaw at all! Your argument is PRESUMPTUOUS as there is nothing in this text to deny that within ONE GENERAL VISION inclusive of many different nations, different kings and periods of time that there cannot be also included a specific vision "concerning" a specific king and action (v. 13).

    Your presumptous argument is baseless. Your argument is with the text and specifically with the word "concerning" in verse 13. Nothing in this text says THIS INCLUSIVE VISION cannot contain any specific vision "concerning" a specific king and act.
     
    #6 Dr. Walter, Feb 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2011
  7. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I have pointed out, your history is wrong! Rome did not rise "OUT OF" the Grecian kingdom. Second, no one disputes the meaning of "four winds" but that phrase in this context modifies "the four noble ones" not Rome as "four noble ones" has nothing to do with Rome. As the interpretation of this text demands it has to do with the four Generals who divided the territory of the Grecian kingdom into (1) North; (2) South; (3) East and (4) west.



    You spout ignorance and hot air - period! You have yet to answer a single argument based upon contextual fact that I have presented. Complete distortion and perversion characterize your every response! Be honest for a change!
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Now you are going to claim you still don't see the utter nonsense of that argument you are making??

    Come on -- this particular point has to be incredibly obvious even to you by now.

    Surely we both see that you NEED to "imagine" that instead of seeing "the Vision" of Dan 8 starting at vs 3 -- what you needed was ANOTHER vision besides -- one that starts in vs 9!!

    You call the reader to imagine the following ANOTHER vision

    You need many visions to make your argument work - you need visions within visions having entirely different start points from the actual Dan 8 vision that starts in vs 3!!

    Surely you are not asleep at the wheel on this one. Running on autopilot??

    you even title this thread "distinction BETWEEN visions" in Dan 8 - you need visionS in Daniel 8 -- not "THE VISION" of Dan 8!!

    13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
    14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


    How can you keep putting that one out there without just a little bit of embarrassment?

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #9 BobRyan, Feb 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2011
  10. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ridicule does not change God's word or facts. The vision in Daniel 8:2-3 CONCERNS the whole series of events and nations and kings described in verses 4-26 RIGHT!

    However, "the vision" in verse 13 explicitly tells the reader what it concerns and it is restricted to "the daily offering and the transgression that defiles" the temple!

    A five year old could see that the vision in verses 2-3 covers everything whereas the vision in verse 13 denies it covers everything but is restricted to a specific king, kingdom and event.

    Your argument is with the text and the word "concerning" (v. 13) because what Daniel says "the vision" in verse 13 concerns and what you say it concerns does not match!!!!!


    Any child with the ability to read can easily see that "the vision" in verse 13 CONCERNS something far less than "the vision" in verse 2-3 - it just takes some ability to read English with some common sense and it seems you lack one or the other. I guarantee you that note one reader who is not a SDA sides with you! If you want to talk about embarassment you are making yourself look silly.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
     
  13. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #13 Dr. Walter, Feb 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2011
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Question of Dan 8:13 and the answer in Dan 8:14 is incredibly obvious for the reader.

    Originally Posted by BobRyan [​IMG]
    13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
    14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


    1. Clearly the vision starts with the work of the Ram - impossible for the reader to miss this point. your ending solution of "just more ad hominem" does not solve your problem as much as you have been lead to believe.


    And the START of THE Dan 8 vision is incredibly obvious for the reader

    3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
    4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

    =====================

    Just as the everyday case where one watches a historic documentary that details the extermination of the Jews in germany but BEGINS with the events leading rise of Hitler to power - when asked "how long a time period does the documentary about the extermination of the Jews cover" the answer always covers the START date for the documentary and goes to the END date.

    Thus the 2300 year timeline in Dan 8 is a perfect example of the same!

    Incredibly obvious to the objective unbiased Bible student.



    Your efforts to avoid the obvious and "not follow the point" made are tenatious I will give you that.

    The title of your thread "Distinction BETWEEN VISIONS in Dan 8" is instructive for the unbiased reader who after reading the Dan 8 chapter sees that there is only ONE vision - and sees instantly the problem your view has - and your NEED to INSERT multiple visions into the ONE - so that you can get "distinction BETWEEN visions" in Dan 8 -- and different start points for each of the visions you slice and dice the chapter into -

    Certainly the reader has no excuse to claim you have covered up what you are doing.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The SINGLE vision goes from vs 3-12.

    There is an explanation segment where angels give details about the Dan 8:3-12 vision that goes from vs 13 through the end of the chapter.

    ONE vision. And it is from 3-12.

    ONE explanation segment and it is from vs 13-end.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0

    Incredible blindness or willful deception take your pick but no honesty or objectivity with the text at all! Notice what Bob emphasized versus what he did not emphasize in his quotation of verse 13. The text goes on to restrict and define the precise content of this vision in verse 13 but Bob ignores it, hoping to redirect the readers attention to what he emphasized instead of what the text plainly defines this vision is about in verse 13.

    the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    Bob does not want you to beleive this vision is restricted to what Daniel says it is restricted to in verse 13! Bob wants you to ignore that so he can take you back up to verse 3 and "the vision" that is not restricted to what Daniel says the vision in verse 13 is restricted to. Bob wants you to believe "the vision" in versre 13 is "concerning" the ram, the fight between the ram and the goat, the four divisions of the kingdom of Greece and including the king that does those specific acts in verses 11-13

    If you are foolish enough to believe Bob over Daniel then go ahead and swallow this outright lie of the devil. I will beleive Daniel's restrictive explanation for the vision in verse 13:

    the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    Bob says it is "concerning everything from verse 4-14" as that is the whole content of "the vision" in verse 3.

    Daniel says

    the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    What is so difficult about one comprehensive vision that involves many facets, kings and kingdoms as well as one specific vision of one of these facets, and one of these kings?? What is difficult to understand about that ESPECIALLY when the language of verse 13 tells you that explicitly and clearly in langauge that RESTRICTS the vision in that verse to those things?????
     
  17. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can take Bob's word for it or you can take Daniels word which repudiates Bob's interpretation. Bob tells you what he thinks "the vision" in verse 13 concerns but Daniel in explicit langauge tells you that "the vision" in verse 13 concerns no such thing as Bob imagines.

    How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    Verses 11-12 set the stage for the question in verse 13 and the answer in verse 14. Verses 11-12 explicitly point out what this GRECIAN king will do to the temple - he will take away the daily offering and defile the temple.


    11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
    12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.



    Verse 13 asks a specific question "how long" in regard to the specific actions previously outlined in verses 11-12 by a specific king. The king rises out of one of the four Grecian kingdoms (vv. 8, 22-23) and takes away the daily offering and defiles the temple and that is what Daniel says this vision CONCERNS - the time period from the removal and defilement of the temple by this king UNTIL IT IS CLEANSED - meaning what he has done is reversed!

    13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
    14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


    So simple, so clear UNLESS you have a false doctrine to defend like Bob.
     
    #17 Dr. Walter, Feb 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2011
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is not as difficult as Walter claims -- just read the text.

    Hint - "read" the text. You will see that Daniel makes no mention at all of "visionS" as if more than one is given in Dan 8.

    And it is pretty simple to find that the vision is given in vs 3-12, with explanation in vs 13-to-the-end.

    Where was the reader supposed to get so befuddled as to miss this obvious point Walter?

    Where do you think you have a case at all in your multiple visions and your "distinction BETWEEN visions" that are all supposed to be In Chapter 8?

    You keep asserting that you want chapter 8 to HAVE multiple visions but never showing that such storytelling as a basis in fact.

    Hint: I never slice and dice the chapter up so that each verse is its own vision. I insist on "the Vision" of vs 3-12 not "the vision of vs 13" which is in fact angelic explanation of the 3-12 vision.

    Thus when we get to 13 the question is "How long is THE VISION" not "How long does the little horn do damage in that vision"

    I realize this is supposed to be difficult for the reader to see in your mind -- but not sure that your supposed difficulty is in fact so difficult.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said that Daniel used the pluaral "visionS" - never ! However, to argue that the writer must use a plural to distinguish two different uses of a singular item by the same name when the second use by context is explicitly and clearly defined as a different vision is simply evidence of a seared conscience, willful perversion and total bias without any objectivity or care for truth. This is your state of mind because EVERY SINGLE TIME you have quoted from verse 13 you have intentionally omitted the qualifying and definitive phrase after the word "vision." You know exactly what you are doing and your judgement day is coming for intentionally perverting the Word of God to suit your belly!

    Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?[/SIZE]

    Bob simply does not understand the next word is "CONCERNING" and neither does he understand what that word is explanatory of "the vision" that precedes.


    Bob simply does not choose to accept the INSPIRED explanation begun by the word "CONCERNING" but rather chooses to make the vision in verse 13 "CONCERNING" something other than what Danile says it is CONCERNING!

    Daniel does not say it is "CONCERNING" the Medes and the Persians in verse 4 but

    "concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    Daniels does not say it is "CONCERNING" the battle between the Ram and the He goat king in verses 5-8 but

    "concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    Daniel does not say it is "CONCERNING" the division of the he goats kingdom into four kingdoms in verse 9 but,

    "concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    Daniel does does not say it is "CONCERNING" the whole reign of "the little horn" in verses 10-11 but concerning his specific events in verses 11-14.

    When the Bible clearly and explicitly defines and distinguishes a distinct "vision" as a distinct action by a distinct king which king is one aspect of the general comprehensive "vision" then it is unnecessary to use a plural "visionS" as the context separates and defines the one from the other by these specific defining words:


    "concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    A man who consistently omits these words or places emphasis on the terms "the vision" by enlarging them and other means while deemphasizing the very terms given to restrict, define and explain what that "vision" is - is a person who does not care what God's Word says because it exposes his heretical interpretation.


    Bob has a seared conscience with this text and the proof is that he will simply continue to repeat his error over and over and over again while repeatedly ignoring, demphasizing what this text says this vision is "CONCERNING"


    "concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    here is what we DO find in Dan 8 --

    ONE vision! It starts in vs 3 and ends in vs 12. Too late now to imagine ways to rewrite the chapter!

    What we DO NOT find in Dan 8:

    1. There is no "ONE vision about the Ram and ANOTHER vision about the daily sacrifice"

    2. There is no "ONE vision THEN ANOTHER vision" language in this chapter.

    3. There is no "This vision contrasted to THAT vision" in this chapter.

    4. There is no "First vision - then a subsequent vision" language in Dan 8.

    The very title of this thread shows the "need" to try to invent a multi-vision text where only ONE is presented!

    What part of this was supposed to be confusing for the reader?

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #20 BobRyan, Feb 9, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...