The Distinction between visions - Dan. 8

There is not point in further discussion as you have no common sense. Verse 13 explicitly tells the reader what "the vision" is "CONCERNING" but you do not care because your consience is seared by the hot iron of SDA hersey.

 

There is but "the vision" but yet verse 13 is restricted by the pharse "concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" to THIS ASPECT of "the vision." This aspect of the vision begins within "one of" the four Grecian kingdoms with one Grecian king and his specific acts recorded in verses 11-14

 

Now, Bob cannot charge me with plural visions. It is the same vision but not the same ASPECT of the vision! The phrase beginning with "concerning" defines explicitly what aspect of "the vision" Daniel is describing in verses 11-14 and it is:

1. not "CONCERNING" that aspect of the vision with the medes or Persians.

2. It is not "CONCERNING" that aspect of the vision of the first king of Greece.

3. It is not "CONCERNING" that aspect of "the vision" of the four kings and their four kingdoms.

4. It is not "CONCERNING" any other aspect of the "little horn" but that aspect which is "CONCERNING the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" and in particular "how long shall be" the aspect of that vision!

They are asking "how long" shall be that aspect of "the vision" concerning "THE DAILY OFFERING" or the evening/morning sacrifice and the precise answer is 2300 evening/morning sacrifices!!! Not 2300 years!!!!

The temple is ON EARTH during the GRECIAN KINGDOM not during the Roman kingdom.

This is the "little horn" that rises UP OUT OF THE NATION divided under FOUR KINGS whereas the "little horn" in Daniel 7 rises up out of TEN KINGS. Bob is mixing apples with oranges.

 

My inability to express that the portion within the overall vision was the focus of verses 11-14 rather than the entire contents of the vision. This is undeniably true because of the modifying phrase "concerning the" that follows. That modifying phase excludes everything in the vision but the aspects of verses 11-14. It specifies and restricts and in every single quotation of this text by you, you never once emphasize that restrictive modifer! NEVER!

If the reader will ignore the perverted view of Bob and just look at verses 11-14 and especially the qualifying and modifying phrase that begins with "concerning" they will easily see that the question has to do with the time when the DAILY SACRIFICE is removed until the time it is RESTORED! That is why the modifying phrase "concerning" immediately follows the words "the vision" as Daniel is not concerned with the time from the Medes and Persians arose to power until the daily sacrifice is restored but the time the evil king removed the daily sacrifice (v. 11) until it was restored. If you read it this way it makes perfect sense with the natural wording of the text:

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

It is the removal of the daily sacrifice and the defilement of the altar that defiles and thus transgresses the sanctuary. The daily offering cannot be restored until the altar and temple is ceremonially cleansed. The question is simply how long from the time it is removed and defiled until it is cleansed and restored.

Notice where Bob starts his quotation, purposely ommitting verses 11-12. Also take note what he persistently emphasizes in the quotation? Notice he NEVER places emphasis on what the text explicitly says this is "CONCERNING" - Never!

Why? Because Bob is simply a dishonest theologian when it comes to dealing with Scriptures that oppose his doctrines.

 

It is the common practice of cults and their false prophets and teachers to establish their primary teachings upon ambiguous scriptures, symbols, figures, parables instead upon clear and explicit commands and principles of Scriptures. Highly symbolic portions of scripture that deal with eschtalogy is their basis for their distinctive doctrines. Daniel 8 and Revelation 12-14 is the primary basis for distinctive SDA doctrine just as Revelation 7 is primary for JW doctrine. The JW's and SDA were closely related in their origins and leaders.

The true and sound basis for developing primary doctrine is clear and explicit precepts and principles which are then supported by passages containing parables, metaphors, allegorys, symbols and figurative.

The cults and their false prophets know that highly symbolic passages allows them the room to read into those passages their false doctrines.

 

Your analogy is a false one! If the film came to the part about the Jews being killed by a certain German officer and the commentator said, "How long in the movie clip CONCERNING the killing of the Jews to their liberation" no one in their right mind would interpret that question to mean how long has transpired since the beginning of the movie clip unto the liberation of the Jews. That would be the proper analogy but you do not have the honesty to state that objectively.

What you charge that "Walter dreams of INSERTING into vs 13" is actually inserted by Daniel and every reader on this forum can read that for themselves -
"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?

You have no ability to be objective or honest with the Word of God. This is evidence of a "seared conscience."
[/COLOR]

 

I forgot I am dealing with a "seared conscience" so let me restate it in terms you can grasp. If we had a movie of World War II that began with the rise of hilter and ended with the release of the Jews from concentration camps, and as we progress in this movie we come to a certain named German officer whose career is noted in breif but then the movie starts to document this man as the one who began the killing of Jews and putting them into concentration camps and then a commetator in the movie asked, "how long does this movie is concerning the killing of the jews until they are freed from concentration camps? And the reponse came, 4 years until they are freed!

A. The movie is rolling

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.

B. The German General comes into focus and his sins are summarized

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.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.[/COLOR]
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.[/COLOR]



C. The Commentator and Specific Question about the length of his specified sin

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?

D. The Specific answer14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed

 

Yep, got me there! That is some bad English. How about this?

"How long does this movie concern the killing of the Jews until they are freed from the concentration camps?"

 

The term "concerning" conveys restriction whereas your intepretation denies any restriction whatsoever but is all inclusive of all aspect of the vision.

 

Reader take note of the kind of hermeneutics employed by Bob. He must agree that the term "concerning" is a restrictive term. However, he completely ignores what the following modifying phrase defines to be the nature of the restriction.

"concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation,

Instead, Bob wants us to foolishly read the text to mean as follows:

"the vision concerning this vision in chapter 8"


Furthermore, what verse 13 explicitly restricts the vision to "the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation" cannot be found in Daniel 8:1-10. There is no mention of these two events until verse 11.

Bob simply rejects what the text explicitly and clearly defines as the restriction being considered. Instead, he replaces the words of God with SDA words.

So, there you go! You can take what God's word says explicitly and clearly what is the restrictive subject or you can take Bob's revisionist interpretation.

 

The word "concerning" demands a restriction is under consideration

The words "the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of deslation" define a restriction within the context of "the vision" as it is undeniable that this defined and demanded restriction has any application in "the vision" until verse 11 forward.

Both the demanding term and the defining phrase contradict Bob's interpretation which denies any restriction within the context of "the vision".

Since no other vision is being contrasted with "the vision" in Daniel 8:1-4 therefore the demand and definition must be confined within "the vision" rather than other visions that are nowhere alluded to in this context.