EXPOSING SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
Marc Rasell and Russell Kelly dialog-2, Oct2009
Home
14 REASONS WHY THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST DOCTRINE OF DEATH IS WRONG
ARTICLES
GC THE GREAT CONTROVERSY
SDA DOCTRINAL STATEMENT AND COMMENTS
122 Errors in GC Intro, 317-408 (1 of 3)
The Sabbath Has Benn Changed Many Times
1. My Testimony and Introduction
2. Seventh-day Adventism in a Nutshell
3. Biblical Inspiration and Ellen G. White
4. Daniel 8:8-14: Launching Seventh-day Adventism
5. The Sanctuary in Daniel
6. The 2300 Day Prophecy and the Year-Day Principle
7. The Cleansing of Daniel 8:14
8. The Daily Sacrifice
9. Pattern-Fulfillment
10. Sin Transfer into the Sanctuary
Chapter 11: INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT BASIS EXPOSED
11. The Truth about the Biblical Sanctuary
12. Books of Heaven
13. Rooms in the Heavenly Sanctuary
14. Inside the Veil
THE SCAPEGOAT: ARTICLE
15. The Day of Atonement and the Scapegoat
16. Antiochus IV Epiphanes; 164 B.C.
17. Creation Sabbath
18. Weekly Sabbath
19. Shadow Sabbaths
20. Greater and Lesser Sabbaths
21. Jesus and the Sabbath
22. The Sabbath in Acts
23. Christian Liberty and Holy Days
24. The United States, Roman Catholicism and the Mark of the Beast
25. Two Different Three Angels' Messages
SHEOL: CONSCIOUS SOULS; ARTICLE
Appendix 1: Sheol, Abaddon and the Soul
Appendix 2: Hades and the Soul
Appendix 3: Jewelry, Dress Code and Deceit
103 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOUL AND SHEOL
160 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SABBATH
214 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT
165 ERRORS FROM GC P411-444 (2 OF 3)
50 Errors in GC P563-678 (3 of 3)
1260 YEARS OF INEPT POPES
Achilles' Heel of Seventh-day Adventism: Daniel 8:8-13
BATCHELOR, DOUG; SDA AMAZING FACTS
BRIEF DIALOG WITH AMAZING FACTS
Ben Carson, Dishonest Seventh-day Adventist
BOOK INDEX: SUBJECT-TEXT-GC-BOOK PAGE
Book Reviews and Endorsements
Dialog with SDA Scholar on the Law, 2014
Hell: After-Death Punishmetn
"LAW" IN THE BIBLE
LAW-UNITY TEXTS WHICH DESTROY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
PAPAL WEAKNESSES
Questions on Daniel from an Andrews University Scholar
Marc Rasell and Russell Kelly dialog, Oct 2009
Marc Rasell and Russell Kelly dialog-2, Oct2009
MILLENNIUM: BIBLE VERSUS GREAT CONTROVERSY
SABBATH-BREAKING IS NOT ON SIN LIST AFTER CALVARY
SITE INDEX: TEXT, NAME, WORD
Sunday Blue Law Paranoia of SDAs
TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT FOR ALL MANKIND
UNCLEAN FOOD HISTORY AND LAWS

russkellyphd@yahoo.com

Marc Rasell and Russell Kelly, Oct 29, 2009

 

Marc: Just a few points to add to my e-mail:

 

1. Translation of Daniel 8:13:

This verse begins with the Hebrew “ad-matay” which is often translated as “how long” (KJV, RSV, NASB, TEV). However the Hebrew literally means “until when” which puts the emphasis not on the duration (how long) but on the termination (until when) and what follows. In the answer in verse 14 we are told “until”…”then”…which confirms that the emphasis is on what happens at the end of the 2300 days.

 

The word “concerning” is not in the Hebrew, there is no genitive construct. Therefore the 2300 days involves the whole vision of chapter 8 and starts in the Persian era.

……………………………………

Kelly: According to your own admission the vision of Daniel chapter 8 would END at the END of the 2300 ereb-boqer. Yet SDAs only BEGIN the END in 1844. That is ridiculous! You added "and what follows" without any justification other than to justify your wrong interpretation.

……………………………………

Marc: The word sacrifice is not in the Hebrew, as daily covers more than just sacrifices, it covers the daily shewbread, lamp stand etc.

……………………………………

Kelly: The word "daily" primarily relates to the daily evening and morning whole burnt offering which was offered even on the Day of Atonement. The showbread was offered weekly when the course changed. It certainly did not refer to the Day of Atonement exclusively which was a YEARLY occurrence. The daily was cleansed in BC 165 to purify it from the desecration of the great altar by Antiochus IV.  

…………………..

Marc: Literally: “Until when the vision, the continual service and the transgression causing horror, to make both sanctuary and host a trampling?”

……………………..

Kelly: Please tell me WHEN do SDAs teach that the "daily" was first defiled? And is the daily in heaven still defiled? If the daily in heaven was defiled before 1844, then Christ could not be ministering with a defiled daily. If it is still defiled, then Christ could not be ministering now. When you equate the defiling of the daily with the Day of Atonement, you really step into a quandry. Again, tell me when the daily was defiled and when it was restored!!!

………………………….

Marc:  2. The verb (sdq) only appears once in its passive niphal form and the meaning has been lost. The root word is linked to a wide range of meanings including zakah clean: Ps. 51:4, Job 25:4; 15:14 and taher pure: Job 4:17; 17:9. Other meanings can be deducted by this process: perfect, blameless, truth, just, vindicate, accountable, faithful, salvation, right, holy, equity, judgment, peace, glory, innocence, wisdom. However many ancient translations including the LXX translate it as cleansed, including Theodotion, Vulgate, Syriac and Coptic.

……………………..

Kelly: Rather than accept the common use of tsadeq you choose to use the least common and obscure in order to avoid admitting that it does not refer to the Day of Atonement in Daniel 8:14. What kind of cleansing do you think was used when Solomon's temple was dedicated, when it was rededicated in BC 515 and when it was rededicated in BC 165? Those dedications and rededications were NOT Day of Atonement dedications. The focus of Daniel 8:13-14 is on a rededication and not on a Day of Atonement taher cleansing. What argument do you use to prove that it refers to the Day of Atonement?

……………………….

Marc: 3. Different terminology is used for the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat:

 

Scapegoat: “But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat. (verse 10)

Lord’s goat: “He shall make atonement for the holy place” (verse 16)

…………………………

Kelly: No. Identical terminology was used for both goats.

(1) Both were chosen by the congregation.

(2) Both were equally qualified to be chosen.

(3) Both were presented as one sin offering.

(4) Both were presented "before the LORD" which made BOTH equally "most holly" as a sin offering.

………………………….

Marc:  The type of atonement for the scapegoat is similar to when a blasphemer was stoned, the congregation first laid hands on him Lev. 24:14.

……………………….

Kelly: You are really reaching here. There is no goat or sacrificial animal involved here. Why don't you reply to the texts I refer to where two birds are used for one sin offering and one is released alive?

……………………….

Marc:  When someone sinned high handedly Num. 15:30 there was no sacrifice for sin, this type of defiling of the sanctuary was illegal and could only be cleansed by the death of the sinner.

………………………

Kelly: You are arguing my point! No presumptuous, premeditated, high-handed sin was ever brought to the sanctuary for sacrifice and atonement. Since those sins were punished instead of forgiven, they would not be entered into the books of heaven. Why, why, why does not SDA theology explain where these sins are in your Investigative Judgment scenario?

……………………………..

Marc:  For those who were penitent, their sins were transferred to the sanctuary. The idea of the sanctuary being defiled in this way is a paradox which speaks of the work of Christ who is holy, yet took upon Himself our sins so we could be saved. We received His righteousness by faith.

……………………………..

Kelly: Wrong. Their "sins" were not transferred TO the sanctuary. Their "sins" were washed away at the entrance when the sacrificial animal died. Those atoned sins did not enter into the sanctuary to defile it.

…………………………….

Marc: So even though the sanctuary was defiled, yet it remained holy at the same time. The same paradox applies to Christ as the Lamb of God and the sacrificial animals which pointed to Him.

…………………………..

Kelly: You are saying that "even though the sanctuary was defiled with all atoned sins of all forgiven men, it is still holy. That is absurd at every point and totally illogical. When you realize this you will begin to study yourself out of that false church like I did.

………………………….

Marc: 4. The sanctuary symbols have a three fold fulfillment: Christological, Ecclesiological and Eschatological. E.g. Christ is the Lord’s goat (Lev. 16), the church is cleansed near the end of time (Mal. 3), the heavenly temple is cleansed and all sin comes to an end after the return of Christ (Daniel 8:14; Rev. 20-22).

………………………….

Kelly: Only SDAs follow this sequence.

………………………….

Marc: 5. The common terminology between Daniel 8 and 9:

a) The word “mareh” (vision) is used in 8:26-27 to refer to the part of the vision about the evenings and mornings, whereas “hazon” (vision) is used to refer to the whole vision of chapter 8.

…………………………….

Kelly: The sanctuary of Daniel 8:10-12 is the one on earth. The sanctuary of Daniel 9 is the one on earth. You cannot jump from earth to heaven in 8:14 and remain I context.

The last part of Daniel 8 is used by Dispensationalists to refer to the last day antichrist who is a type of Antiochus from Matthew 24:15. Even if wrong, you must admit that their interpretation is far superior to your own.

……………………..

Marc: In 9:23 the angel says understand the “mareh” (vision), a clear link back to the evenings and mornings of chapter 8 as there is no vision in chapter 9.

b) The use of the word “bin” (understand): Daniel did not “understand” the “mareh” (vision) of the 2300 days (8:15), he was dismayed by the “mareh” (vision) and did not “understand” it (8:27).

In 9:22-23 the angel returns to help Daniel “understand” the “mareh” (vision).

……………………………

Russ: The vision of Daniel 9 brings us to Christ. It does not bring us to 1844. The end of the vision of Daniel 9 brings us to the second coming of Christ. It does not bring us to 1844.  The little horn of Daniel 8 becomes a type of the Roman Empire which destroyed the Temple in AD 70. It then becomes a type of the antichrist of the last days in Revelation 11-18 which destroys the harlot false church. It does not bring us to either BC 457 or AD 1844. William Miller never used BC 457 and EGW's use of it in the GC is very deceptive.

………………………

Marc: 6. Hebrews never says Jesus went into the MHP, it says He entered the “ta hagia” which means holy places and is a designation for the sanctuary as a whole.

…………………………….

Kelly: The context of Hebrews 9 is that of Moses inaugurating the Old Covenant even before the sanctuary pattern had been given. The New Covenant inauguration did not require a Day of Atonement re-enactment because is inauguration followed Christ's Day of Atonement sacrifice at Calvary.

…………………………

Marc: If the author wanted to specify the MHP he could have said “hagia hagion”. In the LXX “ta hagia” is used in the plural: 97 times for the sanctuary, 6 times for the holy place and only 1 time for the most holy place. These figures are subject to variant readings, doubtful uses and the human factor.

In Hebrews 9:25 “ta hagia” is translated:

Goodspeed: sanctuary

Knox: sanctuary

NEB: sanctuary

ERV: holy place

ASV: holy place

RSV: Holy Place

KJV: holy place

Moffatt: holy place:

Wuest: Holy of Holies

Phillips: Holy of Holies

NIV: Most Holy Place

Most of these translations are incorrect because the phrase “ta hagia” us used predominately for the sanctuary as a whole and not for one specific compartment. Goodspeed, Knox and NEB are correct according to the Greek.

………………………………

Kelly: I have 18 semester hours in Greek from an SDA college. Yes, ta hagia, refers to the sanctuary --the whole sanctuary!

You ignore the many texts that very clearly point out that Christ entered into the Presence of the Father and sat down at his right hand AT HIS ASCENTION between the cherubim which means inside the Most Holy Place. Wherever God is --that is the Most Holy Place!

 

The phrase, “within the veil (inside the vail)” occurs six (6) in the Old Testament and always refers to the Most Holy Place, particularly on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. See Ex. 26:33; Lev. 16:2, 12, 15; Numb. 18:7. The phrase, “without the veil (outside the vail)” occurs four (4) times in the Old Testament and always refers to the Most Holy Place. See Ex. 26:35; 27:21; 40:22; Lev. 24:3.

 

For all except SDAs, the fifteen (15) “right hand” texts make it absolutely clear that Jesus was in His Father's presence inside the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary since His ascension. The texts are self-explanatory and unambiguous in their destruction of SDA theology. Acts 2:33, “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted.” Acts 2:34, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand.” Acts 5:31, “Him has God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior.” Acts 7:55, “But [Stephen], being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” Acts 7:56, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Romans 8:34, “[Christ] is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” Ephesians 1:20, “[God] set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.” Colossians 3:1, “Christ sits on the right hand of God.” Hebrews 1:3, “[Christ] sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Hebrews 1:13, “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand.” Hebrews 8:1, “We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.” Hebrews 10:12, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Hebrews 12:2, “[Christ] is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” First Peter 3:22, “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God.” Revelation 5:7, “And [Christ] came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.”

 

Likewise, the eleven (11) “between the cherubim” texts are also self-explanatory in their destruction of SDA theology. Exodus 25:22, “I will commune with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony.” Numbers 7:89, “[Moses] heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy seat that was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim: and he spoke unto him.” “The LORD of hosts, which dwells between the cherubim,” First Samuel 4:4; Second Samuel 6:2; Second Kings 19:15; First Chronicles 13:6; Psalm 80:1; Isaiah 37:16. “[God] sits between the cherubim,” Psalm 99:1. [God’s throne is] “between the cherubim,” Ezekiel 10:1-7.

……………………………

Marc: 7. The time period for the little horn of 1260 days is linked to that of the sea beast in Revelation:

  • Daniel 7:25, 12:7, Revelation 11:2, 3, 12:6, 14, 13:5.

The little horn is destroyed “not by human hands”, and the sea beast is destroyed at the return of Christ. They both share the same time frame for persecuting the saints, they both blaspheme God and attack the saints.

…………………….

Kelly: You do not need to repeat all of this to me. I know the arguments as well as you. If the 1260 "days" ended in 1798, tell me WHY the little horn was not destroyed then? Tell me what the 1798 has to do with 1844. Tell me where the SDA church would be if Christ has returned in 1844. Tell me what any of this has to do with Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement which you say only began in 1844. I see no connection but only rambling dates.

………………………..

Marc: The papacy claimed to be able to forgive sins and change God’s law and persecuted the saints. The period of persecution is from 538-1798 AD.

…………………………

Kelly: How did the papacy's claim to change God's law answer Daniel's question of 8:13? Antiochus IV literally changed times and laws when he began persecuting Jews from BC 171 to 165. How did the confessional of the 12th century relate to the question of Daniel 8:13? I have read and re-read Lives of the Popes several times and have several articles about the papacy on my site. During overwhelming majority of 538-17989 the papacy was the pawn of either France, Italy, Spain, Germany or Austria. It was nowhere near the fierce ruler and persecutor which SDAs describe. Another false change of history.

………………………….

Marc: Historians have recognized that pagan Rome collapsed in the 6th century and papal Rome began its rise to power.

…………………………

Kelly: No. Pagan Rome in the West collapsed in AD 476 and Eastern pagan Rome did not end until 1453. Papal Rome took over the vacuum in Rome in 476 but was confined to its own vicinity and controlled by other nations about 90% of the time between 538 and 1798. The only time it had real power was when the other nations were fighting each other in civil wars. The winner controlled the papacy.

…………………………..

Marc: In 1798 AD after years of decline the Pope was captured by Napoleon.

……………………………

Kelly: What does this have to do with Daniel 8:10-14?

………………………….

Marc: In 538 AD after the three Arian powers were destroyed or no longer a threat to Rome’s power

……………………….

Kelly: In Daniel 7 the 3 little horns uprooted by the little horn were part of the beast. That is not true of the Arian horns which were never part of pagan Rome.

…………………………..

Marc: ….  the recognition in 533 AD by the emperor that the Bishop of Rome was supreme could now be put into effect. The Ostrogoths did survive after 538 AD but were never able in the same way to subjugate Rome, the decisive victory occurred early on in the campaign, although they did a lot of damage to Italy and helped bring down pagan Rome.

……………………………

Kelly: AD 538 is an invention. Justinian was very oppressive of the papacy. Its rule did not extend outside of a strip in Italy. The church in Africa opposed it until the Muslims destroyed it in the 8th century. The church in Eastern Europe opposed it because they were ruled by the Eastern Emperor.

…………………………

Marc: The attempt to change times and laws in Daniel is the attempt to change the Sabbath to Sunday which is the only law that deals with time.

…………………………

Kelly: Explain Ex 31:13-17. The Old Covenant Sabbath was only given to national Israel and God commanded them not to share their covenant with others.

……………………….

Because the little horn is linked to papal Rome it cannot be Antiochus who was not destroyed supernaturally and does not continue until the return of Christ.

……………………….

Kelly: Jesus linked the little horn to Antiochus. The Jews linked him to Antiochus. It took supernatural intervention for the Jews to defeat the Seleucid-Syrian Empire. Dispensationalists link the little horn to pagan Rome and to the antichrist who will appear in the last days.  Your argument that the little horn will not be destroyed until the Second Coming is based upon the same re-application at that of Dispensationalists and does not prove a thing.

………………………….

8. In a previous e-mail I made the point that although in the wilderness type the Presence was usually associated with the MHP, the heavenly reality could be different because Paul makes a number of changes based on Scripture as the reality is greater than its shadow. However even in the wilderness tabernacle God’s Presence could be manifested in other places (Ex. 29:42-44; 30:6-7, 35-36). In the heavenly temple based on Revelation 4-5, Exodus 25:9, 40 and Daniel 7:9-10 which suggests movement, God’s Presence is not limited to the MHP.

…………………………

Kelly: The Most Holy Place is such because it is where God is. God's Presence makes it the Most Holy Place. Wherever God is --that is the Most Holy Place. You have got to stop limiting God to a room!

……………………………………

The changes Paul makes are as follows: Psalm 110:4 for the new priesthood, Psalm 40:6-8 for the new sacrifice, Jeremiah 31:31-34 for the new covenant, Exodus 25:40 for the superior heavenly sanctuary. We cannot be dogmatic in insisting that the heavenly temple replicate its earthly shadow, because it was a shadow. There is a correspondence between the two, and any changes need to be substantiated with Scripture. It could be said that the differences were foreshadowed.

…………………………..

Kelly: Read my chapter on Pattern Fulfillment. Hebrews 8 and 9 repeatedly point out that the OT pattern has been dissolved.

………………………….

9. A text to consider is Malachi 3 which speaks of Jesus suddenly coming to His temple and a purifying of God’s people before His return to earth.

………………………….

Kelly: Malachi 3 is partially fulfilled by Nehemiah himself in Nehemiah 13. It is also fulfilled when Jesus cleansed the temple twice. This argues against your theology. Jesus was able to cleanse the Temple without entering into its inner rooms.

…………………………..

Also Daniel 7:9-10 pictures the investigative judgment where the court is seated and the books are opened and a multitude of beings are present.

………………………….

Kelly: The little horn is being judged in Daniel 7, not the saints. There is not future condemnation of believers according to John 3:16; 5:24; Romans 5:1; 8:1; Hebrews 9:25-28 etc, etc, etc.

………………………….

The reason for this is that sin began in heaven, so God’s character is under attack by Satan who also challenges God’s Laws. The judgment shows in an open way before the universe that God is just and merciful.

………………………….

Kelly: You are dribbling SDA-isms that are now seen in Daniel. Daniel is not about the church. Daniel is about God's dealing with national Israel.

………………………….

At the same time there are many who profess to be believers but who do not practice what they preach, so a judgment is necessary to determine who are genuine believers. The judgment is given in favour of the saints (7:22).

………………………….

Kelly: Aha. The greatest SDA heresy. Nobody, absolutely nobody, can know for sure that they have been saved because they have not been judged yet.

………………………….

During the millennial judgment in Rev. 20 the saints also get to participate in the judgment of the wicked, so they also will see that God is fair.

………………………….

Kelly: I understood this to refer to God finally keeping all of his unconditional promises to national Israel. God is ruling Israel on earth and the saints are participating as rulers and judges.

………………………….

Then the City descends to earth, the wicked are destroyed in the fire and the earth cleansed and remade into an Eden paradise.

………………………….

Kelly: You have taken this out of sequence. The New Jerusalem does not descend to the new earth until AFTER the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of Revelation 20.

………………………….

10. I sent some tables in my last e-mail, I don’t know if you receive html or plain text so I have repeated them here:

The movement from holy to most holy corresponding to the feast days. The autumn feasts in the 7th month have their main focus on the return of Christ, and the spring ones on the death of Christ:

…………………………

Kelly: SDAs love charts because they can convince the simple not to perform deep study themselves. My point is that the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement are identical to the daily sacrifices in that they result in cleansing and atonement. The difference is that the Day of Atonement was a year-end final cleansing of previously unatoned sins.

……………………………..

Difference between the wilderness tabernacle and heavenly temple:

……………………………

Kelly: I agree with your chart.

……………………………

……………………………

……………………………

Reply and Response from First Exchange

Read first exchange to get full discussion.

 

Marc:  I believe Hebrews was not referring to a veil in heaven … but it does not follow that there is no veil in heaven, Hebrews never tells us what is in the heavenly temple. Paul is just using the earthly tabernacle as a parable (heb. 9:9). The evidence from Revelation 4-5 suggests the Presence is not limited to the MHP, but moves between Holy and Most Holy Place.

………………………….

Kelly: Again, where God is --there the MHP is. It is the MHP because God is there. Why would a heavenly sanctuary need a veil?

…………………………

2.      ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES:

Russ: The SDA argument is weak because no new "animal" arose to replace the goat of Greece. The pattern in Daniel 2 was to bring up a new metal and the pattern in Daniel 7 and 8 was to bring up a new animal for a new kingdom.

………………………….. 

Marc: There is a reason for that, because both were sacrificial animals, and the little horn of Daniel 8 covers both pagan and papal Rome.

………………………….

Russ: The little horn of Daniel 8 is a little horn from the Greek goat and no new nation is introduced with a new animal.

…………………………

Even in chapter 7 the little horn is part of the terrible beast so there are two powers in one beast.

……………………………

Russ: No. The little horn is a ruler of the beast. It is not a new nation.

……………………………

And in chapter 2 the iron does extend into the toes.

…………………………..

Russ: Yes it does. The feet and toes are part iron.

…………………………..

Marc: the ten tribes or horns replaces pagan Rome, they took its territory, but three were plucked up. This is the second stage.

…………………………..

Russ: Make up your mind. Did the little horn not replace the other 7 horns? Do SDAs not teach that the little horn replace all of pagan Rome and made it into papal Rome? Do you not know that France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany and even ruling families of Rome controlled the papacy?

…………………………

Marc: OK point taken, but Antiochus did not attack the truth of the sanctuary, papal Rome did, the prophecy said truth was cast to the ground.

……………………………..

Russ: The Greeks were actually worse than the Babylonians and Persians because they attempted to convert the conquered into adopting the Greek language and theology. They built a gymnasium near the Temple and corrupted the Jewish youth into exercising in the nude, trying to cover up their circumcision and worshipping Greek gods.

…………………….

Marc: The problem with Antiochus is that he does not fit all the criteria which is not enough.

…………………………….

Russ: When see from the correct perspective of his affect on God's people, he fits the description perfectly. On the other hand the papacy does not fit most of the description at all until it is blended with the papacy.

……………………………..

Marc: There may be a dual fulfilment, pagan Rome destroying the temple, papal Rome casting down the truth about the heavenly temple. In any case Jesus saw a future fulfilment, which suggests it was not about Antiochus.

…………………………..

Russ: Jesus saw a future fulfilment which suggests that is was a TYPE of Antiochus. Are you denying that the Jews saw any typology in Antiochus at all? That is absurd.

……………………….

Marc: According to the Hebrews the emphasis is on what happens at the end of the 2300 days.

…………………………….

Russ: Yes, at the END. Not to BEGIN at the end. The vision of Daniel 8 was to END at the end of the 2300 days. SDA theology denies that.

…………………………….

Marc: What do you make of the judgment scene in Daniel 7:9-10 after which the saints inherit the kingdom, and Rev. 14:7 which says the judgment hour has come (in the present tense)?

………………………………..

Russ: The little horn is being judged in Daniel 7, n not the saints. You make a giant leap trying to connect this to Leviticus 16. The judgment of antichrist in the last days will be immediately followed by God fulfilling his unconditional promises to Israel on earth.

The "present tense" of Revelation 14:7 certainly has no connection to 1844. I believe that the entire book of Revelation beyond chapter three will be fulfilled in the last days. On the other hand SDAs pick and choose what parts refer to the last days.

…………………………..

Marc: The day for a year is only used in apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, they are prophecies which span kingdoms, yet are short time periods given in symbolic language. Daniel does say that the 2300 years concerned the distant future.

…………………………………

Russ: "Only used in apocalyptic prophecy" ---Now you are inventing your own principles of interpretation. Was the 40 years for 40 days in Numbers 14:34 "apocalyptic"? This is how you ignore that the one-day-Day of Atonement typology could not last longer than one YEAR by using your own reckoning!

……………………..

Marc: chapter 9 speaks of the anointing of the heavenly sanctuary, chapter 8 of the cleansing of that sanctuary.

…………………………..

Russ: Daniel 9:24?

It could also refer to the anointing of the Messiah, or the Millennial Temple. However, if you are correct, then you are admitting SDA error. It is completely logical that Christ anointed the heavenly sanctuary when he first ascended and began his ministry there. If any part of the sanctuary is defiled and requires cleansing, then all of it is. If the entire sanctuary was anointed then so also was the MHP instead of 1844. The text says MHP which doubly argues against your 1844 scenario. You have destroyed your own argument.

……………………………..

Marc: It appears Daniel thought the 2300 days meant the exiles would not return after 70 years of Jeremiah he did not understand the vision. The 70 weeks begins with a decree to rebuild Jerusalem but ends with the coming of the Messiah and the anointing of the heavenly sanctuary.

…………………………….

Russ: Again, if any part of the sanctuary is defiled, then all of it is defiled and none of it can be used. If Jesus anointed the heavenly sanctuary at his ascension, then it did not need to be cleansed in 1844.

……………………………

Marc: This confirmed that the 2300 days did not mean the exile was cancelled or that some terrible disaster was awaiting the people. There is no vision in chapter 9, the angels comes to give understanding about the vision previously given. The wording is similar "understand" the "mareh" (applied to the 2300 days). The word for the whole vision is "hazon".

……………………………

Russ: If Daniel 9:24-27 ends with Christ anointing the Most Holy Place at his ascension in AD30/33, then the vision of 8:1-14 must also end in AD 30/33. How can your logic extend the vision to 1844 if you teach that it ends with Christ's ascension?

………………………………

Marc: there is a lot of very bad translation, when the Hebrews is clear why do people try to change it to fit their theories? The Hebrews supports that the emphasis is on the end of the 2300 days.

 

Russ: The vision was to END at the END of the 2300 days. Why do you teach that the Day of Atonement only BEGAN then and has already lasted 165 years?

 

Russ: C. If God had wanted us to connect it to the cleansing of the Day of Atonement, He would have surely used the word TAHER. Almost ALL of the modern translations have it correct.

 

Marc: No because it had a wider meaning, it was doing more than cleansing, it also involves the vindication of God.

 

Russ: The sanctuary of BC 515 was cleansed with a dedication. The sanctuary of BC 165 was cleansed with a re-dedication. Neither were cleaned with a Day of Atonement cleansing. Your interpretation has no context in Daniel or otherwise.

 

Russ: What gives you the authority to insist on interpreting Daniel 8:14 as prophetic years?

 

Marc: If you reject this what are you left with, a prophecy that was never fulfilled! God's Word cannot fail.

 

Russ: Only if you reject the Antiochus scenario between 168 and 165 BC. Your prophecy will never be fulfilled because the Presence of God cannot ever be defiled and require cleansing.

 

Marc: There is nothing to suggest the wicked can defile God's sanctuary except illegally …

 

Russ: You are definitely wrong on this point.

UN-ATONED SINS DEFILED THE SANCTUARY ON EARTH

 

SDAs teach that both the sanctuary on earth and also the one in heaven are defiled by sins which have already been confessed, atoned by a sacrifice and pronounced forgiven. In reality these  are the only sins committed by OT believers which did not “defile” the sanctuary on earth. And the heavenly sanctuary cannot be defiled in any manner.

 

Lev. 15:31 Thus shall you separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness that they do not die in their uncleanness when they “defile my tabernacle” that is among them.

 

Lev. 18:28 That the land does not spit you out also when you “defile” it, as it spat out the nations that were before you.

 

Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Moloch, “to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

 

Numb. 5:2 Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that has an issue [of blood] and whosoever is “defiled” by the dead.

Numb. 5:3 Put out both male and female. Put them outside the camp “that they do not defile their camps” in the midst whereof I dwell.

 


Numb. 19:13 Whosoever [priest] touches the dead body of any man that is dead and does not purify himself “defiles the tabernacle” of the LORD and that person shall be cut off from Israel ... (See also 19:20.)

 

Numb. 35:34 Do not “defile the land” which you shall inhabit wherein I dwell. For I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.

 

Ezra 2:62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy but they were not found. Therefore were they, “as polluted,” put from the priesthood.

 

While SDAs teach that the sanctuary was defiled by the confessed, forgiven and atoned sins of God’s people, exactly the opposite is true! The sanctuary was only defiled by un-atoned sins. Again, the atoned sins were the only ones that did not defile the sanctuary!

 

Marc: … in Leviticus it was the sins of the penitent that were transferred there.

 

Russ: Where in Leviticus? Where in the Bible? The sins of the penitent were washed away the moment the sacrifice died at the doorway. The sin did not enter the sanctuary. Any sin entering the sanctuary would require its IMMEDIATE cleansing.

 

Marc: Daniel never says the little horn defiled the sanctuary.

 

Russ: You have got to be kidding!  Did not Babylon defile the Temple when its soldiers entered and knocked it down??? Did not Antiochus defile it when he entered and offered a pig on the altar??? Where does Daniel say that the saints defiled it? The overwhelming focus of Daniel 7, 8 and 9 is the defiling acts of the little horn and pagan powers --not God's saints.

 

Marc: lack of biblical support fro this theory, the sanctuary was not defiled unconsciously.

 

Russ: Again, you have got to be kidding me. Read the first eight (8) chapters of Leviticus. Every sin, I repeat, every sin confessed and atoned in the sanctuary was of the nature of sins of ignorance or minor sins. The presumptuous sins were disciplined by the judges, not by the priests. You are showing a basic ignorance of the sacrificial laws in Leviticus.

 

Russ: B. The blood shed on the Day of Atonement did exactly the same thing as the blood shed every day of the year. It washed away sin at the entrance and it was presented to God as proof that the redemption price had been paid.

 C.  The only difference between the Day of Atonement and other days was to cover sins of ignorance which had not been previously confessed. And only minor sins of ignorance, accidental swearing and theft were brought to the sanctuary. Major presumptuous sins were brought to the judges and disciplined harshly. See Lev 4 and Heb 10:26 also.

 

Marc: lack of Biblical support for this theory.

 

Russ: This kind of blatant ignorance of God's Word separates SDAs from the rest of the Christian world. When confronted with the truth, all you can say is "lack of biblical support for this theory." The doorway of the tabernacle was as far as sin would go (Ex 29:42-43). Sin and sinners stopped at the doorway where the sacrifice was slain, “atonement” was made and the sinner was declared to be “accepted” (Lev 1:4), “cleansed” (Lev 12:8; Num 8:21) and “forgiven” (Lev 4:20, 35; 5:10, 13; 6:7). There is no indication that those same atoned sins would ever be reintroduced to condemn the penitent.

 

Marc: Gen. 2:2-3 the seventh day was made holy at Creation, Ex 20:11 links it to creation.

There is a possible reference to Sabbath in Ex. 5:5 and in Ex 16 in the giving of the manna God said how long will you continue to break my commandments? The weekly cycle began at creation not Sinai.

 

Russ: And how long was that first Sabbath in Genesis 2:2-3? Notice that it was not bounded by the phrase "and the evening and morning." Why? Because that first Sabbath lasted until Adam and Eve sinned. The Bible does not say how long the first Sabbath was. I contend that the Sabbath as a day of the week was lost when sin entered. That is why God had to restore it only to national Israel on in Exodus 16.

 

Marc: Leviticus only calls the Lord's goat a sin offering: Lev. 16:15, a sin offering had to be sacrificed to be a sin offering.

Also the scapegoat rite only happened after the sanctuary had been cleansed: Lev. 16:20

 

Russ: Wrong.

Lev 16:5 "And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering." Two goats for ONE sin offering.

Lev 16:7 "And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." According to Numbers 18:9 this made BOTH most holy.

Lev 14:49 "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop." Two birds for ONE offering of sin cleansing.

 

Marc: the Lord's goat was taken out of the camp afterwards. Azazel was never sacrificed.

 

Russ: Neither was the second bird of Leviticus 14:49 sacrificed. Its purpose was to point out that God does not remember sins after Calvary per Hebrews 8:12. You want to apply Hebrews 8:12 to long after 1844.

 

Russ: 16: Marc: -The rite of the scapegoat was only preformed after the sanctuary had been cleansed (Lev. 16:20).

 A.  The rite involving the scapegoat BEGAN when the congregation chose two equally qualified goats to present to God as ONE sin offering.

 B. The choosing of the goat "for Azazel" was an essential part of the removal of sin determined BEFORE the shedding of blood.

 

17.  Marc : -This goat was not sacrificed but led out into the wilderness to perish; it was not a sin offering for the people as the Lord’s goat was (Lev. 16:15).

 A.  It certainly was a sin offering. TWO GOATS for ONE SIN OFFERING.

 Lev 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

 Lev 16:7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

[THIS MAKES THEM BOTH MOST HOLY.]

 Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

 

Marc: In Lev. 16 the scapegoat does not make atonement for the people, the expression is different, atonement is made over it.

 

Russ: You want us to believe that the Most Holy Place was entered by the Most Holy High Priest with a Most Holy sin offering on the Most Holy Day of the year and then the high priest literally TOUCHED Satan himself in order to dispose of those sins! That is completely absurd and biblically impossible. Either the high priest would have been defiled or else the scapegoat (Satan) would have become most holy by being touched by the blood of the sin offering. Yet neither the high priest nor the man who took away the goat was required to offer a sin offering upon return. Again you show complete ignorance of the holiness required for the sanctuary.

 

Russ: The fact that Saul consulted a witch proves that OT Hebrews believed that the soul exists outside the body.

 

Marc: Can a witch call up a dead saint? Is this not rather a satanic deception to destroy Saul?

 

Russ: A witch cannot call up a dead saint. However the witch seems shocked when Samuel actually appeared. The point is that Saul's attempt to bring up Samuel proves that Saul believed that Samuel's disembodied soul survived death in another realm. How do you explain that?

 

Russ: 20.  Jesus and the Sabbath

Marc: -Isaiah speaks of righteous gentiles keeping the Sabbath.

 A.  Isa 56:6 only includes those Gentiles who become circumcised and agree to observe Israel's covenant. It does not include Gentiles outside of their covenant.

 B.  Ex 31:13-17 says that the Sabbath was a sign of the Old Covenant with national Israel. Not one missionary was ever sent out to convert Gentiles to the Law or Sabbath. Period.

 

Marc: Luther accepted the validity of the moral law and 10 commandments, as do most denominations in their creeds.

 

Russ: Be careful how you twist Luther. He did not equate the moral law to be the Ten Commandments. My web site has a sermon by Luther in 1525 which clarifies his view.

 

Marc: The argument is not whether to keep the moral law but whether the Sabbath is part of it.

 

Russ: And the Sabbath is not part of it. SDAs violate the 7th day Sabbath in many ways.

 

Marc: It is the origin of the Sabbath in creation that established it as a perpetual observance which will be kept in the New Earth - Isaiah 66:22-23.

 

Russ: The context of Isaiah 66 is the millennial kingdom rule of God on Earth to fulfill his many unconditional promises made to national Israel. SDAs ignore the whole chapter except verses 22-23 and especially ignore verse 24.

 

Marc: Many Gentile Christians did observe Saturday, in Britain they did until the 6th century and in Scotland until the 11th Century. It was also observed in Eithiopia and other places.

 

Russ: That does not make it a moral law. How many in the Artic Circle do not light fires on Saturday to keep warm?

 

I am still waiting for you to tell me what happened in Daniel 8:10-12. 

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here

Russell Earl Kelly, PH. D., 316 Aonia Road, Washington, Ga 30673