——>Your claim that Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy “comes out of” the 2300-day prophecy and must be years, ruling out Antiochus.
It comes out of the 2300 day(year) prophecy VISION. Daniel makes that very clear.
Dan 8:26“The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” 27I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.
Daniel 9:20While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill— 21while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. THEREFORE, CONSIDER THE WORD AND UNDERSTAND THE VISION:
Maybe you should phone a friend and ask a smart Evangelical to weigh in on it? Pretty simple concept.
Phil, Prince of Dim Light, your Adventist insistence that Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy “comes out of” the 2300-day/year vision from Daniel 8, bolstered by your smug taunt to “phone a friend,” is a desperate cling to Ellen G. White’s demonic distortions. You lean on Daniel 8:26-27 and 9:20-23 to claim Gabriel explains the 2300-day prophecy, forcing a year-long timeline to rule out Antiochus and prop up your 1844 Investigative Judgment. Pointing out the errors in this and the rest of Adventisms non Christian theology will thereby be exposing Seventh-day Adventism’s satanic cult.
| Adventist Claim | Christian Refutation |
|---|---|
| Claim: Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy “comes out of” the 2300-day/year prophecy vision. Evidence: “Daniel makes that very clear” with Daniel 8:26-27 and 9:20-23. | Biblical Refutation: No verse links Daniel 9:24-27’s 70 weeks to Daniel 8:14’s 2300 days. Daniel 9:2 shows Daniel praying about Jeremiah’s 70-year exile (Jeremiah 25:11-12), not reflecting on 8:14. Gabriel’s message (9:23) gives “insight and understanding” for the 70 weeks—490 years tied to the Messiah (9:26, c. 33 AD) and Jerusalem’s fall (70 AD)—not an explanation of the 2300 days. The texts are structurally distinct: 8:26 seals the first vision, 9:23 initiates the second. Historical Context: Early Jewish exegesis (e.g., Rashi) and Church Fathers (e.g., Jerome) treat 8:14 and 9:24 as separate, with 8:14 linked to Antiochus and 9:24 to Christ, not a 2300-year span. Logical Reasoning: If 9:24 explained 8:14, why no mention of the 2300 days in chapter 9? Your assumption is a forced leap, driven by White’s 1844 narrative. |
| Claim: Daniel didn’t understand the 2300-day/year prophecy, and Gabriel explains it in Daniel 9. Evidence: Daniel 8:27 (“it was beyond understanding”) and 9:22-23 (“give you insight and understanding”). | Biblical Refutation: Daniel 8:27 reflects exhaustion from the vision’s symbolic complexity (ram, goat, Little Horn), not a lack of understanding needing 9:24’s explanation. Daniel 9:22-23’s “insight and understanding” (Hebrew: *bin* and *sakal*) targets the 70 weeks, addressing Daniel’s prayer for Jerusalem (9:20), not the 2300 days. No verse suggests 9:24 clarifies 8:14. Linguistic Analysis: The Hebrew *chazon* (“vision”) in 8:26 and 9:23 refers to distinct revelations—8:14’s sanctuary focus, 9:24’s Messianic timeline. The Septuagint separates their contexts, refuting a single vision narrative. Logical Reasoning: If Gabriel explained 8:14 in 9:24, why omit the 2300-day detail? Your interpretation imposes a connection absent in the text. |
| Claim: The vision in Daniel 8:26 concerns the “distant future,” implying 2300 years to 1844. Evidence: “Seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future” (8:26). | Biblical Refutation: The Hebrew *acharit hayyamim* (“distant future”) in 8:26 denotes events beyond Daniel’s time, like Antiochus’ persecution (167-164 BC) or a later figure, not a specific 1844 date. Daniel 12:4 uses similar language for end-times, but 8:14’s context is Hellenistic (8:21-22), not eschatological. Historical Context: Jewish tradition (e.g., 1 Maccabees 4:52-56) and early Christian exegesis (e.g., Hippolytus) link 8:14 to Antiochus, not 1844. White’s 2300-year timeline is a 19th-century invention. Linguistic Analysis: *Ereb boqer* (“evenings and mornings”) mirrors Genesis 1:5’s daily cycle, suggesting literal days, not years, as the Septuagint confirms. |
| Claim: Since the 70 weeks are 490 literal years, the 2300 days must be years, ruling out Antiochus. Evidence: Daniel 9’s 70 weeks as 490 years. | Biblical Refutation: The 70 weeks (Daniel 9:25-26) are prophetic years (360 days each), totaling 490 years from 457 BC to 33 AD (Christ’s ministry), a context-specific calculation. Daniel 8:14’s “2300 evenings and mornings” denotes literal days, fitting Antiochus’ 2300-day reign (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 1:41-54). No verse mandates both be years—your assumption is arbitrary. Linguistic Analysis: The Hebrew *yom* (day) in Daniel often means literal days (e.g., 10:13), and *ereb boqer* reinforces this, unlike the prophetic years of 9:24. The Septuagint’s “days” for 8:14 contradicts your year-long leap. Logical Reasoning: If 2300 days were years, why no 2300-year mention in Daniel 9? Your logic is circular, forcing a timeline to fit White’s 1844 fantasy. |
| Claim: Antiochus cannot be the Little Horn due to the 2300-year timeline. Evidence: The “distant future” and year-long interpretation. | Biblical Refutation: Daniel 8:21-22 ties the Little Horn to Greece, fitting Antiochus’ persecution and Temple desecration (1 Maccabees 4:52-56). The 2300-day timeframe aligns with his 167-164 BC reign. Daniel 7’s Little Horn, from Rome, suits Nero (64-68 AD), not the papacy. Historical Context: Antiochus’ actions (1 Maccabees 1:41-49) match 8:11’s “taking away the daily sacrifice,” unlike the papacy’s orthodoxy (e.g., Nicaea, 325 AD). Logical Reasoning: Your 2300-year rejection of Antiochus presupposes the 1844 date, a circular argument lacking evidence. The text’s Hellenistic focus fits Antiochus, not a distant papacy. |
| Claim: The Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon,” Little Horn, Antichrist, etc., known by Reformers, deflected by Jesuit Preterism and Futurism. Evidence: Reformation history and Jesuit eschatology. | Biblical Refutation: Revelation 17:9’s “seven hills” and 17:6’s “blood of saints” fit first-century Rome (Tacitus, *Annals*, 15.44), not the Catholic Church, founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18-19). No verse names the papacy as Antichrist—1 John 2:18 defines it as denying Christ’s incarnation, which Catholicism upholds (CCC 464-469). Historical Context: Reformers’ “Antichrist” label was polemical (e.g., Luther vs. indulgences), not prophetic, and they rejected Adventism’s Sabbath and 1844. Jesuits’ Preterism/Futurism (e.g., Ribera, 1590) countered Protestant historicism, but Preterism predates them (e.g., Irenaeus, c. 180 AD). Logical Reasoning: If Reformers “knew” this, why no Sabbath mandate or 1844 judgment in their writings? Your claim relies on White’s revisionism, not history. |
| Claim: “Phone a friend” taunt, implying I need Evangelical help. Evidence: Sarcastic dismissal of my argument. | Logical Reasoning: My refutation stands on Scripture (Daniel 9:23, Hebrews 9:12) and history (1 Maccabees, Early Fathers), not Jesuit trickery. Your taunt dodges the issue—produce a verse linking 8:14 to 9:24. Evangelicals like R.C. Sproul reject your 1844 timeline, aligning with my Antiochus view. Your sarcasm exposes your weakness, Phil, not my argument. |
Your argument stems from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:
| Adventist Error | Details | Biblical Refutation |
|---|---|---|
| False Prophecies | White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132). | Deuteronomy 18:22 |
| Investigative Judgment | Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422). | Hebrews 9:12 |
| Sabbath Idolatry | Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612). | Colossians 2:16-17 |
Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies.