No it wont - some lean on the day for a year principle which is needed for other prophecies, but in Dan 8:14 doesnt require it. Daniel asks the angel for how long will the sanctuary be desolate. And Dan 8:14 can be understood, since it is Sanctiary language, as - "after 2300 Days of Attonements have passed, which is once a year at the end of the year, therefore 2300 Days of attonements equates to years.
@R2D21844 no, it does not say that. "Evening and mornings" which is evening and morning sacrifices. It clearly states also that the sacrifices would cease.
Don’t know the background, but the Speaker’s clarity on justification by faith, and sanctification being the fruit of that justification, is precise... but I’m getting the sense that his insistence on the point is why there seems to be enmity between the Speaker and the SDA institutional church. I could be wrong, and it doesn’t matter... but what isn’t wrong is the Speaker’s clarity of the past and present tenses of salvation. Cudos to the Speaker for standing firm.
Yes, he was asked to resign from being an official teacher/minister of the SDA church in the 80’s because he was exposing the false teachings of the sanctuary and investigative judgement There was a whole 3 day event in the 80’s in glacier view; many people left the SDA church because of what he shared He still remained part of the SDA church because his dream was to see them break off from the heretical teachings of Ellen white etc, he wanted to see them truly become a biblical church
@@bbsvchic Thank you Rachel for the reply. If I may ask, further listening to the Speaker Des Ford on the book of Romans, he seems to elevate Christ to where Christ is entitled -- but this is not what I had expected of a SDA teacher. What do regular SDA members understand as the means of justification?
@Michael Heathman yes and the Lord has some words for you...''Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God''. Your attitude and hatard is not of God but the devil! Its the Bible the reveals who and what babylon is and rather than condemn the messenger how about giving heed to the one who inspired the message and ''come out''?
@Michael Heathman Your possessed by hatred and blind on the wine of Babylon so how can anyone reason with you? Ask yourself...why such hate? That hate is not of God and your hatred for the SDA church should tell you who is pulling your strings. I think of Paul in his pre conversion days. He hated the young church of Christ. He put countless men women and children in jail and to death. All until one day he found out he was fighting against the truth as it is in Jesus!! Are you a Paul...honestly thinking your doing His will? Or are you just some sinner hating aNYone who challenges your cheap grace, sin and live evangelical theology? I can't read your heart but I can say that your actions should have you looking hard and long in the mirror!!! If the Lord in His mercy doesn't intervene your going to wake up one day tio find you were fighting against the Lord. May He have mercy on your soul!!
I really have appreciated Desmond Ford and how he become aware that he's saved (at the moment he believed in the salvation that which was done on the cross in Jesus said it's finished )!!!!!and he makes the point very clear that he understands that, and I so appreciate that.... but after all these years he still doesn't understand what is going on in Daniel chapter 8 versus 8 9 10 11 12 13 and 14. I don't know if he's still alive or not. but I wish I could find a way to communicate with him .but maybe somebody can forward this to him in some way if he's still living .I watched his videos way back from the '80s ..somebody needs to tell him to understand Daniel 8 ,the versus pertaining to the little horn he needs to understand that Daniel 9:26 tells you in order what happens prior to the 70th week in Daniel 9:27 it tells you that Titus destroyed the temple in 9:26 in Daniel 9:26 the words are put in order as they happened!!!! from the beginning as they happen !!! ( so Daniel 9:27 didn't happen till after Titus destroyed the temple. ) Daniel 9:27 is speaking about the same image that's described in Daniel 8.) those verses I just quoted, that time hasn't happened yet .....and that's why he can't understand it there needs to be another temple built in Israel!!!! on the Temple mount which is about to happen ...but it requires( an agreement on a world leader the Antichrist that little horn to make it.!!!!) happen). Notice the words used describing the personality of the little horn in Daniel 8 and Daniel 9:27 it adds that he would break the covenant and there would be three and a half years remaining the three and a half years matches 1,260 days or 42 months. ( a time, times and a half a Time.) This is what the description is talking about in Matthew 24:15 where Jesus tells you to go back and read the book of Daniel to understand what he's talking about the( abomination of desolation )hasn't happened yet. he's looking forward .once there's a temple built and that agreement is fulfilled in Daniel 9:27. he breaks the covenant he walks in and calls himself God. . as described in second Thessalonians chapter 2 )!! and he desecrates it and it's trampled down by the gentiles for 42 months .as described in Daniel 8:13 in Revelation 11 verse 2 in Revelation 11 verse 2 he's describing a future Temple that (does not have an outer Court built) (that's never happened before ) that's letting you know this is a future thing ,the saints that understand that we're sitting back watching this is not for the gentiles....!!! when Daniel was spoken to, it was for his people and his City!! For all of time.!! For all of time including the 70th week !!! and they can't get that temple built ,until there's an agreement : because they don't own the Temple mount it's owned by the Muslims. can someone explain this to him!!!!!! is he still alive??. The 2300 days if you read it as it's written in Daniel 8 it lets you know the (starting point when the daily sacrifice starts )until the time it's cleansed) and that's when Jesus Christ comes back it's within the 70th week or 7 years... If the covenant is broken at 1,260 days then. the daily sacrifice would have needed to be going on for1,040 days. From the time the agreement would be made for 7 years which is a 360 day year, in this case because in Matthew 24 Jesus said unless the time would be cut short,, he talks about the time being cut short or no man would be alive Matthew 24:22. That gives them 220 days to build the temple . (if you ( Google the temple institute in Israel) they have a lot of stuff prepared and they're building a lot of stuff off site). the same as they did in the Old testament. so once they get their clearance time, this won't take long ) to set up. Remember though (this is for the prophecy that Daniel made( to his people) ( this is not for the gentiles.!! we just understand it ,and observe it.) That's why Jesus tells the people in Judea to flee, they believe the guy that makes the agreement could be the Messiah .because that's the only way they believe it could happen, but when they realize he comes into the temple and calls himself God, they know it's not their Messiah and he tells them to run and he protects them for 1,260 days the exact same time. Revelations chapter 12 verse 6. An Revelations 12:14!!!
when we oppose judgement doctrine using Daniel 8 the words of Solomon in ecclesiastics 3 have no meaning anymore.......17 I said to myself, “God will bring into judgment both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to judge every deed.”......I guess Solomon was wrong too....why would the righteous be judged and why would their deeds be judged?......why would Paul address the Corinthian Christians and say ....10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.........Paul ,why would believes appear before a judgement seat ?......why would Paul repeat the same to the Christians in Rome ......10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. .....why would believers stand before a judgement seat ?......why is Paul warning us NOT to judge one another and point us to a judgement seat where will will be all accountable ?........what would be free me from condemnation? ......So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus....but why iam so uncomfortable with judgement if I am in Christ...?.........surely I should be happy with this..... revelation 3:5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels...so why can't I be happy that the court session in Daniel 7 embarrasses my accuser ,and Christ actually acknowledges my name before the FATHER AND ANGELS ?......and like in Zachariah 3 white robs are given to those hidden in Christ .....I think there is a better way of dealing with judgement by establishing factually if the bible teaches a judgement of saints (Not condemnation).if we establish that Solomon and Paul are saying YES about it then we can at least keep that in mind and says "we dont know when" but Daniel 7 has hope for those who see that court session .....because it says ....21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom....judgement is in their favour ...whenever you deal with Daniel 7 ...judgement is in our favour....the accuser has day in court to accuse and must be answered by that court ....Daniel 7 does not says saints will be examined but the bible says so as a unit of scripture ....the SAINTS ARE AWARDED IN THEIR FAVOUR in Daniel 7.the silence of Daniel 7 on saints being judged is the only reason for rejection of investigative judgement but as a unit of scripture Solomon says we will be examined and Paul says so.runing with Paul and Solomon what then is the nature of our judgement as saints ?.....the lamb took our condemnation ,I accepted his royalty and he took away my slavery away from me .....some one wants to keep me a slave ...I need my day in court! judgment in my favour please !......so judgement is pronounced in favour of saints ( Daniel 7)without even checking why the saints deserve that favour ?...nice one ......And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment.........why not just assume that all the guest are ok.....why examine the saints ?....
I hear SDA apologists argue that Antiochus Epiphanes can't be the little horn of Daniel 8 because he didn't become "exceedingly great" like Rome did. Any response to this? Daniel 8 says that goat on whom the horn springs up represents Greece, and the Roman empire didn't come out of Greece, which would seem to refute this idea, but the problem of "exceedingly great" still remains.
There's many reasons why Antiochus Epiphanes IS NOT the little horn! Little horn" rose out of ten divisions of Rome. Therefore it is Roman. Daniel 7:7, 8. This view is held by the modernist schools which reject Daniel as a prophet. According to Jerome and Bishop Thomas Newman the Antiochus view was originated by Porphyry (Died AD 304). Porphyry was a pagan whose one aim was to stop the advance of Christianity. His theory was not to expound Daniel but to discredit and deny Daniel as a prophet. He did not try to confirm the Bible, but to deny it's divine origin. It was a pagan attack to hold back Christianity's inroads into paganism. Daniel therefore, according to this theory, was not a prophet but merely an historian. It was the amazing accuracy of the sure word of prophecy and its uncanny fulfillment that made Porphyry claim Daniel was written after the events of Antiochus, hence was not a prophecy at all. Such is the origin of this God dishonoring and truth opposing theory. Antiochus did not rise after the "ten kings" Daniel 7:6. Antiochus was only one of the Syrian kings and not a new kingdom. Antiochus was not "diverse" from his predecessors Daniel 7:7, 24 It is impossible to find three kings whom Antiochus plucked up. Daniel 7:8, 24 He was not "more stout than his fellows" Daniel 7:20. His father, not he was called Antiochus the Great. His (Antiochus Epiphanes) persecutions did not last even 3.5 literal years. Antiochus did not continue until the Judgment before the Ancient of Days. Daniel 7:9-14, 26, 27. These few facts overthrow this pagan, modernistic theory that tries to make Daniel a mere historian and not a prophet of God. The vain attempts to make Antiochus the little horn of Daniel 8 fail likewise. Antiochus was not a horn or a kingdom. A Horn of a beast is never taken for a single person, but signifies a new kingdom. The "four horns" of the He-goat were "four kingdoms" (Daniel 8:22). Antiochus was merely one of a line of kings and not a separate kingdom. Hence he was merely a part of one of the horns. Antiochus reigned over one of the four horns and "the little horn" was a fifth power. Therefore, Antiochus was not the "little horn". Rome was "the little horn.”. Antiochus certainly did not "wax exceeding great". He was not even the strongest of the Seleucid section of Alexander's kingdom. Antiochus was weak and was tributary to the Romans. Antiochus certainly did not wax "exceeding great towards the south" Daniel 8:9. His march to the south" to Egypt was stopped by the mere word of an unarmed Roman officer. When Antiochus said he would think about the Roman's demand the Roman drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus and told him he would do his thinking within that circle. Antiochus turned and retreated. He was frightened out of Egypt by an unarmed representative of Rome. He was later routed by the Jews. To apply this prophecy of a world power a super power which waxed "exceeding great towards the south" to this cruel but weak creature appears to be the height of folly and is advanced merely to avoid or explain away this divine prophecy. It is very apparent that the "little horn" of either Daniel 7 and 8 does not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes. The facts do not fit the specifications of Prophecy. Applying the prophecy to Antiochus was a poor pagan's attempt to avoid his God required responsibilities and to excuse his rejection of truth. He tried to discredit the divine predictions of the one whom Christ called "Daniel the Prophet". Daniel was not a mere historian as this truth-rejector would imply. The finger of Daniel’s prophecy points with infallible accuracy to the awful Roman apostasy that climaxed in the Papacy who cast down the truth, wears out the saints of the Most High, and continues through the "time of the end" and will continue to the "end of time".
SURE, HERE'S WHY. FROM URIAH SMITH'S DANIEL AND THE REVELATION CHAPTER 8, PAGES 156-161 A Little Horn Comes Forth.-- A third power is here introduced into the prophecy. In the explanation given to Daniel by the angel this symbol is not described as definitely as are Medo-Persia and Greece. There are two common interpretations of the symbol which need be noticed in these brief comments. The first is that the "little horn" denotes the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes. The second is that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test these two positions. Does the Little Horn Denote Antiochus?--If Antiochus Epiphanes does not fulfill the specifications of the prophecy, the application cannot be made to him. The little horn came out of one of the four horns of the goat. It was therefore a power existing distinct from any of the other horns of the goat. Was Antiochus such a power? Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of Alexander's empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these was Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian horn of the goat. He was, therefore, for the time being, that horn. Hence HE COULD NOT AT THE SAME TIME be a separate and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as was the little horn. If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes was not by any means the most powerful king of the Syrian line. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, "The Illustrious," he was illustrious only in name. Nothing, says Prideaux, on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be more alien to his true character; because of his vile and extravagant folly, some thought him a fool and changed his name from Epiphanes, "The Illustrious," to Epimanes, "The Madman." Antiochus the Great, the father of Epiphanes, being defeated in a war with the Romans, was able to procure peace only by the payment of a prodigious sum of money and the surrender of a part of his territory. As a pledge that he would faithfully adhere to the terms of the treaty, he was obliged to give hostages, among whom was Epiphanes, his son, who was carried to Rome. The Romans EVER AFTERWARD maintained this ascendancy. The little horn of the goat was to wax exceeding great; but Antiochus Epiphanes DID NOT BECOME EXCEEDING GREAT. On the contrary, he did not enlarge his dominion, except by some temporary conquests in Egypt. These he immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy and commanded him to desist from his designs on that territory. The rage of his disappointed ambition he vented upon the unoffending Jews. THE LITTLE HORN, in comparison with the powers that preceded it, WAS EXCEEDING GREAT. PERSIA IS SIMPLY CALLED GREAT, though it consisted of a hundred twenty-seven provinces. (Esther 1: 1.) GRECIA, being more extensive still, IS CALLED VERY GREAT. Now THE LITTLE HORN, which WAXED EXCEEDING GREAT, MUST SURPASS THEM BOTH. How absurd, then, to apply this Antiochus, who was obliged to abandon Egypt at the dictation of the Romans. It cannot take long for anyone to decide the question which was the greater power--the one which evacuated Egypt, or the one which commanded that evacuation. The LITTLE HORN was to stand up against the Prince of princes, which expression refers, beyond controversy, to Jesus Christ. (Daniel 9: 25; Acts 3: 15; Revelation 1: 5.) But ANTIOCHUS DIED ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR YEARS BEFORE OUR LORD WAS BORN. The prophecy cannot therefore apply to him, for he does not fulfill the specifications in a single particular. The question may then be asked, Why has anyone ever tried to apply it to him? We answer, Roman Catholics take that view to avoid the application of the prophecy to themselves; and many Protestants follow them, apparently in order to oppose the doctrine that the second advent of Christ is now at hand. END PART ONE
CONTINUED PART 2 The Little Horn Denotes Rome.--It has been an EASY MATTER to show that the LITTLE HORN DOES NOT DENOTE ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES. It will be AS EASY to show that IT DOES DENOTE ROME. The field of vision here is substantially the same as that covered by Nebuchadnezzar's image of Daniel 2, and the vision of Daniel 7. In both these prophetic delineations we have found that THE POWER which SUCCEEDED GRECIA as the FOURTH great power (DAN -2 LEGS OF IRON, DAN 7-BEAST, DAN 8-LITTLE HORN) was ROME. The only natural inference would be that the little horn, the power which in this vision succeeds Grecia as an "exceeding great" kingdom, is also Rome. The little horn comes froth from one of the horns of the goat. How, it may be asked, can that be true of Rome? Earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy until they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League in 161 B.C. But seven years before this, that is, 168 B.C., Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the overthrow of the Macedonian horn of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It appeared to the prophet as coming forth from of the horns of the goat. The little horn waxed great toward THE SOUTH. This was true of Rome. EGYPT WAS MADE A PROVINCE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN 30 B.C., and continued such for some centuries. The little horn waxed great toward the east. This also was true of ROME. She CONQUERED SYRIA in 65 B.C., and made it a province. The little horn waxed great toward THE PLEASANT LAND. So did Rome. Judea is called "the pleasant land" in many scriptures. The ROMANS made it a province of their empire in 63 B.C., and eventually destroyed the city and the temple, and scattered the Jews throughout the earth. The little horn "waxed great, even to ["against," margin] the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground." Rome did this also. In this expressions two figures are introduced, "THE HOST" and "THE STARS." When used in a symbolic sense concerning events taking place on earth, these figures refer almost always to THE PEOPLE OF GOD AND THEIR LEADERS. In verse 13 of this chapter we read that BOTH the SANCTUARY and the HOST will be TRODDEN UNDER FOOT. Here undoubtedly reference is made to GOD'S PEOPLE and the PLACE OF THEIR WORSHIP. The stars would naturally represent the leaders of the work of God. This thought is further indicated in one of the applications of Revelation 12: 4 where we read that the great red dragon, a symbol of ROME, cast down a THIRD PART OF THE STARS TO THE GROUND. END PART ONEThe little horn "magnified himself even to the PRINCE of the host." ROME AONE DID THIS. In the interpretation (verse 25) the little horn is said to "STAND UP AGAINST THE PRINCE OF PRINCES." This is clearly an allusion to the crucifixion of our Lord under the jurisdiction of the Romans. Rome in Two Aspects.--By the little horn "the daily sacrifice was taken away." This little horn symbolized ROME in its entire history, including its two phases, PAGAN AND PAPAL. These two phases are elsewhere spoken of as the "daily" (sacrifice is a supplied word) and the "transgression of desolation;" the daily (desolation) evidently signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of desolation, the papal. (See comments on verse 13.) In the actions ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of, sometimes the other. "BY HIM [THE PAPAL FORM] the DAILY [THE PAGAN FORM] WAS TAKEN AWAY." Pagan Rome was remodeled into papal Rome. "The place of his sanctuary," or worship, the CITY OF ROME, WAS CAST DOWN. The SEAT OF GOVERNMENT WAS REMOVED BY CONSTANTINE TO CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 330. This same transaction is brought to view in Revelation 13: 2, where it is said that THE DRAGON, PAGAN ROME, GAVE TO THE BEAST, PAPAL ROME, HIS SEAT, THE CITY OF ROME. A "host was given him [the little horn] against the daily." The barbarians that subverted the Roman Empire in the changes, attritions, and transformations of those times, became converts to the Catholic faith, and the instruments of the dethronement of their former religion. Though conquering Rome politically, they were themselves vanquished religiously by the theology of Rome, and became the perpetuators of the same empire in another phase. This was brought about by reason of "transgression;" that is, by the working of the mystery of iniquity. The papacy may be called a system of iniquity because it has done its evil work under the pretense of the pure and undefiled religion. Of this false religious system, Paul wrote in the first century to the Thessalonians, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." 2 Thessalonians 2: 7. The LITTLE HORN "CAST DOWN THE TRUTH TO THE GROUND, AND PRACTICED AND PROSPERED." This describes in few words the work and career of the papacy. The truth is by it hideously caricatured, loaded with traditions, turned into mummery and superstition, cast down and obscured. Of this ecclesiastical power it is declared that it has "practiced"--practiced its deceptions on the people, practiced in schemes of cunning to carry out its own ends and aggrandize its own power. Likewise it has "prospered." It has made war upon the saints, and prevailed against them. It has well-nigh run its allotted career, and is soon to be broken without hand, to be given to the burning flame, and to perish in the consuming glories of the second appearing of our Lord. Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and on other, is the power in question. The inspired descriptions given in the word of God of the character of this system are fully met, and the prophecies concerning it have been most strikingly and accurately fulfilled in history. [END]
Dear Dr. Ford, thank you for your studies. I write about different topics. His position regarding Hebrews opened my understanding, from there I considered other topics, for example I learned that Miguel is really an Archangel who is not Christ, I also saw the errors of the historical Apocaliptica interpretation of the Adventists and their pioneers, I have I read the book of Enoch regularly and I can see in the scriptures that the early Church always believed in it, besides, Judas Mencioana, one of his Messianic prophecies. What is your position regarding this Book and its teachings? Bless god you
Precisamos urgentemente legendas em português. Poxa! Será possível? Um Pastor do calibre do Dr Desmond Ford tem que ser traduzido para vários idiomas. Por favor, palestra do Dr Ford em português!!!!!!
RIP Dr Ford, but you are giving too much deference to EG White. Her writings contradict her statements that she isn't on equal standing with the Bible. The Bible IS interpreted through the lens of her writings by the church. And her writings endorse that practice.
I think there there is a difference in biblical scholarly wisdom and the wisdom of unbelieving scholars. Isn't that what the verse you refer to is talking about, Wellness Proverb?? I have a tendency to want to listen to a man/woman of God with more education than one who is not well studied. I live in an area where some die-hard Pentecostal Holiness Christians won't allow their children to go to college because of the misinterpretation you just posted. They believe that higher education is vanity and the more educated you are...the less spiritual you are. (They also handle rattlesnakes and copperheads, drink strychnine, and the women soak their hair in kerosene and place their hair over flames) as part of their worship service! It's from an uneducated interpretation of where Mark he says "These signs shall follow them..." These folks interpret this as a "command" pick up snakes to prove their faith in God. These churches pay big money for "snake catchers" to bring them to them. Many have died from this ignorance. If they are bitten, they claim that the Lord told them to pick up a particular snake, but disobeyed God and picked up a different snake. I'm not saying that uneducated people cannot hear from God or understand God's word, but I prefer to listen to a teacher who has done their own homework. And as for Dr. Ford "esteeming men and scholars," isn't that what Adventists do with Sister White? She was a very good person, nevertheless, she was human, and with many Adventists, her writings seem to replace the written word of the Only Infallible.
I am one of the simple minded ones who takes the Bible literal sometimes to my own fall, without wisdom. I am a silly guy. Not as bright and wise as desmond ford. EGW however was a true Servant of the Lord. Desmond Ford? I don't know. I am sure the EGW was. Her works also do follow her. I never asked the Lord about Desmond Ford. desmond ford is a very educated man. I am not. I just want to glory in the Lord to be honest.
Over 40 years ago I heard Dr. Ford speak ! It was a life changing experience ! For the first time I felt comfortable in my belief in Christ & salvation At 35 yr old, a former history teacher at an Adventist Academy I had already determined that Ellen G White was not a Prophet sent by God & was being used by the church to promote false doctrine I will always be grateful for Dr Fords messages & feel grateful for his you tube talks
Kathy Anaya No Adventist has ever, ever any such thing that Ellen White books is higher or equal to the Bible never. What we say is its a lesser light in support or interpret some of the Bible passages which are difficult to understand, thank you.
Dittos to Desmond Ford. Justification by faith implies forensic justification 'before" faith. Why? Because of the blood. How? As the angel Gabriel implied to Mary, at the 'union' of the newly created sperm by YHWH himself and the already living egg of Mary, when Mary would concieve "in the womb (the fallopian tube), 'justification' by the blood (i.e. BEFORE faith) was accomplished by the creator himself the nanosecond that the creator and the creation become 'one' physically, BEFORE a human being expressed faith in the union of the sperm and the egg. Art
Jujo1up. Christs conception to do with Gods " sperm' or Mary's " egg". Heb 10,5 says the Father prepared His Body . Christs conception had nothing to do with human interference. But His embryo was placed in Mary's womb by the Spirit. If Mary was Christ's biological mother, Jesus xould not be called " that holy thing". If Jesus had a sinful nature like us He could not be our Savior from sin . A sinful human cannot forgive AND cleanse another human being. You can't clean a dirty floor with a dirty mop . No one can get to heaven "dirty".
Sadly some people look to the men in a church and not the message . Adventists have gone rhrough trials as any other church can. There will always be wheat and tares in any church . Our work is not to do the judging but let God work it out and He will and He does.
For anyone interesting in whether Antiochus Epiphanis is what Daniel 11 is about, here is a detailed series about that topic: ruclips.net/video/gt28vJ0waog/видео.html For those who are just interested in the answer it's very simple, there is no chance that Daniel 11 is speaking about Antiochus Epiphanis.
Although he renounced the 1844/Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment, sadly, Des went to his grave as an Adventist at heart. He still held Ellen White in high regard (as shown in this video), still preached about the necessity of the Sabbath, still promoted the SDA health message etc. In the video "Bye Bye to the Investigative Judgment", Ford said he got baptized into the SDA Church at the age of 15, despite being full aware of Hebrews 6:19-20 about Christ entering "within the vail" at his ascension to heaven, still referred to the SDA Church as "HIS church" and still held hope for them in the future that they'd change! Need I say anything more? The delusion took a big stranglehold over him and couldn't get the monkey off his back. Des simply COULD NOT LET GO and held nice, fuzzy wuzzy feelings from his time during the "good ol' days of Adventism. This weird blend and concoction of beliefs largely explains why his son Luke ended up the way he did.
Des and I did leave the church in 2000 when we came home to Australia from USA. We attended a local SDA church from 2016 to 2017 until Des's health failed, but we would not have sought membership again. We both came into the denomination from outside. Neither of us regret becoming Adventists, and I can still happily attend a church that teaches what I learned in 1964 in New Zealand. Des sought to preach the gospel of righteousness by faith as taught by Luther and an Adventist view of prophecy that centred on the cross of Christ not the denomination as the axis mundi.
@@gillianford5928 : Des Ford was a great man but he is no DM Canright. The theological premise of Adventism is inconsistent with the Bible even from a purely academic position. Ellen White the great plagiarist, liar, necromancer, racist and fraud even denied the divinity of Christ at some point in her ministry and had a plethora of false prophesies though she required only one false prophesy to fall foul of Deuteronomy 18:22 the biblical prophetic litmus test. Pioneering Adventists like JN Andrews and James White had an Arian theology till their deaths which is INCOMPATIBLE with the theological slant advocated by the SDA cult contemporarily. The investigative judgement is one of the foulest pieces of theological putrefactions employed to explain away a series of lies about the return of Christ. Lies which Ellen White consistently made. Adventism was conceived in error and it has required a monumental effort in artifice and fraud to warrant it’s support. Desmond Ford was a great man and he was sadly abused by the SDA cult at Glacier View even though he put the SDA magisterium to shame and was right on the issues. Desmond Ford is no DM CANWRIGHT because in the final analysis he failed to come full circle and exorcise the scourge of Adventism.
@@gillianford5928 : The Adventist View of prophesy is fraught with error and it is interesting that William Miller had the honesty to repudiated the Adventist argument on 1844. Sadly Ellen White did not. Desmond Ford was a great man and will always have a place of respect in my estimation. Why would you feel comfortable in a church which rejects a fundamental aspect of biblical eschatology which Desmond Ford was a great champion of? The way the SDA treated Walter Rae was also sad.
@@clarkent61 Hallo Ezra, message me on my FB page (with my brother and mother featured at the top. I am interested to find out your background. The necromancy suggestion is a new one to me. Des read Canright and much other material on EGW and had an encyclopaedic knowledge of her writings which he read from when he was a boy. He just did not come to the same conclusions as you did; it's a shame he's gone and you can't talk to him about this.. He maintained his focus on the love of Christ and died with no bitterness towards anybody. I thought he was a miracle of godliness.
Despite all the scholarship against Adventism Dezmond Ford still did not want to leave this cult...ops church. The man had no courage. Desmond Ford is no DM Canright.
Misunderstanding 2300 "evening mornings" as "2300 years" will go down as one of the biggest cockups in the history of Bible interpretation.
No it wont - some lean on the day for a year principle which is needed for other prophecies, but in Dan 8:14 doesnt require it. Daniel asks the angel for how long will the sanctuary be desolate. And Dan 8:14 can be understood, since it is Sanctiary language, as - "after 2300 Days of Attonements have passed, which is once a year at the end of the year, therefore 2300 Days of attonements equates to years.
@Michael Heathman 165bc? that came right from the roman papacy!
@@R2D21844 I suggest you come back and read what I put up then you will understand what's going on here.
@R2D21844 no, it does not say that. "Evening and mornings" which is evening and morning sacrifices. It clearly states also that the sacrifices would cease.
WELL STATED ,DR. FORD! I have some of your books and would like to to say you are one of the best if not the best scholars of our church !
Don’t know the background, but the Speaker’s clarity on justification by faith, and sanctification being the fruit of that justification, is precise... but I’m getting the sense that his insistence on the point is why there seems to be enmity between the Speaker and the SDA institutional church.
I could be wrong, and it doesn’t matter... but what isn’t wrong is the Speaker’s clarity of the past and present tenses of salvation.
Cudos to the Speaker for standing firm.
Yes, he was asked to resign from being an official teacher/minister of the SDA church in the 80’s because he was exposing the false teachings of the sanctuary and investigative judgement
There was a whole 3 day event in the 80’s in glacier view; many people left the SDA church because of what he shared
He still remained part of the SDA church because his dream was to see them break off from the heretical teachings of Ellen white etc, he wanted to see them truly become a biblical church
@@bbsvchic
Thank you Rachel for the reply.
If I may ask, further listening to the Speaker Des Ford on the book of Romans, he seems to elevate Christ to where Christ is entitled -- but this is not what I had expected of a SDA teacher.
What do regular SDA members understand as the means of justification?
This is Gill Ford. There are some pretty mean replies here. You show yourself by your works.
@Michael Heathman yes and the Lord has some words for you...''Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God''. Your attitude and hatard is not of God but the devil!
Its the Bible the reveals who and what babylon is and rather than condemn the messenger how about giving heed to the one who inspired the message and ''come out''?
@Michael Heathman Your possessed by hatred and blind on the wine of Babylon so how can anyone reason with you? Ask yourself...why such hate? That hate is not of God and your hatred for the SDA church should tell you who is pulling your strings. I think of Paul in his pre conversion days. He hated the young church of Christ. He put countless men women and children in jail and to death. All until one day he found out he was fighting against the truth as it is in Jesus!! Are you a Paul...honestly thinking your doing His will? Or are you just some sinner hating aNYone who challenges your cheap grace, sin and live evangelical theology? I can't read your heart but I can say that your actions should have you looking hard and long in the mirror!!! If the Lord in His mercy doesn't intervene your going to wake up one day tio find you were fighting against the Lord. May He have mercy on your soul!!
@Michael Heathman just trying to help brother. Oh i'm waiting for you to show how the SDA church makes Jesus the little horn, AND USE YOUR BIBLE!
@@michaelreyes-er8el by your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 that's how you do it .come back and read what I posted.
I really have appreciated Desmond Ford and how he become aware that he's saved (at the moment he believed in the salvation that which was done on the cross in Jesus said it's finished )!!!!!and he makes the point very clear that he understands that, and I so appreciate that.... but after all these years he still doesn't understand what is going on in Daniel chapter 8 versus 8 9 10 11 12 13 and 14. I don't know if he's still alive or not. but I wish I could find a way to communicate with him .but maybe somebody can forward this to him in some way if he's still living .I watched his videos way back from the '80s ..somebody needs to tell him to understand Daniel 8 ,the versus pertaining to the little horn he needs to understand that Daniel 9:26 tells you in order what happens prior to the 70th week in Daniel 9:27 it tells you that Titus destroyed the temple in 9:26 in Daniel 9:26 the words are put in order as they happened!!!! from the beginning as they happen !!! ( so Daniel 9:27 didn't happen till after Titus destroyed the temple. ) Daniel 9:27 is speaking about the same image that's described in Daniel 8.) those verses I just quoted, that time hasn't happened yet .....and that's why he can't understand it there needs to be another temple built in Israel!!!! on the Temple mount which is about to happen ...but it requires( an agreement on a world leader the Antichrist that little horn to make it.!!!!) happen). Notice the words used describing the personality of the little horn in Daniel 8 and Daniel 9:27 it adds that he would break the covenant and there would be three and a half years remaining the three and a half years matches 1,260 days or 42 months. ( a time, times and a half a Time.) This is what the description is talking about in Matthew 24:15 where Jesus tells you to go back and read the book of Daniel to understand what he's talking about the( abomination of desolation )hasn't happened yet. he's looking forward .once there's a temple built and that agreement is fulfilled in Daniel 9:27. he breaks the covenant he walks in and calls himself God. . as described in second Thessalonians chapter 2 )!! and he desecrates it and it's trampled down by the gentiles for 42 months .as described in Daniel 8:13 in Revelation 11 verse 2 in Revelation 11 verse 2 he's describing a future Temple that (does not have an outer Court built) (that's never happened before ) that's letting you know this is a future thing ,the saints that understand that we're sitting back watching this is not for the gentiles....!!! when Daniel was spoken to, it was for his people and his City!! For all of time.!! For all of time including the 70th week !!! and they can't get that temple built ,until there's an agreement : because they don't own the Temple mount it's owned by the Muslims. can someone explain this to him!!!!!! is he still alive??. The 2300 days if you read it as it's written in Daniel 8 it lets you know the (starting point when the daily sacrifice starts )until the time it's cleansed) and that's when Jesus Christ comes back it's within the 70th week or 7 years... If the covenant is broken at 1,260 days then. the daily sacrifice would have needed to be going on for1,040 days. From the time the agreement would be made for 7 years which is a 360 day year, in this case because in Matthew 24 Jesus said unless the time would be cut short,, he talks about the time being cut short or no man would be alive Matthew 24:22. That gives them 220 days to build the temple . (if you ( Google the temple institute in Israel) they have a lot of stuff prepared and they're building a lot of stuff off site). the same as they did in the Old testament. so once they get their clearance time, this won't take long ) to set up. Remember though (this is for the prophecy that Daniel made( to his people) ( this is not for the gentiles.!! we just understand it ,and observe it.) That's why Jesus tells the people in Judea to flee, they believe the guy that makes the agreement could be the Messiah .because that's the only way they believe it could happen, but when they realize he comes into the temple and calls himself God, they know it's not their Messiah and he tells them to run and he protects them for 1,260 days the exact same time. Revelations chapter 12 verse 6. An Revelations 12:14!!!
when we oppose judgement doctrine using Daniel 8 the words of Solomon in ecclesiastics 3 have no meaning anymore.......17 I said to myself,
“God will bring into judgment
both the righteous and the wicked,
for there will be a time for every activity,
a time to judge every deed.”......I guess Solomon was wrong too....why would the righteous be judged and why would their deeds be judged?......why would Paul address the Corinthian Christians and say ....10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.........Paul ,why would believes appear before a judgement seat ?......why would Paul repeat the same to the Christians in Rome ......10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. .....why would believers stand before a judgement seat ?......why is Paul warning us NOT to judge one another and point us to a judgement seat where will will be all accountable ?........what would be free me from condemnation? ......So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus....but why iam so uncomfortable with judgement if I am in Christ...?.........surely I should be happy with this..... revelation 3:5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels...so why can't I be happy that the court session in Daniel 7 embarrasses my accuser ,and Christ actually acknowledges my name before the FATHER AND ANGELS ?......and like in Zachariah 3 white robs are given to those hidden in Christ .....I think there is a better way of dealing with judgement by establishing factually if the bible teaches a judgement of saints (Not condemnation).if we establish that Solomon and Paul are saying YES about it then we can at least keep that in mind and says "we dont know when" but Daniel 7 has hope for those who see that court session .....because it says ....21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom....judgement is in their favour ...whenever you deal with Daniel 7 ...judgement is in our favour....the accuser has day in court to accuse and must be answered by that court ....Daniel 7 does not says saints will be examined but the bible says so as a unit of scripture ....the SAINTS ARE AWARDED IN THEIR FAVOUR in Daniel 7.the silence of Daniel 7 on saints being judged is the only reason for rejection of investigative judgement but as a unit of scripture Solomon says we will be examined and Paul says so.runing with Paul and Solomon what then is the nature of our judgement as saints ?.....the lamb took our condemnation ,I accepted his royalty and he took away my slavery away from me .....some one wants to keep me a slave ...I need my day in court! judgment in my favour please !......so judgement is pronounced in favour of saints ( Daniel 7)without even checking why the saints deserve that favour ?...nice one ......And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment.........why not just assume that all the guest are ok.....why examine the saints ?....
Was SDA for over 30 years but realized Trinity is wrong, 2300 days, etc, no longer and free!
Daniel was written out of chronilogical order this is how Daniel sealed the book of Daniel. The book of Revelation was not sealed.
I hear SDA apologists argue that Antiochus Epiphanes can't be the little horn of Daniel 8 because he didn't become "exceedingly great" like Rome did. Any response to this? Daniel 8 says that goat on whom the horn springs up represents Greece, and the Roman empire didn't come out of Greece, which would seem to refute this idea, but the problem of "exceedingly great" still remains.
There's many reasons why Antiochus Epiphanes IS NOT the little horn!
Little horn" rose out of ten divisions of Rome. Therefore it is Roman. Daniel 7:7, 8.
This view is held by the modernist schools which reject Daniel as a prophet.
According to Jerome and Bishop Thomas Newman the Antiochus view was originated by Porphyry
(Died AD 304). Porphyry was a pagan whose one aim was to stop the advance of Christianity. His theory
was not to expound Daniel but to discredit and deny Daniel as a prophet. He did not try to confirm the
Bible, but to deny it's divine origin. It was a pagan attack to hold back Christianity's inroads into paganism.
Daniel therefore, according to this theory, was not a prophet but merely an historian. It was the amazing
accuracy of the sure word of prophecy and its uncanny fulfillment that made Porphyry claim Daniel was
written after the events of Antiochus, hence was not a prophecy at all. Such is the origin of this God dishonoring
and truth opposing theory.
Antiochus did not rise after the "ten kings" Daniel 7:6. Antiochus was only one of the Syrian kings and
not a new kingdom.
Antiochus was not "diverse" from his predecessors Daniel 7:7, 24
It is impossible to find three kings whom Antiochus plucked up. Daniel 7:8, 24
He was not "more stout than his fellows" Daniel 7:20. His father, not he was called Antiochus the
Great.
His (Antiochus Epiphanes) persecutions did not last even 3.5 literal years.
Antiochus did not continue until the Judgment before the Ancient of Days. Daniel 7:9-14, 26, 27. These
few facts overthrow this pagan, modernistic theory that tries to make Daniel a mere historian and not a
prophet of God. The vain attempts to make Antiochus the little horn of Daniel 8 fail likewise.
Antiochus was not a horn or a kingdom. A Horn of a beast is never taken for a single person, but
signifies a new kingdom. The "four horns" of the He-goat were "four kingdoms" (Daniel 8:22). Antiochus
was merely one of a line of kings and not a separate kingdom. Hence he was merely a part of one of the
horns. Antiochus reigned over one of the four horns and "the little horn" was a fifth power. Therefore,
Antiochus was not the "little horn". Rome was "the little horn.”.
Antiochus certainly did not "wax exceeding great". He was not even the strongest of the Seleucid
section of Alexander's kingdom. Antiochus was weak and was tributary to the Romans.
Antiochus certainly did not wax "exceeding great towards the south" Daniel 8:9. His march to the
south" to Egypt was stopped by the mere word of an unarmed Roman officer. When Antiochus said he
would think about the Roman's demand the Roman drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus and told him
he would do his thinking within that circle. Antiochus turned and retreated. He was frightened out of Egypt
by an unarmed representative of Rome. He was later routed by the Jews. To apply this prophecy of a world
power a super power which waxed "exceeding great towards the south" to this cruel but weak creature
appears to be the height of folly and is advanced merely to avoid or explain away this divine prophecy.
It is very apparent that the "little horn" of either Daniel 7 and 8 does not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes. The
facts do not fit the specifications of Prophecy. Applying the prophecy to Antiochus was a poor pagan's
attempt to avoid his God required responsibilities and to excuse his rejection of truth. He tried to discredit
the divine predictions of the one whom Christ called "Daniel the Prophet". Daniel was not a mere historian
as this truth-rejector would imply.
The finger of Daniel’s prophecy points with infallible accuracy to the awful Roman apostasy that climaxed
in the Papacy who cast down the truth, wears out the saints of the Most High, and continues through the
"time of the end" and will continue to the "end of time".
Come back and read what I put up you will begin to understand it I've studied this for 47 years.
SURE, HERE'S WHY.
FROM URIAH SMITH'S DANIEL AND THE REVELATION CHAPTER 8, PAGES 156-161
A Little Horn Comes Forth.-- A third power is here introduced into the prophecy. In the explanation given to Daniel by the angel this symbol is not described as definitely as are Medo-Persia and Greece.
There are two common interpretations of the symbol which need be noticed in these brief comments. The first is that the "little horn" denotes the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes. The second is that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test these two positions.
Does the Little Horn Denote Antiochus?--If Antiochus Epiphanes does not fulfill the specifications of the prophecy, the application cannot be made to him. The little horn came out of one of the four horns of the goat. It was therefore a power existing distinct from any of the other horns of the goat. Was Antiochus such a power?
Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of Alexander's empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these was Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian horn of the goat. He was, therefore, for the time being, that horn. Hence HE COULD NOT AT THE SAME TIME be a separate and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as was the little horn.
If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes was not by any means the most powerful king of the Syrian line. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, "The Illustrious," he was illustrious only in name. Nothing, says Prideaux, on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be more alien to his true character; because of his vile and extravagant folly, some thought him a fool and changed his name from Epiphanes, "The Illustrious," to Epimanes, "The Madman."
Antiochus the Great, the father of Epiphanes, being defeated in a war with the Romans, was able to procure peace only by the payment of a prodigious sum of money and the surrender of a part of his territory. As a pledge that he would faithfully adhere to the terms of the treaty, he was obliged to give hostages, among whom was Epiphanes, his son, who was carried to Rome. The Romans EVER AFTERWARD maintained this ascendancy.
The little horn of the goat was to wax exceeding great; but Antiochus Epiphanes DID NOT BECOME EXCEEDING GREAT. On the contrary, he did not enlarge his dominion, except by some temporary conquests in Egypt. These he immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy and commanded him to desist from his designs on that territory. The rage of his disappointed ambition he vented upon the unoffending Jews.
THE LITTLE HORN, in comparison with the powers that preceded it, WAS EXCEEDING GREAT. PERSIA IS SIMPLY CALLED GREAT, though it consisted of a hundred twenty-seven provinces. (Esther 1: 1.) GRECIA, being more extensive still, IS CALLED VERY GREAT. Now THE LITTLE HORN, which WAXED EXCEEDING GREAT, MUST SURPASS THEM BOTH. How absurd, then, to apply this Antiochus, who was obliged to abandon Egypt at the dictation of the Romans. It cannot take long for anyone to decide the question which was the greater power--the one which evacuated Egypt, or the one which commanded that evacuation.
The LITTLE HORN was to stand up against the Prince of princes, which expression refers, beyond controversy, to Jesus Christ. (Daniel 9: 25; Acts 3: 15; Revelation 1: 5.) But ANTIOCHUS DIED ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR YEARS BEFORE OUR LORD WAS BORN. The prophecy cannot therefore apply to him, for he does not fulfill the specifications in a single particular. The question may then be asked, Why has anyone ever tried to apply it to him? We answer, Roman Catholics take that view to avoid the application of the prophecy to themselves; and many Protestants follow them, apparently in order to oppose the doctrine that the second advent of Christ is now at hand. END PART ONE
CONTINUED PART 2
The Little Horn Denotes Rome.--It has been an EASY MATTER to show that the LITTLE HORN DOES NOT DENOTE ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES. It will be AS EASY to show that IT DOES DENOTE ROME.
The field of vision here is substantially the same as that covered by Nebuchadnezzar's image of Daniel 2, and the vision of Daniel 7. In both these prophetic delineations we have found that THE POWER which SUCCEEDED GRECIA as the FOURTH great power (DAN -2 LEGS OF IRON, DAN 7-BEAST, DAN 8-LITTLE HORN) was ROME. The only natural inference would be that the little horn, the power which in this vision succeeds Grecia as an "exceeding great" kingdom, is also Rome.
The little horn comes froth from one of the horns of the goat. How, it may be asked, can that be true of Rome? Earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy until they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League in 161 B.C. But seven years before this, that is, 168 B.C., Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the overthrow of the Macedonian horn of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It appeared to the prophet as coming forth from of the horns of the goat.
The little horn waxed great toward THE SOUTH. This was true of Rome. EGYPT WAS MADE A PROVINCE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN 30 B.C., and continued such for some centuries.
The little horn waxed great toward the east. This also was true of ROME. She CONQUERED SYRIA in 65 B.C., and made it a province.
The little horn waxed great toward THE PLEASANT LAND. So did Rome. Judea is called "the pleasant land" in many scriptures. The ROMANS made it a province of their empire in 63 B.C., and eventually destroyed the city and the temple, and scattered the Jews throughout the earth.
The little horn "waxed great, even to ["against," margin] the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground." Rome did this also. In this expressions two figures are introduced, "THE HOST" and "THE STARS." When used in a symbolic sense concerning events taking place on earth, these figures refer almost always to THE PEOPLE OF GOD AND THEIR LEADERS. In verse 13 of this chapter we read that BOTH the SANCTUARY and the HOST will be TRODDEN UNDER FOOT. Here undoubtedly reference is made to GOD'S PEOPLE and the PLACE OF THEIR WORSHIP. The stars would naturally represent the leaders of the work of God. This thought is further indicated in one of the applications of Revelation 12: 4 where we read that the great red dragon, a symbol of ROME, cast down a THIRD PART OF THE STARS TO THE GROUND. END PART ONEThe little horn "magnified himself even to the PRINCE of the host." ROME AONE DID THIS. In the interpretation (verse 25) the little horn is said to "STAND UP AGAINST THE PRINCE OF PRINCES." This is clearly an allusion to the crucifixion of our Lord under the jurisdiction of the Romans.
Rome in Two Aspects.--By the little horn "the daily sacrifice was taken away." This little horn symbolized ROME in its entire history, including its two phases, PAGAN AND PAPAL. These two phases are elsewhere spoken of as the "daily" (sacrifice is a supplied word) and the "transgression of desolation;" the daily (desolation) evidently signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of desolation, the papal. (See comments on verse 13.) In the actions ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of, sometimes the other. "BY HIM [THE PAPAL FORM] the DAILY [THE PAGAN FORM] WAS TAKEN AWAY." Pagan Rome was remodeled into papal Rome. "The place of his sanctuary," or worship, the CITY OF ROME, WAS CAST DOWN. The SEAT OF GOVERNMENT WAS REMOVED BY CONSTANTINE TO CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 330. This same transaction is brought to view in Revelation 13: 2, where it is said that THE DRAGON, PAGAN ROME, GAVE TO THE BEAST, PAPAL ROME, HIS SEAT, THE CITY OF ROME.
A "host was given him [the little horn] against the daily." The barbarians that subverted the Roman Empire in the changes, attritions, and transformations of those times, became converts to the Catholic faith, and the instruments of the dethronement of their former religion. Though conquering Rome politically, they were themselves vanquished religiously by the theology of Rome, and became the perpetuators of the same empire in another phase. This was brought about by reason of "transgression;" that is, by the working of the mystery of iniquity. The papacy may be called a system of iniquity because it has done its evil work under the pretense of the pure and undefiled religion. Of this false religious system, Paul wrote in the first century to the Thessalonians, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." 2 Thessalonians 2: 7.
The LITTLE HORN "CAST DOWN THE TRUTH TO THE GROUND, AND PRACTICED AND PROSPERED." This describes in few words the work and career of the papacy. The truth is by it hideously caricatured, loaded with traditions, turned into mummery and superstition, cast down and obscured.
Of this ecclesiastical power it is declared that it has
"practiced"--practiced its deceptions on the people, practiced in schemes of cunning to carry out its own ends and aggrandize its own power.
Likewise it has "prospered." It has made war upon the saints, and prevailed against them. It has well-nigh run its allotted career, and is soon to be broken without hand, to be given to the burning flame, and to perish in the consuming glories of the second appearing of our Lord.
Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and on other, is the power in question. The inspired descriptions given in the word of God of the character of this system are fully met, and the prophecies concerning it have been most strikingly and accurately fulfilled in history. [END]
Dear Dr. Ford, thank you for your studies. I write about different topics. His position regarding Hebrews opened my understanding, from there I considered other topics, for example I learned that Miguel is really an Archangel who is not Christ, I also saw the errors of the historical Apocaliptica interpretation of the Adventists and their pioneers, I have I read the book of Enoch regularly and I can see in the scriptures that the early Church always believed in it, besides, Judas Mencioana, one of his Messianic prophecies. What is your position regarding this Book and its teachings? Bless god you
you got all that from Ford? Wow!!! The guy was more mixed up than I thought!
@@michaelreyes-er8el come back and look what I posted on this site.
Precisamos urgentemente legendas em português.
Poxa! Será possível? Um Pastor do calibre do Dr Desmond Ford tem que ser traduzido para vários idiomas.
Por favor, palestra do Dr Ford em português!!!!!!
RIP Dr Ford, but you are giving too much deference to EG White. Her writings contradict her statements that she isn't on equal standing with the Bible. The Bible IS interpreted through the lens of her writings by the church. And her writings endorse that practice.
I think there there is a difference in biblical scholarly wisdom and the wisdom of unbelieving scholars. Isn't that what the verse you refer to is talking about, Wellness Proverb?? I have a tendency to want to listen to a man/woman of God with more education than one who is not well studied. I live in an area where some die-hard Pentecostal Holiness Christians won't allow their children to go to college because of the misinterpretation you just posted. They believe that higher education is vanity and the more educated you are...the less spiritual you are. (They also handle rattlesnakes and copperheads, drink strychnine, and the women soak their hair in kerosene and place their hair over flames) as part of their worship service! It's from an uneducated interpretation of where Mark he says "These signs shall follow them..." These folks interpret this as a "command" pick up snakes to prove their faith in God. These churches pay big money for "snake catchers" to bring them to them. Many have died from this ignorance. If they are bitten, they claim that the Lord told them to pick up a particular snake, but disobeyed God and picked up a different snake.
I'm not saying that uneducated people cannot hear from God or understand God's word, but I prefer to listen to a teacher who has done their own homework.
And as for Dr. Ford "esteeming men and scholars," isn't that what Adventists do with Sister White? She was a very good person, nevertheless, she was human, and with many Adventists, her writings seem to replace the written word of the Only Infallible.
I am one of the simple minded ones who takes the Bible literal sometimes to my own fall, without wisdom. I am a silly guy. Not as bright and wise as desmond ford. EGW however was a true Servant of the Lord. Desmond Ford? I don't know. I am sure the EGW was. Her works also do follow her. I never asked the Lord about Desmond Ford. desmond ford is a very educated man. I am not. I just want to glory in the Lord to be honest.
Yes, Kathy .
There is way too much ignorance among religious people, especially American Christians.
A serious crisis of under-education.
Over 40 years ago I heard Dr. Ford speak !
It was a life changing experience ! For the first time I felt comfortable in my belief in Christ & salvation
At 35 yr old, a former history teacher at an Adventist Academy I had already determined that Ellen G White was not a Prophet sent by God & was being used by the church to promote false doctrine
I will always be grateful for Dr Fords messages & feel grateful for his you tube talks
Wellness Provherbs EGW was a true servant of the lord? Lol
How do you know that? Were you around when she was alive? Lol
Kathy Anaya
No Adventist has ever, ever any such thing that Ellen White books is higher or equal to the Bible never. What we say is its a lesser light in support or interpret some of the Bible passages which are difficult to understand, thank you.
Dittos to Desmond Ford.
Justification by faith implies forensic justification 'before" faith.
Why?
Because of the blood.
How?
As the angel Gabriel implied to Mary, at the 'union' of the newly created sperm by YHWH himself and the already living egg of Mary, when Mary would concieve "in the womb (the fallopian tube), 'justification' by the blood (i.e. BEFORE faith) was accomplished by the creator himself the nanosecond that the creator and the creation become 'one' physically, BEFORE a human being expressed faith in the union of the sperm and the egg.
Art
You need to check yourself in!
Jujo1up. Christs conception to do with Gods " sperm' or Mary's " egg". Heb 10,5 says the Father prepared His Body . Christs conception had nothing to do with human interference. But His embryo was placed in Mary's womb by the Spirit. If Mary was Christ's biological mother, Jesus xould not be called " that holy thing". If Jesus had a sinful nature like us He could not be our Savior from sin . A sinful human cannot forgive AND cleanse another human being. You can't clean a dirty floor with a dirty mop . No one can get to heaven "dirty".
Sadly some people look to the men in a church and not the message . Adventists have gone rhrough trials as any other church can. There will always be wheat and tares in any church . Our work is not to do the judging but let God work it out and He will and He does.
For anyone interesting in whether Antiochus Epiphanis is what Daniel 11 is about, here is a detailed series about that topic: ruclips.net/video/gt28vJ0waog/видео.html
For those who are just interested in the answer it's very simple, there is no chance that Daniel 11 is speaking about Antiochus Epiphanis.
Desmond Ford did not have the courage of conviction to leave. This will be a continual blight on his record.
Although he renounced the 1844/Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment, sadly, Des went to his grave as an Adventist at heart. He still held Ellen White in high regard (as shown in this video), still preached about the necessity of the Sabbath, still promoted the SDA health message etc.
In the video "Bye Bye to the Investigative Judgment", Ford said he got baptized into the SDA Church at the age of 15, despite being full aware of Hebrews 6:19-20 about Christ entering "within the vail" at his ascension to heaven, still referred to the SDA Church as "HIS church" and still held hope for them in the future that they'd change! Need I say anything more? The delusion took a big stranglehold over him and couldn't get the monkey off his back.
Des simply COULD NOT LET GO and held nice, fuzzy wuzzy feelings from his time during the "good ol' days of Adventism. This weird blend and concoction of beliefs largely explains why his son Luke ended up the way he did.
Des and I did leave the church in 2000 when we came home to Australia from USA. We attended a local SDA church from 2016 to 2017 until Des's health failed, but we would not have sought membership again. We both came into the denomination from outside. Neither of us regret becoming Adventists, and I can still happily attend a church that teaches what I learned in 1964 in New Zealand. Des sought to preach the gospel of righteousness by faith as taught by Luther and an Adventist view of prophecy that centred on the cross of Christ not the denomination as the axis mundi.
@@gillianford5928 : Des Ford was a great man but he is no DM Canright. The theological premise of Adventism is inconsistent with the Bible even from a purely academic position.
Ellen White the great plagiarist, liar, necromancer, racist and fraud even denied the divinity of Christ at some point in her ministry and had a plethora of false prophesies though she required only one false prophesy to fall foul of Deuteronomy 18:22 the biblical prophetic litmus test.
Pioneering Adventists like JN Andrews and James White had an Arian theology till their deaths which is INCOMPATIBLE with the theological slant advocated by the SDA cult contemporarily.
The investigative judgement is one of the foulest pieces of theological putrefactions employed to explain away a series of lies about the return of Christ. Lies which Ellen White consistently made.
Adventism was conceived in error and it has required a monumental effort in artifice and fraud to warrant it’s support.
Desmond Ford was a great man and he was sadly abused by the SDA cult at Glacier View even though he put the SDA magisterium to shame and was right on the issues. Desmond Ford is no DM CANWRIGHT because in the final analysis he failed to come full circle and exorcise the scourge of Adventism.
@@gillianford5928 : The Adventist View of prophesy is fraught with error and it is interesting that William Miller had the honesty to repudiated the Adventist argument on 1844. Sadly Ellen White did not.
Desmond Ford was a great man and will always have a place of respect in my estimation.
Why would you feel comfortable in a church which rejects a fundamental aspect of biblical eschatology which Desmond Ford was a great champion of?
The way the SDA treated Walter Rae was also sad.
@@clarkent61 Hallo Ezra, message me on my FB page (with my brother and mother featured at the top. I am interested to find out your background. The necromancy suggestion is a new one to me. Des read Canright and much other material on EGW and had an encyclopaedic knowledge of her writings which he read from when he was a boy. He just did not come to the same conclusions as you did; it's a shame he's gone and you can't talk to him about this.. He maintained his focus on the love of Christ and died with no bitterness towards anybody. I thought he was a miracle of godliness.
Despite all the scholarship against Adventism Dezmond Ford still did not want to leave this cult...ops church.
The man had no courage. Desmond Ford is no DM Canright.