Daniel Commentary Recommendations

Page 2 of 2 (37 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 36 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 14
Andy Tucker | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 8 2012 9:22 AM

C Devin Chaulk:
I do not espouse to the same presuppositions as the SDA (I have my own presuppositions thank you very much Big Smile)
                              Yes

Posts 74
Ralph Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 8 2012 12:03 PM

Andy Tucker:
Please be aware that all SDA commentaries on Daniel (including that of Mr. Smith) use the year 1844 as the foundation for interpreting the prophecy.
I think it's unfair  to say that All SDAs hold this view. For instance, Raymond Cottrell did not. From Wikipedia:

Raymond Forrest Cottrell (April 21, 1911, Los AngelesCalifornia– January 12, 2003, Calimesa, California) was a respected Adventist theologian, missionary, teacher, writer and editor. He was an associate editor of both the Adventist Review (the church's official news magazine) and the Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryRaymond Cottrell, is seen by some as a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.

Below is a link to a paper he wrote discussing the inaccuracies surrounding the organization's interpretation of Daniel.

http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/1844rc.htm

The article begins:

The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined. 

Posts 175
Silent Sam | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 8 2012 4:55 PM

                                                                              Hmm HHHMMMmmm~~~ Hmm

Posts 14
Andy Tucker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 10 2012 9:43 PM

Ralph Hale:

Andy Tucker:
Please be aware that all SDA commentaries on Daniel (including that of Mr. Smith) use the year 1844 as the foundation for interpreting the prophecy.
I think it's unfair  to say that All SDAs hold this view. For instance, Raymond Cottrell did not. From Wikipedia:

Raymond Forrest Cottrell (April 21, 1911, Los AngelesCalifornia– January 12, 2003, Calimesa, California) was a respected Adventist theologian, missionary, teacher, writer and editor. He was an associate editor of both the Adventist Review (the church's official news magazine) and the Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryRaymond Cottrell, is seen by some as a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.

Below is a link to a paper he wrote discussing the inaccuracies surrounding the organization's interpretation of Daniel.

http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/1844rc.htm

The article begins:

The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined. 

I stand corrected. I took the time to read the paper. Mr Cottrell did a wonderful job of analyzing the controversial, prophetic passages in Daniel. He was a lifelong SDA who dedicated 17 years of his life studying those passages in the original languages. At the end of all that, He had to admit that the SDA organization's interpretation runs counter to Scripture. He also recounts events where others attempted to get the SDAs to scrap their unsupportable doctrines. Those men were disfellowshipped for their efforts. It's all in the paper....An enlightening read. I highly recommend it.

http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/1844rc.htm

Posts 2795
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 11 2012 5:17 AM

Andy Tucker:

An enlightening read. I highly recommend it.

Others have quoted the opening remarks.  But near the end is a gem.  [I think that the second word 'is' is an OCR error and should be 'if' as in 'if we']

"But is we become abusive of one another in our discussion of the subject we will both arrive at the pearly gates only to find them bolted and barred against both of us"

Posts 14
Andy Tucker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 11 2012 6:27 PM

Do you feel someone in this thread has been abusive ?

Posts 74
Ralph Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 12 2012 5:09 AM

Andy Tucker:

Do you feel someone in this thread has been abusive ?

Possibly he speaks of the abuses inflicted on the SDA members for seeking the truth. Threats, Bullying, Disfellowship, ETC.

 

Posts 2795
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 12 2012 5:26 AM

No, NOT in this thread but perhaps we can save it for some other threads? 

Did find his closing remarks interesting: respect the other side even when your intent is to rip them to up - something we might want to remember when they turn on the debating section

[[It is a LONG report [nearly 40 pages] and so far I have just scanned it [Thanks to the person who posted it for yet another 2 month study I need to do]  Have not found the Froom papers on line but I don't think I will need to research that part of the report - and Yes, it would be nice to have the ship load of shipping containers version of Logos when researching interesting 'stuff' (From some other thread on 'Logos 5')]]

Posts 74
Ralph Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 12 2012 6:11 AM

David Ames:
[[It is a LONG report [nearly 40 pages]
No Sir, That is not a LONG  report. Desmond Ford penned a LONG report , in preparation for the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee meeting in 1980...some 900 pages.Surprise If you are interested in this subject, It helps to know his theology. An SDA seminary student prepared a Reader's Digest version here:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/desmondfordtheology.htm

P.S. Desmond Ford is one of the disfellowshipped members mentioned by Raymond Cottrell. 
Oh. What  a tangled web we weave !

Posts 2795
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 12 2012 9:28 AM

Ralph Hale:

No Sir, That is not a LONG  report. Desmond Ford penned a LONG report , in preparation for the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee meeting in 1980...some 900 pages.Surprise If you are interested in this subject, It helps to know his theology. An SDA seminary student prepared a Reader's Digest version

If that summary is true to Ford’s writings then I can cross Ford off my list of ones that I need to examine.

On page two there is a table that is called an
outline

1.            
We are judged individually as we accept or reject Christ
2.             Only the wicked are judged, not the righteous


Number one implies that all are judged – some, the ones that accept Christ, are found not guilty or at least acquitted.

Number two clearly states that those that accept Christ are not judged – not even to be found not guilty or acquitted.

That does not compute! Contradictory statements! One says we all are - the other that only most are.

Good night Mr. Ford.  Just saved myself the years it takes to deeply study a 900 page report by reading two lines of the summary.

Posts 74
Ralph Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 12 2012 12:42 PM

David Ames:
Good night Mr. Ford.
 

I may have done you a disservice by directing you to a summary. Please understand that the SDA investigative judgment purportedly only affects the professed Christians, and the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary was necessary to purge their confessed sins.The Wicked (in their minds) are not involved in it. I think if you did read the whole paper, you would see that he is saying that confessed / repented sins are remembered no more. (1John 1:9, Heb 8:12) Therefore, There are no sins to be cleansed from Heaven. Either they have not been confessed, or they have been atoned for. No sins are stored in Heaven, as they were in the earthly Sanctuary. There was never a need to cleanse the Heavenly sanctuary. An important side note is that (according to the Sanctuary doctrine) none of this happened until 1844, When Christ was  allowed into the Most Holy Place to start the second phase of his atonement.

I certainly do not uphold all of Mr Ford's theology, but I fear the outline is too black and white, and most won't read his entire paper. So, Again, I apologize if I have helped to distort the point he was making by referring you to a summary. My point is that Mr Ford devoted nearly 30 years to God...through the SDA organization, then was disfellowshipped for pointing out unsupportable doctrines.

Posts 2795
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 23 2012 7:47 AM

David Ames:

Ralph Hale:

No Sir, That is not a LONG  report. Desmond Ford penned a LONG report , in preparation for the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee meeting in 1980...some 900 pages.Surprise If you are interested in this subject, It helps to know his theology. An SDA seminary student prepared a Reader's Digest version

 If that summary is true to Ford’s writings then I can cross Ford off my list of ones that I need to examine.

Good night Mr. Ford.  Just saved myself the years it takes to deeply study a 900 page report by reading two lines of the summary.

Re: Desmond Ford
The other link took us to an Official SDA site [the group that kicked him out] and they might not be a fair judge of Mr. Ford.  At [http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive11-15/11-2ford.pdf] I found his own words – Paragraph ten shows that Ford believes it [the Investigative judgment] but states that it cannot be proved directly from Scripture.  And he gets kicked out. How many ‘other heretics’ got ‘executed’ over semantics?  [(Numbers) are to pages in his 900 page report] - I now have a better opinion of Mr. Ford.

The concept of an investigative judgment was proposed about 13 years after Adventists had adopted the idea of a heavenly sanctuary; it was not an original part of that concept (293). The Bible does not teach an investigative judgment as we proclaim it (651). Thus, I believe that "our use of sanctuary imagery to support the investigative judgment concept has been faulty" (651). It is a metaphorical concept that points to reality but is not reality itself (624). Ellen White's description of it is not stated in literal terms (626). In Daniel, judgment has to do with unbelievers, not believers (355ff). However, I agree that "Seventh-day Adventists have been right in seeing the theme of judgment in Daniel 8:14" (367), for "the fact that Scripture clearly teaches two resurrections with only the righteous coming up in the first, demands that their destiny be settled prior to Christ's coming, for they are released from the house of death with immortal bodies" (650). I further affirm that "at every point in His intercession, Christ knows whether professed believers are truly abiding in Him" (477), that "the professed Christian must stand before the judgment bar of God" (476), and that men are being judged now (523).


[[Sorry for taking so long to reply but investigations take time. [especially when you are tiring to find truth on the Internet]  He 'truly' believes what his Church teaches [as stated above] and he still gets kicked out - fun.]]

 

Posts 74
Ralph Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 23 2012 9:04 AM

David Ames:
I now have a better opinion of Mr. Ford.
Praise God that you took time to actually read what he said. Again, I apologize if I muddied the water...or (initially) colored your perception with my comments.

May God bless your studies.

Posts 2
Gene Lewis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 28 2012 2:25 PM

I just finished a study of Daniel and I used the several that are avalible in Logos.

Daniel: An Expository Commentary by H. A. Ironside

Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation by John F. Walvoord

The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook by John F. Walvoord

Posts 1522
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 28 2012 4:47 PM

Gene Lewis:

Arnold Fruchtenbaum has some good stuff. I noticed that he also has a detailed paper on the Seventy Seven's of Daniel in his Logo's "Messianic Bible Study Collection".

Posts 4
Christopher Pokorny | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 1 2012 5:29 PM

Ernest Lucas' commentary on Daniel was great! 

"This series seeks to do the same (ably apply understanding of past events to contemporary society), keeping one foot firmly planted in the universe of the original text and the other in that of the target audience, which consists of preachers, teachers and students of the Bible."

Great format for what your searching for.  


http://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Apollos-Old-Testament-Commentary/dp/0830825193/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1333326364&sr=8-2

 

Posts 4
Christopher Pokorny | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 1 2012 5:46 PM

Agreed about Walvoord. 

 

He would be considered a "praeterist/futurist", meaning, premillenial with a twist of symbolisms thrown in for good measure. 

Ironside is good as well. 

 

Page 2 of 2 (37 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS