EPISODE 09/26 ~ THE GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 2 ~ DANIEL AND REVELATION ~ STEPHEN BOHR

 

THE GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT – 2

(DANIEL AND REVELATION)

Part 09/26 - Stephen Bohr

NOTES ON DANIEL 7 PART 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExTwDhoowEw

 

Dibuka dengan doa.

 

 

All right, welcome back, final stretch last 100 meters. Do you feel better today than you did at the end of yesterday? Yeah, me too. Because you know yesterday was a very intense day. Five presentations.

Okay we are going to begin on page 249, we already presented the characteristics, you know we jumped over a lot of material on the fact that the Papacy persecuted God's people, but now what we want to do is take a look at the Papacy and the change in God's times. Actually page 245.

 

Baiklah, selamat bertemu kembali, jarak tempuh terakhir, 100 meter yang terakhir. Apakah kalian merasa lebih baik hari ini daripada di akhir hari kemarin? Iya, saya juga. Karena kemarin itu hari yang sangat intens, lima presentasi.

Baiklah kita akan mulai di hal. 249, kita sudah mempresentasikan karakteristik-karakteristiknya, kita sudah meloncati banyak bahan mengenai fakta bagaimana Kepausan mempersekusi umat Allah, tetapi sekarang apa yang mau kita lakukan ialah menyimak Kepausan dan usahanya mengubah waktu Allah. Yang benar hal. 245.

 

 

Characteristic # 7: The Papacy to change God’s times

And I'm not going to say much about the Papacy thinking that it could change God's times. Because I've written an entire book on that topic, you need to get a copy of the book Futurism's Incredible Journey, there I show in what sense the Papacy changed God's times. It did it by changing the method of studying Bible prophecy.

·       One of their scholars, Alcazar,  he said that the prophecies of Daniel-Revelation they were fulfilled in the past with Antiochus Epiphanies and with the early Roman Empire.

·       Ribera on the other hand ~ both of them Jesuits ~ said that the Antichrist prophecies are totally future.

So in this way, by saying that the prophecies were fulfilled in the past or will be fulfilled in the future in the Middle East, the result is that the eyes of people were shifted away from where prophecy is really being fulfilled. See, the Roman Catholic Church had to deflect the finger from them because the characteristics are too clear. So they said, “No, No, No! Let's establish two rival systems of interpretation.” And so that's exactly what they did.

 

Karakteristik # 7: Kepausan mengganti waktu-waktu Allah

Dan saya tidak akan membahas banyak tentang Kepausan yang berpikir dia bisa mengganti waktu-waktu Allah. Karena saya telah menulis sebuah buku lengkap tentang topik itu, kalian perlu mendapatkan satu kopi dari buku Futurism's Incredible Journey, di sini saya tunjukkan dalam pengertian apa Kepausan telah mengubah waktu-waktu Allah. Mereka melakukannya dengan mengubah cara mempelajari nubuatan Alkitab.

·       Salah satu pakar mereka, Alcazar,  dia berkata bahwa nubuatan-nubuatan Daniel-Wahyu telah digenapi di masa lampau oleh Antiochus Epiphanies dan kekaisaran Roma yang awal.

·       Ribera di pihak lain ~ keduanya sama-sama Yesuit ~ mengatakan bahwa nubuatan-nubuatan Antikristus semuanya masih di masa depan.

Maka dengan cara ini, dengan mengatakan bahwa nubuatan-nubuatan telah digenapi di masa lampau atau akan digenapi di masa depan di Timur Tengah, akibatnya ialah mata semua orang dialihkan dari tempat di mana nubuatan sesungguhnya sedang digenapi. Lihat, Gereja Roma Katolik harus mengalihkan telunjuk yang mengarah ke mereka karena karakteristik-karakteristiknya terlalu jelas. Maka mereka berkata, “Tidak, Tidak, Tidak! Mari kita ciptakan dua sistem interpretasi tandingan.” Dan persis itulah yang mereka lakukan.

 

 

Characteristic # 8: The  Papacy and the Change in God’s Law

Daniel 7:25 tells us that the Little Horn would think to change God's Law. The Little Horn is actually guilty of transgressing all of God's 10 Commandments, but has claimed to change one in particular. Now let's go through the Commandments and see how the Papacy has trampled on all of them.

1.    The Little Horn claims to occupy the place of God.

Does that have anything to do with the First Commandment, “you shall have no other gods before Me”? Yes!

2.    It has transgressed the Second Commandment.

Do the shrines and Churches of Roman Catholicism have images before which people bow? Yes! So the Second Commandment is in play.

3.    How about the Third Commandment, “Don't take the name of the Lord God in vain”?

Does the Papacy use the titles that belong only to God? And speak blasphemy? Yes!

4.    How about the Fourth Commandment?

Did the Little Horn claim to change God's Law? Yes! It meddled with God's seventh day Sabbath.

5.    What about the Fifth Commandment?

Did the Papacy dishonor the Heavenly Father by usurping the names that belong only to the Heavenly Father, beginning with the word “Father”?

6.    Is the Papacy guilty of transgressing the Commandment “thou shall not kill”?  That's what we just studied about.

7.    Is the Papacy guilty of transgressing the Seventh Commandment by fornicating with the kings of the earth? By uniting Church and state? Yes!

8.    How about the Ninth Commandment, “you shall not bear false witness”?

The Bible tells us that the Papacy is going to perform great lying wonders.

9.    And what about the Eight Commandment “Thou shalt not steal”?

The Papacy confiscated and stole the properties of the Waldensians for example.

10. And what about the 10th Commandment “you shall not covet”?

Do you know that in the Bible, the name “the son of predition” is only used twice: once for Judas in John 17:12, and for the Papacy in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. What was the main characteristic of Judas? He was covetous of power and he was covetous of money. Is the Papacy guilty of covetousness of resources? It's a very rich power according to Revelation 17. Does it covet riches and power? Absolutely.

So the Roman Catholic system is not only guilty of thinking to change the Fourth Commandment, it is guilty of breaking all 10 of the Commandments.

 

Karakteristik # 8: Kepausan mengubah Hukum Allah

Daniel 7:25 memberi tahu kita bahwa Tanduk Kecil berpikir untuk mengubah Hukum Allah. Tanduk Kecil sebenarnya bersalah melanggar semua 10 Perintah Allah, tetapi telah mengklaim secara khusus mengubah satu. Sekarang mari kita bahas Perintah-perintah itu dan simak bagaimana Kepausan telah menginjak-injak semuanya.

1.    Tanduk Kecil mengklaim menduduki posisi Allah.

Apakah ini ada kaitannya dengan Perintah pertama, “Engkau tidak akan punya allah lain di hadapanKu”? Ya!

2.    Dia telah melanggar Perintah Kedua.

Apakah kuil-kuil dan gereja-gereja Roma Katolikisme punya patung-patung yang di hadapannya orang-orang bersujud? Ya! Jadi Perintah Kedua termasuk.

3.    Bagaimana dengan Perintah Ketiga, “Engkau tidak akan memakai nama TUHAN, Allahmu, dengan sembarangan”?

Apakah Kepausan menggunakan gelar-gelar yang hanya milik Allah dan menghujat? Ya!

4.    Bagaimana dengan Perintah Keempat?

Apakah Tanduk Kecil mengklaim mengubah Hukum Allah? Ya! Dia mengobok-obok Sabat hari ketujuh milik Allah.

5.    Bagaimana dengan Perintah Kelima?

Apakah Kepausan tidak menghormati Bapa yang di Surga dengan merebut nama-nama yang hanya milik Bapa di Surga, dimulai dari kata “Bapa”?

6.    Apakah Kepausan bersalah telah melanggar Perintah “Engkau tidak akan membunuh”? Itulah yang baru kita pelajari.

7.    Apakah Kepausan bersalah telah melanggar Perintah Ketujuh dengan berzinah dengan raja-raja bumi? Dengan mempersatukan Gereja dengan pemerintah? Ya!

8.    Bagaimana dengan Perintah Kesembilan, “Engkau tidak akan memberikan saksi dusta tentang sesamamu”?

Alkitab memberitahu kita bahwa Kepausan akan membuat banyak keajaiban-keajaiban tipuan.

9.    Dan bagaimana dengan Perintah Kedelapan “Engkau tidak akan mencuri”?

Kepausan telah menyita dan merampas harta milik kelompok Waldensia misalnya.

10. Dan bagaimana dengan Perintah Kesepuluh “Engkau tidak akan mengingini”?

Tahukah kalian di Alkitab nama “Anak kebinasaan” hanya dipakai dua kali: sekali untuk Yudas di Yohanes 17:12, dan untuk Kepausan di 2 Tesalonika 2:3. Apa karakteristik utama Yudas? Dia serakah pada kekuasaan dan dia serakah pada harta. Apakah Kepausan bersalah dalam hal serakah pada sumber daya? Kepausan adalah kekuasaan yang sangat kaya menurut Wahyu 17. Apakah dia serakah pada kekayaan dan kekuasaan? Tepat sekali.

Jadi sistem Roma Katolik bukan saja bersalah punya niat untuk mengubah Perintah Keempat, dia bersalah telah melanggar semua Sepuluh Perintah.

 

 

Now we also know how the Papacy attempted to change the Law. Basically, the Papacy when you read the catechisms with the exception of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is the latest  publication. One time I went to a bookstore in Albuquerque New Mexico which was part of the territory that I covered as ministerial director. At Garsten’s Roman Catholic Bookshop. And I said I'm going to check as many catechisms as I can to see what the catechism has to say about the Second Commandment “Thou shalt not bow before images or make images”,  and none of the catechisms, I checked many of them, none of them had the Second Commandment of God's Law.

 

Nah, kita juga tahu bagaimana Kepausan berusaha mengubah Hukum Allah. Pada dasarnya Kepausasn bila kita baca katekismusnya dengan perkecualian Katekismus Gereja Katolik penerbitan terakhir. Suatu kali saya pergi ke sebuah toko buku di Albuquerque New Mexico, yang adalah teritori yang saya kepalai sebagai direktur penginjilan, di toko buku Garsten, toko buku Katolik. Dan saya bertujuan mengecek sebanyak mungkin katekismus-katekismus untuk melihat apa yang dikatakan di dalam katekismus-katekismus itu tentang Perintah Kedua “Engkau tidak akan menyembah patung atau membuat patung”, dan tidak ada katekismus yang berisikan Perintah Kedua dari Hukum Allah, padahal saya mengecek banyak dari mereka.

 

 

You say, “How is it that it didn't have the Second Commandment?”

It had “You shall have no other gods before Me” the First Commandment. It passed up the Second Commandment and that leaves you with how many Commandments? It leaves you with nine. And everybody knows there's 10. So then they divide the Tenth Commandment into two. “Don't covet your neighbor's goods” and “Don't covet your neighbor's wife”. But covetousness is covetousness, so in one sense even though the Roman Catholic Bible has the Second Commandment, the catechisms pass it up. Why? Because when children study the catechism it says “you shall not make any graven image or bow before it”, immediately children will say, “Well, why is the Church filled with images then? And why do people bow to them?” And so the Catholic system has tried to hide the violation of the Second Commandment.

 

Kalian berkata, “Bagaimana bisa tidak ada Perintah Keduanya?”

Yang ada “Engkau tidak akan punya allah lain di hadapanKu”, Perintah Pertama. Lalu Perintah Kedua dilewati, dan itu menyisakan berapa Perintah? Itu menyisakan sembilan. Dan semua orang tahu ada 10. Maka mereka lalu membagi Perintah Kesepuluh menjadi dua. “Engkau tidak akan mengingini harta sesama” dan “Engkau tidak akan mengingini istri sesama”. Tetapi mengingini adalah mengingini, jadi walaupun di Alkitab Roma Katolik ada Perintah Keduanya, di Katekismusnya itu dilewati. Mengapa? Karena bila anak-anak belajar Katekismus lalu di sana tertulis “engkau tidak akan membuat patung apa pun atau menyembahnya”, langsung anak-anak akan berkata, “Nah, mengapa Gereja penuh dengan patung kalau begitu? Dan mengapa orang-orang sujud kepada patung-patung itu?” Maka sistem Katolik berusaha menyembunyikan pelanggaran terhadap Perintah Kedua.

 

 

But the big change that the Roman Catholic Church has made is in the Sabbath commandment.

 

Tetapi perubahan besar yang dibuat Gereja Roma Katolik ialah pada Perintah Sabat.

 

 

Now let's go in our study notes to page 250. You know Martin Luther had a debate with John Eck, the representative of the Roman Catholic Church. And John Eck in this one instance got the better of Luther. I want you to notice what John Eck used to put Martin Luther between a rock and a hard place. He actually used Luther's own argument against him because Luther was Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura! The Bible alone. Notice what Eck told Luther in the debate. “The  Scripture teaches ‘Remember that you sanctify the day of the Sabbath; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.’ etc. But the  Church has...”  what's the next word?  “... has      changed the Sabbath into the Lord’s...”  obviously it's the Lord's Day  “...by its own authority, concerning which you have no Scripture...” He's saying, “Luther, you say you go by Scripture, you don't have any basis for keeping Sunday.”  “.....The Sabbath is commanded many times by God; neither in  the Gospels nor in  Paul is it declared that the Sabbath has ceased; nevertheless, the  Church has instituted the Lord’s Day through the tradition of the apostles without Scripture.” (Johann Eck, Enchiridion Locorum Communium . . . Adversus Lutheranos [Handbook of Common Places against the Lutherans]. Venice: Ioan. Antonius & Fratres de Sabio, 1533, fols. 4v, 5r, 42v. Latin. Trans. by Frank H. Yost. Used by permission of Mrs. Frank Yost. [FRS No. 127] The quotation is found in The Seventh-day Adventist Source Book, paragraph #1445.)

 

Nah, mari ke makalah kita hal. 250. Kalian tahu, Martin Luther pernah berdebat dengan John Eck, wakil dari Gereja Roma Katolik. Dan John Eck sekali ini mengalahkan Luther. Saya mau kalian simak apa yang dipakai John Eck untuk memojokkan Martin Luther. Dia menggunakan argumentasi Luther sendiri terhadapnya, karena Luther selalu mengatakan “Sola Scriptura! Sola Scriptura!” Hanya Alkitab. Simak apa kata Eck kepada Luther dalam perdebatan itu.  “…Kitab Suci mengajarkan, ‘Ingatlah agar kamu menguduskan hari Sabat; enam hari engkau harus bekerja dan melakukan semua pekerjaanmu, tetapi hari ketujuh adalah Sabat Tuhan Allahmu’ dst. Tetapi Gereja telah…”  apa kata berikutnya?   “…telah mengubah Sabat menjadi Hari Tuhan berdasarkan autoritasnya sendiri, mengenai hal itu, tidak ada ayat Kitab Sucinya…”  Dia berkata, “Luther, kamu mengatakan kamu hanya berdasarkan Kitab Suci, maka kamu tidak punya alasan apa pun untuk memelihara hari Minggu.”   “…Sabat itu diperintahkan banyak kali oleh Allah; baik di kitab-kitab Injil maupun di tulisan Paulus tidak ada pernyataan bahwa Sabat sudah berakhir; namun demikian Gereja telah melembagakan Hari Tuhan melalui tradisi para rasul tanpa ayat Kitab Suci.” (Johann Eck, Enchiridion Locorum Communium . . . Adversus Lutheranos [Handbook of Common Places against the Lutherans]. Venice: Ioan. Antonius & Fratres de Sabio, 1533, fols. 4v, 5r, 42v. Latin. Trans. by Frank H. Yost. Used by permission of Mrs. Frank Yost. [FRS No. 127] The quotation is found in The Seventh-day Adventist Source Book, paragraph #1445.) 

 

 

Now notice this quotation, the following quotation that we have here. “If, however,  the church has had power to  change...” what's the word again? You know we're going to go through all of these pages regarding the Sabbath, and we're going to look at the word “change” and  synonyms that are used about what the Roman Catholic Church supposedly did with the Sabbath. But “If, however,  the church has had power to  change the Sabbath of the Bible into Sunday and to command Sunday keeping, why should it not have also this power concerning  other days,...”  does the Roman Catholic Church have bunches of other days that they observe that the Church has established? Yeah, one of those is Easter. Where does the Bible say we're supposed to celebrate Easter? Where does the Bible speak of Holy Thursday, Good Friday, you know Ash Wednesday, and so on? It's not in the Bible, but the Catholic Church has established these days. So it says, if it established these days why can't it establish the day of worship? So once again, “...If, however,  the church has had power to  change the Sabbath of the Bible into Sunday and to command Sunday keeping, why should it not have also this power concerning  other days, many of which are not based on the Scriptures— such as Christmas, circumcision of the heart, three kings, etc. If you omit the latter  and turn from the church to the  Scriptures alone, then you must keep the Sabbath with  the Jews, which has been kept from the  beginning of the world.”  (Johann Eck, Enchiridion Locorum Communium. . . Adversus Lutheranos, pp. 78, 79. Quoted in Andrews and Conradi, History of the Sabbath, 1912 edition, p. 587).  That's John Eck. Was John Eck right in this instance? You’d better believe it. He put Luther between a rock and a hard place.

 

Nah, simak kutipan ini, kutipan berikut yang ada di sini. “…Namun jika Gereja punya wewenang untuk mengubah…” apa kata yang dipakainya lagi? Kalian tahu kita akan melihat semua halaman ini mengenai Sabat, dan kita akan melihat kata “mengubah” dan sinonim-sinonimnya yang dipakai oleh Gereja Roma Katolik tentang Sabat. “…Namun jika Gereja punya wewenang untuk mengubah Sabat Alkitab menjadi hari Minggu dan memerintahkan untuk memelihara hari Minggu, mengapa dia tidak juga punya wewenang yang sama mengenai hari-hari yang lain…”  apakah Gereja Roma Katolik punya banyak hari-hari lain yang mereka pelihara yang ditetapkann oleh Gereja? Ya, salah satunya Paskah. Di mana di Alkitab dikatakan kita harus merayakan Paskah? Di mana di Alkitab ada Kamis Suci, Jumat Agung, Rabu Abu, dll? Itu tidak ada di Alkitab, tetapi Gereja Katolik telah menetapkan hari-hari ini. Maka dikatakan, jika Gereja telah menetapkan hari-hari ini, mengapa dia tidak bisa menetapkan hari ibadah? Jadi sekali lagi, “…Namun jika Gereja punya wewenang untuk mengubah Sabat Alkitab menjadi hari Minggu dan memerintahkan untuk memelihara hari Minggu, mengapa dia tidak juga punya wewenang yang sama mengenai hari-hari yang lain, banyak di antaranya yang tidak berdasarkan Kitab Suci – seperti Natal, sunat hati, tiga raja, dll. Jika kamu menghapus yang belakangan dan berpaling dari Gereja kepada hanya Kitab Suci, maka kamu harus memelihara Sabat bersama orang-orang Yahudi, yang telah dipelihara sejak permulaan dunia.” (Johann Eck, Enchiridion Locorum Communium. . . Adversus Lutheranos, pp. 78, 79. Quoted in Andrews and Conradi, History of the Sabbath, 1912 edition, hal. 587).  Itu John Eck. Apakah John Eck benar dalam hal ini? Percayalah! Dia telah memojokkan Luther.

 

 

Luther could not answer this argument. Chalk up one for Dr. Eck. His argument is irrefutable. Luther, however, tried to get off the hook by claiming that the specific day was ceremonial while the principle of rest on one day in seven was still binding. You know for some reason Luther sometimes said that, that we're supposed to keep the Sabbath, and sometimes he said Sunday. So he was very inconsistent in his theology. Sometimes he spoke of the state of the dead as a person dies, and they're dead until the resurrection; other times he spoke about the immortality of the soul. He was very inconsistent. Maybe it was sometimes he was seated at the table drinking too much beer, because we know that he loved beer, but that's just speculation on my part.

 

Luther tidak bisa menjawab argumentasi ini. Angka satu buat Dr. Eck. Argumentasinya tidak terbantahkan. Namun Luther berusaha meloloskan dirinya dengan mengklaim bahwa hari yang khusus itu seremonial sementara prinsip untuk beristirahat pada satu hari dalam tujuh itu masih mengikat. Kalian tahu, entah mengapa Luther terkadang mengatakan bahwa kita harus memelihara Sabat, dan terkadang dia mengatakan hari Minggu. Jadi dia sangat tidak konsisten dalam theologinya. Terkadang dia bicara tentang status orang mati, saat orang itu mati dia mati hingga saat kebangkitan; di saat lain dia bicara tentang kebakaan nyawa. Dia sangat tidak konsisten. Mungkin itu karena terkadang dia duduk di meja minum terlalu banyak bir, karena kita tahu dia suka sekali bir, tapi ini hanya spekulasi saya.

 

 

Now notice what I'm going to do now. I'm going to go through all of the pages that speak about the change of the Sabbath, all of these statements were written by Roman Catholics, okay? And what is the key word? “changed”. But there are other words that are used which are similar. Notice at the bottom of the page, I'm only going to read portions of these statements, you can read them at your leisure. I already read  “If however the Church has had power to…” what? “…to change…”  Notice the next quotation.

Gaspare de Fosso, Archbishop of Reggio on January 18, 1562, at the bottom of this quotation, “...  The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been...” what? Are you seeing where we're at? We're in page 251,  “...has been changed into the  Lord’s Day  . . . These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been...”  there it is again, “...changed by the authority of the  church.” (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, 33:529-530)

 

Sekarang simak apa yang akan saya lakukan. Saya akan membacakan semua halaman yang bicara tentang perubahan Sabat, semua pernyataan yang ditulis oleh orang-orang Roma Katolik, oke? Dan apa kata kuncinya? “ubah”. Tetapi ada kata-kata lain yang dipakai yang artinya sama. Simak di bagian bawah halaman, saya hanya akan membacakan bagian-bagian pernyataan-pernyataan itu, kalian boleh membaca lengkapnya di waktu senggang kalian. Saya sudah membacakan “…Namun jika Gereja punya wewenang untuk…”  apa?   “…mengubah…”  Simak kutipan berikutnya.

Gaspare de Fosso, Uskup Agung Reggio, pada 18 Januari 1562, di bagian bawah kutipan itu,   “…Sabat, hari yang paling mulia dalam Hukum, telah…”  apa? Apakah kalian melihat kita ada di mana? Kita di hal. 251,   “…telah diubah menjadi Hari Tuhan…. Ini dan hal-hal serupa lainnya tidak berhenti berdasarkan ajaran Kristus (krena Dia mengatakan Dia datang untuk menggenapi Hukum bukan melenyapkannya) tetapi mereka telah…”  ini, kata itu lagi,   “…diubah atas wewenang Gereja.” (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, 33:529-530) 

 

 

Let's go to the next page. Another word is used here. At the top of the page. “Had she (the church) not such power...”  to make this change  “...she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her—she could not have...”  now here's a different word but it means the  same thing “...could not have...”  what? “...substituted...”  so who substituted Sunday for the Sabbath? The Church, according to this Roman Catholic writer. (Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, approved by the Most Reverend John Hughes, D. D., Archbishop of New York, New York: Edward Dunigan & Brother, 1851, p. 174)

 

Mari ke halaman berikutnya. Di sini dipakai kata yang lain. Di bagian atas halaman   “…Sekiranya dia (Gereja) tidak memiliki wewenang demikian…”  untuk membuat perubahan ini   “…dia tidak bisa melakukan itu di mana semua religionist modern sepakat dengannya – dia tidak akan bisa…”  nah ini kata yang lain tetapi yang maknanya sama,   “…tidak akan bisa…”  apa?   “…mensubstitusi…”  jadi siapa yang mensubstitusi hari Minggu sebagai Sabat? Menurut penulis Roma Katolik ini, Gereja. (Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, approved by the Most Reverend John Hughes, D. D., Archbishop of New York, New York: Edward Dunigan & Brother, 1851, hal. 174).    

 

 

Notice a little bit further down where it says, “Answer: By the very act...” how do you prove that the Church has power to command feasts and holy days? The  “...Answer: By the very act of...”  what?   “...changing the Sabbath into Sunday...” (Rev. Henry Tuberville -- New York: Edward Dunigan and Brothers, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, approved in 1833, p. 58).

 

Simak  sedikit lebih ke bawah di mana dikatakan, “…Jawab: Tidak lain dengan tindakan…”  Bagaimana cara membuktikan bahwa Gereja punya wewenang menetapkan perayaan-perayaan  dan hari-hari kudus? “…Jawab: Tidak lain dengan tindakan…” apa?   “…mengubah Sabat menjadi hari Minggu…” (Rev. Henry Tuberville -- New York: Edward Dunigan and Brothers, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, approved in 1833, hal. 58).

 

 

Now let's go to the next page, page 253, let's read beginning where it says, “Yet...” the second line  “...Yet with all this weight of  Scripture authority...”  because he's just quoted all verses that say we're supposed to keep the Sabbath  “...Yet with all this weight of  Scripture authority for keeping the Sabbath, or seventh day, holy,  Protestants of all denominations make this a profane day, and...”  what? Ah there's another word,  “... transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or the Sunday. Now  what authority have they for doing this?...” what authority do Protestants have for transferring the day?  “... None whatever, except the  unwritten word, or  tradition of the  Catholic Church...” (John Milner, End of Religious Controversy, New York: P. J. Kennedy, 1897, p. 89)

 

Nah, mari ke halaman berikut, hal. 253, mari kita baca mulai di mana dikatakan,   “…Namun…”  baris kedua.   “…Namun dengan semua kekuatan autoritas Kitab Suci ini…”  karena dia baru saja mengutip semua ayat yang mengatakan kita harus memelihara Sabat,   “…Namun dengan semua kekuatan autoritas Kitab Suci ini untuk memelihara Sabat atau hari ketujuh kudus, Protestan dari segala denominasi membuat ini menjadi hari yang biasa, dan…”  apa? Ah, ini kata yang lain,   “…memindahkan kewajiban itu kepada hari pertama setiap minggu, atau hari Minggu. Nah, wewenang apa yang mereka miliki untuk melakukan ini?…”  wewenang apa yang dimiliki Protestan untuk memindahkan hari ini?  “…Sama sekali tidak ada, kecualli kata yang tidak tertulis, atau tradisi dari Gereja Katolik…” (John Milner, End of Religious Controversy, New York: P. J. Kennedy, 1897, hal. 89)

 

 

Notice in the middle of the page. “It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ...” which is not true  “...has...” what? There's the word,  “...has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord....” (Monsignor Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today Boston: Thomas B. Noonan & Co., 1868, p. 213)

 

Simak di bagian tengah halaman.  “…Gereja Katoliklah yang dengan wewenang Yesus Kristus…” ini tidak benar   “…telah…”  apa? Kata itu lagi,   “…telah memindahkan perhentian ini ke hari Minggu untuk memperingati kebangkitan Tuhan kita….”(Monsignor Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today Boston: Thomas B. Noonan & Co., 1868, hal. 213) 

 

 

Let's go to the next page.

“Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?”  This is a catechism.

“Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the  Catholic Church, in the  Council of Laodicea (336 A.D.),...”  did what? “... transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”  (Rev.  Peter  Geiermann,  The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957 edition, p. 50).

 

Mari ke halaman berikutnya.

“Pertanyaan: Mengapa kami memelihara hari Minggu dan bukan hari Sabtu?” Ini katekismus.

“Jawaban:  Kami memelihara hari Minggu dan bukan hari Sabtu karena Gereja Katolik di Konsili Laodekia (336 AD) …”  melakukan apa?   “…telah memindahkan kekhidmatan dari hari Sabtu ke hari Minggu.” (Rev.  Peter  Geiermann,  The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957 edition, hal. 50).

 

 

And then notice the very next statement, the long paragraph that we have here, towards the end. I'm going to read where it starts, where it says, “None. Why is this? The Bible which Protestants   claim   to   obey   exclusively,   gives   no   authorization   for   the...” what? Ah here's another word,  “...for the substitution of the first day of the week for the seventh. On what authority, therefore, have they done so? Plainly on the authority of that very  Catholic Church which they abandoned and whose  traditions they condemn.” (John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1922, p. 80)

 

Kemudian simak pernyataan berikut, paragraf yang panjang di sini, menjelang bagian akhirnya. Saya akan membacakan di mana diawali, di mana dikatakan, “…Tidak ada. Mengapa begini? Alkitab yang oleh golongan Protestan mereka klaim mereka patuhi secara eksklusif, tidak memberikan autorisasi untuk…”  apa? Ah, ini kata yang lain, “…untuk mensubstitusi hari pertama dari setiap minggu sebagai hari ketujuh. Oleh karena ini, berdasarkan autoritas apa mereka telah melakukan itu? Semata-mata berdasarkan autoritas Gereja Katolik yang sama yang telah mereka tinggalkan, dan yang tradisinya mereka tuduh salah.” (John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1922, hal. 80) 

 

 

Notice the next statement. “What Bible authority is there for  changing...” there's the word again  “...changing the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week? Who gave the Pope authority to...” what? There it is again  “...to change a command of God?...”  (St.  Justin Martyr -- Apol., c. 67)

 

Simak pernyataan berikut.   “…Autoritas Alkitab apa yang ada untuk penggantian…”  kata itu lagi,   “…penggantian Sabat dari hari ketujuh ke hari pertama setiap minggu? Siapa yang memberi Paus wewenang untuk…”  apa? Kata itu lagi,   “…untuk mengganti suatu Perintah Allah?...” (St.  Justin Martyr -- Apol., c. 67) 

 

 

This is the famous Cardinal James Gibbons, and he says,  “if you are a follower only of the Bible as your guide he says you should be a Seventh Day Adventist.” Da, we'll take it, right?

 

Ini adalah pernyataan Cardinal James Gibbons yang terkenal, dan dia berkata, “Jika kamu adalah pengikut Alkitab semata-mata sebagai penuntunmu, kamu harus menjadi seorang MAHK.”  Da (= Ya), kita terima itu, bukan?

 

 

Notice on the next page. Time and again, “substitution” in place of “changed”.

Notice in the middle of the next page, page 255. “The   Jews’  Sabbath day was Saturday;...” now let's stop there for a moment. How many times does the Bible refer to the Jewish Sabbath or the Sabbath of the Jews? I'll give you one guess. Zero! It's always “the Sabbath of the Lord your God”. Jesus says, “I Am Lord of the Sabbath.” The seventh day is the Sabbath. It says it repeatedly. However, the Roman Catholic Church says that it was the Jewish Sabbath. All last three Popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I have all referred to the Sabbath in their writings as the Sabbath of the Jews or the Jewish Sabbath. So notice once again,  “...The   Jews’ Sabbath day was Saturday; we Christians keep Sunday holy.  The Church, by the power our Lord gave her,...”  the Lord gave her what? There it is again, “...changed the observance of the Saturday to the Sunday.” (H. Canon Cafferata ~ The Catechism Simply Explained p. 89)

 

Simak halaman berikut. Berulang-ulang, “mensubstitusi” di tempat “mengubah”. Simak di bagian tengah halaman berikut, hal. 255.   “…Hari Sabat Yahudi ialah hari Sabtu…”  nah, mari kita berhenti di sini sejenak. Berapa kali Alkitab merujuk ke Sabat Yahudi atau hari Sabatnya orang Yahudi? Saya beri kalian satu tebakan. Nihil! Itu selalu “Sabat Tuhan Allahmu”. Yesus berkata, “Akulah Tuan atas hari Sabat”. Hari ketujuh itulah Sabat. Dikatakan demikian berulang-ulang. Namun, Gereja Roma Katolik berkata bahwa itu adalah Sabat Yahudi. Semua tiga Paus yang terakhir: Yohanes Paulus II, Benedictus XVI, dan Francis I, semuanya merujuk kepada Sabat di tulisasn-tulisan mereka sebagai Sabat Yahudi atau hari Sabatnya orang Yahudi. Jadi simak sekali lagi, “…Hari Sabat Yahudi ialah hari Sabtu; kami orang Kristen memelihara kekudusan hari Minggu. Gereja berdasarkan wewenang yang diberikan Tuhan kami kepadanya,…”  Tuhan memberinya apa? Kata itu lagi,   “…telah mengganti pemeliharaan hari Sabtu ke hari Minggu.” (H. Canon Cafferata ~ The Catechism Simply Explained hal. 89) 

 

You know, when you're studying with people about Daniel chapter 7, you want to use these quotations from Roman Catholics, and you say, “What does Daniel 7 say, that the Little Horn thought that it could what? Change. Now let's see how that's fulfilled in history. Let's see what power claims to have changed the day.” It didn't change the day.

 

Kalian tahu, bila kalian belajar bersama orang-orang tentang Daniel pasal 7, kalian harus menggunakan kutipan-kutipan ini dari orang-orang Roma Katolik, dan kalian berkata, ”Apa kata Daniel 7, bahwa Tanduk Kecil berpikir dia bisa apa? Mengubah. Nah, mari kita lihat bagaimana itu digenapi di sejarah. Mari kita lihat, kekuasaan mana yang mengklaim telah mengubah hari.” Dia tidak mengubah hari.

 

 

Notice the final quotation on page 255, the third line, “...The  Church...”  now a different word is used “...The Church...” what? “...altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday....” “changed” or “altered” basically means the same thing. (H. Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Simply Explained ~ London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1938, p. 89)

 

Simak kutipan terakhir di hal. 255, baris ketiga,   “…Gereja…”  sekarang memakai kata yang lain, “…Gereja…”  apa?   “…telah mengganti pemeliharaan hari Sabat ke pemeliharaan hari Minggu.…”  “mengubah” atau “mengganti” pada dasarnya berarti hal yang sama. (H. Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Simply Explained ~ London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1938, hal. 89)

 

 

Notice on the next page, the top of the next page. We couldn’t read all these statements but you have them  so you know as long as those who watch the DVD know that we have the study notes, and there's much much more proof than what we're sharing here in the class, we've fulfilled our commitment.

 

Simak di halaman berikut, bagian atas halaman berikut. Kita tidak bisa membaca semua pernyataan ini tetapi kalian sudah memiliki mereka, jadi selama mereka yang menonton dari DVD tahu bahwa kita punya makalah, dan ada jauh lebih banyak bukti di sana daripada apa yang kami bagikan di sini di kelas, kami telah memenuhi komitmen kami.

 

 

Notice at the top of the page, the second paragraph, “The Bible tells us to keep Saturday holy. The change was made by Christian tradition dating back to the time of the Apostles...”  that's not true. “...But not one of them...”  that is of the apostles  “...said a single word about making the...”  what? There it is again, the word  “... change...” (W. Frean ‘Majellan’ Office ~ Ballarat, Victoria [Australia]: Redemptorist Fathers, 1959, p. 88. This book comes with a foreword by His Eminence, Cardinal Gilroy).

 

Simak di bagian atas halaman, paragraf kedua, “…Alkitab memberitahu kita supaya memelihara kekudusan hari Sabtu. Perubahan dibuat oleh tradisi Kristen sejak zaman para rasul…” ini tidak benar. “…Tetapi tidak satu pun dari mereka…”  maksudnya dari para rasul,   “…mengatakan sepatah kata pun tentang membuat…” apa? Kata itu lagi, kata   “…perubahan…”(W. Frean ‘Majellan’ Office ~ Ballarat, Victoria [Australia]: Redemptorist Fathers, 1959, hal. 88. This book comes with a foreword by His Eminence, Cardinal Gilroy).

 

 

Notice another writer that challenges Protestants to give clear biblical evidence of the change. Notice what it says, “You will tell me that Saturday was the  Jewish Sabbath, but that the  Christian Sabbath  has  been  changed  to  Sunday.   Changed!...”  I think that the “changed” is an important word, right?   “...Changed!  But  by  whom?  Who  has authority to...”  hello! “...to change an express commandment of Almighty God?...” (Dr. Leslie Rumble, Tract titled: Seventh-day Adventists, pp. 23, 24)

 

Simak penulis lain yang menantang Protestan untuk memberikan bukti jelas yang alkitabiah tentang perubahan itu. Simak apa katanya, “…Anda akan memberitahu saya bahwa Sabtu adalah Sabat Yahudi, dan Sabat Kristen telah diubah ke hari Minggu. Diubah!…”  menurut saya “diubah” itu kata yang penting, benar?   “…Diubah! Tetapi oleh siapa? Siapa yang punya wewenang untuk…”  hallo?   “…untuk mengubah suatu Perintah langsung dari Allah yang Mahakuasa?...” (Dr. Leslie Rumble, Tract titled: Seventh-day Adventists, hal. 23, 24) 

 

 

Notice the next paragraph, third line. Well, let's begin at the top to give a context. “You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go  against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day  in the place of...” see, that's another way of saying it changed, substituted, etc. You “…put another day in place of…” the Sabbath. (Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day? London: Burns and Oates, pp. 3, 4)

 

Simak paragraf berikut, baris ketiga. Nah, mari kita mulai dari atas untuk memberikan konteksnya. “…Kamu seorang Protestan, dan kamu mengaku hanya berpegang pada Alkitab, dan melulu Alkitab; namun dalam hal yang sedemikian pentingnya seperti pemeliharaan satu hari dalam tujuh sebagai hari yang kudus, kamu melanggar tulisan jelas Alkitab, dan memasukkan hari yang lain menggantikan tempat…”  lihat, itu cara lain untuk mengatakan “mengubah”, “mensubstitusi”, dll. Kamu   “…memasukkan hari yang lain menggantikan tempat…”  Sabat…” (Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day? London: Burns and Oates, hal. 3, 4)

 

 

Go to the next page, page 257, and we're going to take a look at the third paragraph, actually the second full paragraph, where it says the word “Sabbath” means rest. Let's go to the very end of that quotation. It says there at the middle of the quotation, “...In order to make  clear to the Jews that they are no longer under the  Old Law of Moses,...” what an insult, “...with its requirements of circumcision, abstinence from certain meat and the scrupulous observance of the Jewish sacrifice in the Sabbath; but under the New Law of Christ, the  infant Church...”  what? “...changed the day to be kept holy from Saturday to Sunday...”  The very next statement,  “...The  Church received the authority to make such a  change from her Founder, Jesus Christ. He solemnly  conferred upon His Church the power to legislate, govern and administer....” of course in harmony with what the Bible teaches, that's my addition  “...the power of the keys. It is to be noted that the Church did not change the divine law...” of course it did, because it says Sunday not Sabbath. “...It is to be noted that the Church did not change the divine law obliging men to worship, but merely changed the day...”  (John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions ~ Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1974 p. 400, 401).  Hello? So it did change it, right?

 

Mari ke halaman berikut, hal. 257, dan kita akan melihat paragraf ketiga, sebetulnya seluruh paragraf kedua, di mana ada kata “Sabat” berarti perhentian. Mari kita lihat sampai ke akhir kutipan itu. Dikatakan di bagian tengah kutipan,   “…Untuk membuatnya jelas bagi orang-orang Yahudi bahwa mereka tidak lagi di bawah Hukum Musa yang lama…”  betapa menghinanya, “…dengan persyaratan sunat, menghindari daging-daging tertentu, dan pemeliharaan ketat pengorbanan Yahudi pada hari Sabat; tetapi di bawah Hukum baru Kristus, maka Gereja yang masih muda…” apa? “…mengubah hari yang dipelihara kekudusannya dari Sabtu ke Minggu…”  Pernyataan berikutnya, “…Gereja menerima wewenang untuk membuat perubahan demikian dari Pendirinya, Yesus Kristus. Dia dengan sungguh-sungguh mengaruniakan ke atas GerejaNya, kuasa untuk membuat peraturan, memerintah, dan mengatur…”  tentu saja harus selaras dengan apa yang diajarkan Alkitab, ini tambahan saya,  “…kuasa dari kunci-kunci. Perlu disimak bahwa Gereja tidak mengubah Hukum Ilahi…”  tentu saja dia mengubah, karena dia mengatakan Minggu bukan Sabat.   “…Perlu disimak bahwa Gereja tidak mengubah Hukum Ilahi yang mewajibkan manusia untuk beribadah, tetapi semata-mata mengganti harinya…”(John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions ~ Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1974 hal. 400, 401).  hallo? Jadi toh dia menggantinya, benar?   

 

 

Notice the last quotation on this page, page 257,  “But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this...” there it is again  “...but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born...”  (John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions ~ Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1974 p. 400, 401)

 

Simak kutipan terakhir di halaman ini, hal. 257,  “...Tetapi karena Sabtu bukan Minggu yang tertulis di Alkitab, apakah tidak aneh non-Katolik yang mengaku mengambil agama mereka langsung dari Alkitab dan bukan dari Gereja, memelihara hari Minggu dan bukan Sabtu? Ya, tentu saja itu tidak konsisten. Tetapi…”  kata itu lagi,   “…perubahan ini sudah dibuat sekitar 15 abad sebelum Protestantisme lahir...” (John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions ~ Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1974 hal. 400, 401)

 

 

On the next page second full paragraph, “Why did the  Church...” there it is again, the Church what?  “...Why did the Church change the Lord’s day from the Sabbath to Sunday?...” ( Killgallen  and  Weber,  Life  in  Christ: Instructions in the Catholic Faith, p. 243)

 

Di halaman berikut, seluruh paragraf kedua,    “…Mengapa Gereja…”  kata itu lagi, Gereja apa?   “…Mengapa Gereja mengubah Hari Tuhan dari Sabat ke Minggu?...” ( Killgallen  and  Weber,  Life  in  Christ: Instructions in the Catholic Faith, hal. 243) 

 

 

The very next quotation, “It was the Holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday...” (Words of Father Enright, longtime President of Redemptorist College in America, quoted in, Joe Crews, The Beast, the Dragon and the Woman ~ Frederick, Maryland: Amazing Facts, Inc., thirteenth edition, June 1991, p. 33.)

 

Kutipan berikutnya,   “…Gereja Kudus Katolik-lah yang mengubah hari perhentian dari Sabtu ke Minggu…” (Words of Father Enright, longtime President of Redemptorist College in America, quoted in, Joe Crews, The Beast, the Dragon and the Woman ~ Frederick, Maryland: Amazing Facts, Inc., thirteenth edition, June 1991, hal. 33.)

 

 

The next quotation, “Nothing is said in the Bible about the change of the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday. We know of the  change only from the tradition of the  Church...” (Rev. Leo J. Trese and John J. Castletot, S. S., Salvation History and the Commandments 1963 edition, p. 294). Somehow I think that this is a fulfillment of Daniel 7:25. You think? Of course!

 

Kutipan berikut,   “…Di Alkitab tidak dikatakan apa pun tentang perubahan Hari Tuhan dari Sabtu ke Minggu. Kita tahu tentang perubahan itu hanya dari tradisi Gereja…” (Rev. Leo J. Trese and John J. Castletot, S. S., Salvation History and the Commandments 1963 edition, hal. 294).   Menurut saya, ini adalah penggenapan Daniel 7:25. Menurut kalian? Tentu saja!

 

 

Notice a quotation at the top of page 259, at the middle of the quotation where it says, “...The  Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the  Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the  third commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, article, ‘The Commandments of God’. James Bellord, A New Catechism of Christian Doctrine,  pp. 86, 87)

 

Simak kutipan di bagian atas hal. 259, bagian tengah kutipan di mana dikatakan,   “…Gereja, di pihak lain, setelah mengganti hari perhentian dari Sabat Yahudi atau hari ketujuh setiap minggu, ke hari pertama, membuat Perintah Ketiga mengacu ke hari Minggu sebagai hari untuk dikuduskan sebagai Hari Tuhan.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, article, ‘The Commandments of God’. James Bellord, A New Catechism of Christian Doctrine,  hal. 86, 87)

 

 

Middle of the page where the Q is, “has the Roman Catholic Church a power to make any…” now, that we have another word, any what? “…alterations in the commandments of God?...” The answer “. . . Instead of...”  that's “change”, right?  “...Instead of  the seventh day, and other festivals appointed by the old law,  the Church has prescribed the Sundays and holidays to be set apart for God’s worship: and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of...” see, that's another way of expressing it “...instead of the ancient Sabbath.”  (Richard Challoner, The Catholic Christian Instructed, p. 211)

 

Bagian tengah halaman di mana Pertanyaannya ialah:   “…Apakah Gereja Roma Katolik punya wewenang untuk membuat…”  nah sekarang kita mendapat kata yang lain, apa?   “…penggantian apa pun dalam Perintah-perintah Allah?…” Jawabannya, “…Sebagai ganti…”  itu “mengubah”, benar?   “…Sebagai ganti hari yang ketujuh dan hari-hari raya lain yang ditentukan oleh Hukum yang lama, Gereja telah menetapkan hari-hari Minggu dan hari-hari libur untuk disisihkan sebagai hari-hari ibadah; dan yang ini wajib kita pelihara sehubungan dengan Perintah-perintah Allah, menggantikan…” lihat, ini cara lain untuk mengungkapkannya, “…menggantikan Sabat yang kuno.” (Richard Challoner, The Catholic Christian Instructed, hal. 211)

 

 

The next quotation, it says,  “There is not a word in the Gospels about  changing the day of worship...”  And then at the bottom of the page,  “...To  change the day of worship was a momentous thing for the new Church to do...” (Martin J. Scott, S.J. ~ Christ’s Own Church p. 44-45). So who changes the day? God’s Church, it's always the Church, the Church, the Church. The Church changes.

 

Kutipan berikutnya, dikatakan,   “…Tidak ada sepatah kata pun di kitab-kitab Injil tentang perubahan hari ibadah…”  Dan kemudian di bagian bawah halaman, “…Mengubah hari ibadah adalah peristiwa yang sangat penting yang dilakukan Gereja yang baru.” (Martin J. Scott, S.J. ~ Christ’s Own Church hal. 44-45).  Jadi siapa yang mengganti hari? Gereja Allah, selalu Gereja, Gereja, Gereja. Gereja yang mengganti.

 

 

Notice what this statement at the top of the page continues saying,  “...Unless it was by the authority of God it would not and could not have been done. Yet, there is no special authorization for this...”  what?  “...for this change in Scripture...” (Martin J. Scott, S.J. ~ Christ’s Own Church p. 44-45).

 

Simak apa yang dikatakan pernyataan ini selanjutnya di bagian atas halaman,   “…Kecuali oleh wewenang Allah, maka itu tidak bisa dan tidak mungkin terlaksana. Namun, tidak ada wewenang khusus untuk…” apa? “…untuk perubahan ini di Kitab Suci…”(Martin J. Scott, S.J. ~ Christ’s Own Church hal. 44-45).

 

 

And in the very next quotation it says,  “The  Church of Christ  abolished Sabbath worship...”   that's another way of expressing what the Church did.  (Martin J. Scott, S.J. ~ Christ’s Own Church p. 44-45).

 

Dan di kutipan berikutnya dikatakan,   “…Gereja Kristus telah menghapus ibadah Sabat…”  itu cara lain untuk mengungkapkan apa yang telah dilakukan Gereja. (Martin J. Scott, S.J. ~ Christ’s Own Church hal. 44-45).

 

 

The full paragraph at the end of page 260 says, “The  Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission,...”   what? “...changed the day from Saturday to Sunday...”  (The Catholic Mirror Baltimore, September 23, 1893).

 

Paragraf utuh di bagian akhir hal. 260 mengatakan,   “…Gereja Katolik selama lebih dari seribu tahun sebelum eksistensi Protestan, demi misi ilahinya, …”  apa?   “…telah mengubah harinya dari Sabtu ke Minggu…”   (The Catholic Mirror Baltimore, September 23, 1893) 

 

 

You know, these are all quotations from different Roman Catholic sources, they're incriminating. You know there's a Law against self-incrimination, but they're incriminating themselves mainly because they don't understand that Daniel 7:25 is pointing to their organization. If they interpreted the Bible from a historicist perspective, it would be clear that their Church is fulfilling Daniel 7:25. But they don't interpret prophecy from a historicist perspective, they don't use the proper method of interpreting prophecy. See, God has made it simple, folks. God has made, okay:

·       there's Babylon,

·       Medo Persia,

·       Greece,

·       the Roman Empire,

·       the division of the Roman Empire,

·       the Papacy for 1260 years,

·       deadly wound, period when there's no persecution,

·       then the deadly wound is healed by the United States,

·       and end time events take place.

That's historicism, it's simple. You know at every moment where you are in the flow of history, where are we in the prophetic chain now? We're at the very end of the prophetic chain, folks.

 

Kalian tahu, semua ini adalah kutipan dari sumber-sumber Roma Katolik yang berbeda, mereka mengkriminalisasi diri sendiri. Kalian tahu, ada hukumnya terhadap mengkriminalisasi diri, tetapi mereka mengkriminalisasi diri terutama karena mereka tidak mengerti bahwa Daniel 7:25 sedang menunjuk ke organisasi mereka. Andaikan mereka menginterpretasikan Alkitab dari sudut pandang sejarah, akan jelas bahwa Gereja mereka itu menggenapi Daniel 7:25. Tetapi mereka tidak menginterpretasi nubuatan dari sudut pandang sejarah, mereka tidak memakai metode menginterpretasi nubuatan yang benar. Lihat, Allah telah membuatnya sangat sederhana, Saudara-saudara. Allah telah membuatnya:

·       ada Babilon,

·       Medo-Persia,

·       Greeka,

·       Kekaisaran Roma,

·       Kekaisaran Roma yang terbagi,

·       Kepausan selama 1260 tahun,

·       luka yang mematikan, masa di mana tidak ada persekusi,

·       lalu luka yang mematikan disembuhkan oleh Amerika Serikat,

·       dan peristiwa-peristiwa akhir zaman terjadi.

Inilah historisme, sederhana. Kita tahu kapan saja di mana kita berada dalam alur sejarah. Di mana kita dalam rangkaian nubuatan sekarang? Kita berada di bagian paling akhir dari rangkaian nubuatan, Saudara-saudara.

 

 

What is the next great event? It's the United United States returning the sword of civil power to the Roman Catholic Papacy. That is one of the final acts in the great controversy. And if you read those newsletter articles on what the Papacy is doing in these last days, it's chilling because the Papacy is winning over the civil powers of the world by doing what the civil powers want.

·       Do the civil powers want gay marriage? Yes!

·       Do they want to support transgenderism? Yes!

·       Will they ultimately want to support Sunday as a day of rest? The United Nations has already gone in the record saying that. It's the culmination of the process.

And while this is happening before our eyes the Adventist Church sleeps. In some circles, “don't talk about this, it scares people, the Third Angel's Message scares people”.

You’d better believe it scares people, it says very clearly that if you worship the Beast and his image and receive his mark you're going to burn. I'm paraphrasing. Do you want your neighbors to burn? Do you want everybody in the world to burn? How are they going to find out not to burn? Who's going to tell them? The Adventist Church is the last bastion of historicism in the world. There's no other Church that has the correct interpretation of prophecy, and if we don't tell them, their blood will be in our hands. True? Yes, it's a sin of omission. See, we have sins of commission, when we speak wrongly. We have the sin of omission when we don't speak when we're supposed to speak. And some of you know I've been banned in speaking in many places, not only in North America, Inter America, South America, because this message is not liked, because they say it scares people. You know, I said some scary things to my kids when they were growing up. I was very graphic. For example I said to my kids, “When you cross the street, look both ways, because if you don't, a car is going to splatter you.” I would say that's a scary thought. Why did I warn them with such strong words? Because I didn't want them to be splattered. Why do we preach this message? Because we want the world to know what's happening, what soon is going to explode upon the world scene. We're sleeping when we should be proclaiming.

 

Apakah peristiwa besar berikutnya? Amerika Serikat mengembalikan pedang kekuasaan sipil kepada Kepausan Roma Katolik. Itulah salah satu tindakan terakhir dalam pertentangan besar. Dan jika kita membaca semua artikel di bulletin tentang apa yang dilakukan Kepausan di hari-hari akhir ini, itu mengerikan karena Kepausan sedang memenangkan kekuasaan sipil dunia dengan melakukan apa yang diinginkan kekuasaan sipil.

·       Apakah kekuasaan sipil menghendaki perkawinan gay? Ya!

·       Apakah mereka mau mendukung transgenderisme? Ya!

·       Apakah pada akhirnya mereka mau mendukung hari Minggu sebagai hari perhentian? PBB telah tercatat mengatakan demikian. Itu kulminasi dari prosesnya.

Dan sementara ini sedang terjadi di depan mata kita, Gereja Advent tidur. Di beberapa kalangan dikatakan, “Jangan membicarakan ini, ini menakuti orang. Pekabaran Malaikat Ketiga menakuti orang.” Percayalah itu memang menakuti orang, itu mengatakan dengan sangat jelas bahwa jika orang menyembah Binatang dan patungnya dan menerima tandanya, dia akan dibakar. Saya memakai kata-kata saya sendiri. Apakah kita mau semua orang di dunia dibakar? Bagaimana mereka bisa mencari tahu supaya tidak dibakar? Siapa yang akan memberitahu mereka? Gereja Advent adalah benteng terakhir dari historisme di dunia. Tidak ada Gereja lain yang punya interpretasi yang benar tentang nubuatan, dan jika kita tidak memberitahu mereka, darah mereka akan menjadi tanggungan kita. Benar? Iya! Itu adalah dosa tidak berbuat. Lihat, ada dosa karena berbuat bilamana kita bicara yang tidak benar, dan ada dosa tidak berbuat bila kita tidak bicara saat kita harus bicara.

Dan beberapa dari kalian tahu saya telah diblokir dari berbicara di banyak tempat, bukan hanya di Amerika Utara, Inter-Amerika, Amerika Selatan, karena pekabaran ini tidak disukai, karena mereka mengatakan ini menakuti orang. Kalian tahu saya mengatakan hal-hal yang menakutkan kepada anak-anak saya ketika mereka sedang bertumbuh. Saya menggambarkannya dengan sangat jelas. Misalnya saya katakan kepada anak-anak saya, “Kalau kalian menyeberang, lihat ke kedua arah, karena kalau tidak, sebuah mobil akan menabrak kalian sampai cemet.” Menurut saya itu pikiran yang mengerikan. Mengapa saya memperingati mereka dengan kata-kata sekeras itu? Karena saya tidak mau mereka ditabrak sampai cemet. Mengapa kita menyampaikan pekabaran ini? Karena kita mau dunia tahu apa yang sedang terjadi, apa yang akan segera meledak di dunia. Kita sedang tidur saat kita seharusnya sedang mengumumkan.

 

 

Notice the middle of page 261, this is the third paragraph. “The  Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine,  infallible  authority   given  to  her  by  her  Founder,  Jesus  Christ....” that's false, but it does say that the Church changed the day.  “...The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the  only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant...”  Amazing! (St. Justin the Martyr speaks of it in his Apologies.” The Catholic Universe Bulletin, ‘The Question Box,’ Volume 69, August 14, 1942, p. 4)

 

Simak bagian tengah hal. 261, ini paragraf ketiga.  “…Gereja telah mengubah pemeliharaan Sabat ke hari Minggu berdasarkan, autoritas ilahi yang infalibel yang diberikan kepadanya oleh Pendirinya, Yesus Kristus…”  ini tidak benar, tetapi ini mengatakan bahwa Gereja telah mengubah harinya. “…Golongan Protestan, yang mengklaim Alkitab sebagai satu-satunya pemandu iman, tidak punya autorisasi untuk memelihara hari Minggu. Dalam hal ini MAHK adalah satu-satunya Protestan yang konsisten…”  (St. Justin the Martyr speaks of it in his Apologies.” The Catholic Universe Bulletin, ‘The Question Box,’ Volume 69, August 14, 1942, hal. 4).  Luar biasa! 

 

 

Notice the next page, second full paragraph,  “All of us believe many things in regard to religion that we do not find in the Bible. For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that   the   Sabbath   be...” excuse me, what? What's the word again?  “... changed   from   Saturday   to   Sunday....”   (The Catholic Virginian, ‘To Tell You the Truth,' volume 22 October 3, 1947)

 

Simak halaman berikut, seluruh paragraf kedua. “…Kita semua menyakini banyak hal sehubungan dengan agama, yang tidak kita temukan di dalam Alkitab. Misalnya, di Alkitab sama sekali tidak ditemukan bahwa Kristus atau para Rasul memerintahkan bahwa Sabat…”  maafkan, apa? Kata apa itu lagi?   “…diubah dari Sabtu ke Minggu…”(The Catholic Virginian, ‘To Tell You the Truth,' volume 22 October 3, 1947) 

 

 

Notice the paragraph, the next large paragraph that appears after the  one that follows this one that I just noticed. “You will tell me that Saturday was the  Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath  has  been...”  there it is, “... changed...”    (The Clifton Tracts ~ Why don’t you keep holy the Sabbath day pg. 3-15).  It hasn't been changed!

 

Simak paragraf yang besar yang muncul setelah yang mengikuti yang baru saya baca.  “…Kalian akan mengatakan kepada saya bahwa Sabtu adalah Sabat Yahudi, tetapi Sabat Kristen telah…” itu dia “…telah diubah…” (The Clifton Tracts ~ Why don’t you keep holy the Sabbath day hal. 3-15).  Itu tidak pernah diubah!  

 

 

On the next page, page 263 the word is used in the first full paragraph. It speaks about the substitution of the Sabbath for Sunday.

 

Di halaman berikut, hal. 263 kata yang dipakai di paragraf pertama yang utuh, bicara tentang substitusi Sabat untuk hari Minggu.

 

 

And in the next to last paragraph it says, “But the Church of God has thought it well to transfer...”  there's another way of saying it  “...transfer the celebration and observance of the Sabbath to Sunday,...” (Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priest ~ New York: Joseph F. Wagner Inc. 1934 pg. 402-403)

 

Dan di paragraf sebelum yang terakhir dikatakan, “…Tetapi Gereja Allah telah menganggapnya baik untuk memindahkan…” ini cara lain untuk mengatakannya,   “…memindahkan perayaan dan pemeliharaan Sabat ke hari Minggu…” (Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priest ~ New York: Joseph F. Wagner Inc. 1934 hal. 402-403)

 

 

Well, I don't know whether we need to continue providing evidence. There's certainly lots of evidence here. There's more quotations that we have have here, but we have to advance in our study.

 

Nah, saya tidak tahu apakah kita perlu melanjutkan menunjukkan bukti-bukti. Jelas di sini ada banyak bukti. Masih ada lebih banyak kutipan di sini, tetapi kita perlu lanjut dengan pembahasan kita.

 

 

Charateristic # 9 - The Papacy is a different power

So let's go to page 273 and let's notice this characteristic. The Papacy is a different power. Does Daniel 7 say that the Little Horn was different than any of the other powers? Yes. In what sense was the Little Horn different? In what sense were the feet different than everything else in the image? It had clay. What does the clay represent? The Church, the mingling of Church and state. You don't have that in the previous powers. Previous powers are political powers. Yes, these were pagan nations, but what is brought to view is not the religious aspect. They're simply ruling, one nation conquers another, and then that one conquers the other, but when you get to the Little Horn, the Little Horn is different because it not only gets political power, it also has religious power, because the activities that it performs are religious activities. It thinks it can change the Law, persecutes the saints of the Most High, it speaks blasphemies against the Most High, it rules for “time, times, and the dividing of time”.

 

Karakteristikm# 9 ~ Kepausan adalah kekuasaan yang berbeda

Mari kita ke hal. 273 dan mari kita simak karakteristik ini. Kepausan adalah kekuasaan yang berbeda. Apakah Daniel 7 mengatakan bahwa Tanduk Kecil itu beda dari kekuasaan-kekuasaan yang lainnya? Ya. Dalam pengertian apa Tanduk Kecil itu berbeda? Dalam pengertian apa kaki-kaki berbeda daripada segala yang lain pada patung itu? Ada tanah liatnya. Tanah liat melambangkan apa? Gereja, penggabungan Gereja dengan pemerintah. Itu tidak ada pada kekuasaan-kekuasaan yang lain. Kekuasaan-kekuasaan sebelumnya adalah kekuasaan politik. Iya, mereka itu bangsa-bangsa pagan, tetapi apa yang ditonjolkan bukanlah aspek relijiusnya. Mereka semata-mata memerintah, satu bangsa menaklukkan bangsa yang lain, kemudian bangsa itu menaklukkan yang lain. Tetapi ketika kita tiba pada Tanduk Kecil, Tanduk Kecil ini berbeda karena dia tidak hanya mendapatkan kekuasaan politik, dia juga memiliki kekuasaan relijius, karena aktivitas-aktivitas yang dilakukannya adalah aktivitas-aktivitas relijius. Dia berpikir dia bisa mengubah Hukum Allah, mempersekusi orang-orang kudus Yang Mahatinggi, dia menghujat terhadap Yang Mahatinggi, dia berkuasa selama “satu masa, masa-masa, dan setengah masa.”

 

 

Let's go to page 274 and read this statement at the top of the page. Remember, now we're talking in what sense this the Papacy is different than any of the other powers. It's different in the sense that it unites what? Church and state. Has the Papacy united Church and state throughout its history? Yes or No? You can see it at Vatican City. Vatican City is a state with “nuncios”,  we call them ambassadors in other places. It has its own ambassadors, it has its own banking system, it has its own police force. It has everything that is required to be an independent state. The Roman Catholic Papacy is an independent state.

 

Mari  ke hal. 274 dan baca pernyataan di bagian atas halaman. Ingat, kita sekarang bicara dalam pengertian apa Kepausan itu berbeda dari segala kekuasaan yang lain. Dia berbeda dalam hal dia menggabungkan apa? Gereja dengan pemerintah. Apakah Kepausan pernah menggabungkan Gereja dengan pemerintah sepanjang sejarahnya? Ya atau Tidak? Kita bisa melihatnya di Kota Vatikan. Kota Vatikan adalah sebuah negara dengan “nuncios”, di tempat lain kita menyebut mereka duta besar. Kota Vatikan punya duta besarnya sendiri, dia punya sistem perbankan sendiri, dia punya polisinya sendiri. Dia punya segala yang dibutuhkan untuk menjadi sebuah negara yang berdaulat. Kepausan Roma Katolik adalah sebuah negara yang berdaulat.

 

 

Now notice this statement by James Conroy, American Quarterly Catholic Review, April 1911,  “Long ages ago, when Rome through the neglect of the Western emperors was left to the mercy of the  barbarous hordes...” that's the barbarian invasions,  “...the Romans turned to one figure for aid and protection...” so when the barbarians are invading the Empire, the Empire is falling apart, they're looking for a leader, aren't they? To bring order  “...and asked him to rule them; and thus, in this simple manner, the best title of all to kingly right, commenced the temporal sovereignty of the Popes. And meekly stepping to the  throne of Caesar, the  vicar of Christ took up the   scepter  to  which  the  emperors  and  kings  of  Europe  were  to  bow  in reverence through so many ages.” (James P. Conroy, American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1911) What a remarkable statement!

 

Sekarang simak pernyataan ini oleh James Conroy, American Quarterly Catholic Review April 1911,  “…Lama sekali dulu, ketika Roma, akibat penelantaran kaisar-kaisar sebelah Barat, ditinggalkan di bawah belas kasihan gerombolan-gerombolan barbar…”  ini invasi-invasi barbar, “…Roma berpaling kepada satu sosok untuk bantuan dan perlindungan…”  maka ketika bangsa-bangsa barbar menginvasi Kekaisaran, dan Kekaisaran akan segera jatuh, mereka mencari seorang pemimpin, bukan? Untuk mengembalikan ketertiban,  “…dan meminta dia untuk memerintah mereka; maka dengan cara sederhana ini, gelar terbaik atas semua hak kerajaan mengawali kekuasaan sipil para Paus. Dan Vikar Kristus melangkah dengan rendah hati ke takhta Kaisar, memungut tongkat kerajaan yang selama berabad-abad kemudian para kaisar dan raja Eropa harus sujud menghormatinya.” (James P. Conroy, American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1911)  Pernyataan yang luar biasa! 

 

 

Notice at the bottom of the page. Historian Alexander Clarence Flick wrote this, “The  removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330...”  which means that in the west there was no longer an emperor because the emperor moved to the east, to what today is Istanbul.  “...The  removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330 left the Western Church, practically  free from...” what?  “...from imperial power...” because the emperor was gone, “...to develop its own form of organization. The Bishop of Rome,...” listen carefully now, the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, that's the way he was called before he was called the Pope,  “...The Bishop of Rome  in the seat of the Caesars...”  where does the bishop of Rome sit? In the seat of the Caesars  “...was now the  greatest man in the West, and was soon forced to become the  political as  well  as  the  spiritual  head.  To  the  Western  world  Rome  was  still the political capital—hence the whole habit of mind, all ambition, pride, and sense of glory, and every social prejudice favored the evolution of the great city into the ecclesiastical capital.  Civil as well as religious disputes were referred to...”  whom?  “...to the successor of Peter for settlement. Again and again, when  barbarians attacked Rome, he...”  that is the Pope  “...was compelled to actually assume military leadership...”   (Alexander Clarence Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church  New York: Reprinted by Burt Franklin, 1959, pp. 168, 169).  These are historians who are writing this.

 

Simak di bagian bawah halaman. Sejarahwan Alexander Clarence Flick menulis ini, “…Dipindahkannya ibukota Kekaisaran dari Roma ke Konstantinopel di 330…”  ini berarti di sebelah Barat tidak lagi ada kaisar karena kaisarnya pindah ke sebelah timur, ke tempat yang hari ini bernama Istanbul. “…Dipindahkannya ibukota Kekaisaran dari Roma ke Konstantinopel di 330 menyisakan Gereja di Barat praktis terbebas dari…”  apa?  “…dari kekuasaan kekaisaran…” karena kaisarnya sudah tidak ada, “…untuk dapat mengembangkan organisasinya sendiri. Uskup Roma…”  dengarkan baik-baik sekarang, Uskup Roma itu Paus, dia disebut Uskup Roma sebelum dia disebut Paus,   “…Uskup Roma di takhta para kaisar…”  di mana Uskup Roma duduk? Di takhta para kaisar,   “…sekarang adalah orang paling berkuasa di sebelah Barat, dan segera terpaksa menjadi kepala politik dan juga spiritual. Bagi dunia Barat, Roma masih ibukota politiknya—maka seluruh kebiasaan berpikir, semua ambisi, kebanggaan, dan perasaan kemuliaan, dan setiap prasangka sosial mendukung perubahan kota besar itu menjadi ibukota keimaman. Perselisihan sipil maupun relijius dihadapkan kepada…”  siapa?   “…kepada penerus Petrus untuk diselesaikan. Berulang-ulang ketika bangsa-bangsa barbar menyerang Roma, dia…”  yaitu Paus, “…terpaksa benar-benar menjadi pemimpin militer…”  (Alexander Clarence Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church  New York: Reprinted by Burt Franklin, 1959,  hal. 168, 169).   Yang menulis ini adalah para sejarahwan.

 

 

The Papacy does mingle Church and state. You can see it today but you see this all throughout its history.

 

Kepausan memang menggabungkan Gereja dengan pemerintah. Kalian bisa melihat itu hari ini, tetapi ini terjadi sepanjang sejarahnya.

 

 

Now the following statement Carl Conrad Eckhardt is very significant, I don't think he realizes that he's describing the three first stages of Rome, which is: the Roman Empire, the 10 horns, and the Little Horn. Notice the sequence, “Under the Roman Empire the Popes had no temporal powers...” that would be the dragon by itself, right? The Roman Empire.  “...But when the Roman Empire had disintegrated...”  when is that?  When it falls apart into how many kingdoms? 10 kingdoms  “...and its place had been taken by a number of rude, barbarous kingdoms, the Roman Catholic church...” this is stage number three, the Little Horn, “...the Roman Catholic Church not only became independent of the states in  religious affairs but dominated secular affairs as well.” (Carl Conrad Eckhardt, The Papacy and World Affairs - Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937, p. 1)

 

Nah, pernyataan berikut dari Carl Conrad Eckhardt ini sangat signifikan. Saya rasa dia tidak sadar bahwa dia sedang menggambarkan ketiga tahap Roma yang pertama, yaitu: Kekaisaran Roma, ke-10 tanduk, dan Tanduk Kecil. Simak urutannya. “…Di bawah Kekaisaran Roma, para Paus tidak memiliki kekuasaan sipil…”  ini adalah ketika naga itu memerintah sendiri, benar? Kekaisaran Roma.   “…Tetapi ketika Kekaisaran Roma telah hancur…”  kapan itu? Ketika dia terpecah menjadi berapa kerajaan? 10 kerajaan,   “…dan tempatnya diambil oleh sejumlah kerajaan barbar yang tidak beradab, Gereja Roma Katolik…”  ini tahap ketiga, Tanduk Kecil,   “…Gereja Roma Katolik tidak hanya menjadi independen dari negara-negara dalam hal relijiuss, tetapi mendominasi urusan sipil juga.” (Carl Conrad Eckhardt, The Papacy and World Affairs - Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937, hal. 1)

 

 

Now let's go to the following page. I'll tell you now to study, page 276 all the way through page 280 is the story of Gregory VII and King Henry IV, the king of the Holy Roman Empire. It's a fascinating story, we don't have time to look at it, but you know king Henry IV was subservient to the Pope. In fact Henry was really mean to the Pope, he called him the Antichrist. The Pope said, “Oh yeah?” And so he excommunicated him, and he put his whole kingdom in interdict. Do you know what interdict was? Whenever a nation was placed in interdict, it means that none of the sacraments could be dispensed to the faithful. And in a time when the people believed that they were saved by the sacraments, there was no place to confess their sins, there was nowhere to baptize their infants, there was nowhere, no  place to partake of communion, in other words it meant death for the kingdom. And that's what the Pope did. So all of the faithful in the great Roman Empire of that time, he was actually a king in  Germany, they were up in arms, they said, “Henry, we're dying as a nation.” And so you know what Henry did? He went to Canossa in 1077 to ask forgiveness of the Pope, of Gregory VII and the Pope when he heard that he had come to Canossa, it was winter freezing cold there was snow on the ground and the Pope says, “Let him stay  outside in the cold, barefoot, for three days to do penance.” And after three days he went in, he kissed the Pope's ring, he kissed his big toe, and he repented. He says, “I'm sorry for what I did.” And so the Pope re-instituted him as king of the Holy Roman Empire. That's the story that you find from page 276 to page 280. We don't have time to go through that, but it's a fascinating story.

 

Sekarang mari ke halaman berikut. Saya beritahu bagaimana cara mempelajarinya, hal. 276 terus hingga hal. 280 itu cerita Gregory  VII dan raja Henry IV, raja Kekaisaran Roma Kudus. Ini kisah yang menarik, kita tidak punya waktu untuk membacanya, tetapi raja Henry IV ini takluk kepada Paus. Bahkan Henry tadinya memang bersikap garang kepada Paus, dia menyebut Paus itu Antikristus. Paus berkata, “Oh, begitukah?” Maka Paus mengekskomunikasi Henry, dan meletakkan seluruh kerajaannya di bawah interdik. Tahukah kalian apa itu interdik? Bilamana suatu bangsa diletakkan di bawah interdik, itu artinya semua sakramen tidak boleh diberikan kepada umat di sana. Dan di zaman ketika manusia percaya bahwa mereka diselamatkan oleh sakramen-sakramen tersebut, maka mereka tidak punya tempat untuk mengaku dosa, tidak ada tempat untuk membaptis bayi-bayi mereka, tidak ada tempat untuk ikut ambil bagian dalam komuni. Dengan kata lain,ini berarti kematian bagi kerajaan. Dan itulah yang dilakukan Paus. Maka semua umat di Kekaisaran Roma pada waktu itu, Henry adalah seorang raja di Jerman, mereka semuanya protes, mereka berkata, “Henry, kita sekarat sebagai bangsa!” Maka kalian tahu apa yang dilakukan Henry? Dia pergi ke Canossa di 1077 untuk minta ampun dari Paus, dari Gregory VII. Dan ketika Paus mendengar bahwa Henry sudah tiba di Canossa, saat itu musim dingin, dingin membeku, ada salju, dan Paus berkata, “Biarkan dia di luar di cuaca dingin, dengan telanjang kaki, selama tiga hari sebagai hukumannya.” Dan setelah tiga hari, masuklah Henry, mencium cincin Paus, mencium jempol kakinya, dan dia bertobat. Dia berkata, “Saya menyesali apa yang telah saya lakukan.” Maka Paus mengembalikan dia sebagai raja dari Kekaisaran Roma Kudus. Itulah kisah yang ada di hal. 276 hingga 280. Kita tidak punya waktu untuk membahasnya, tapi itu kisah yang menarik.

 

 

Now notice page 281, this is Alexander Flick, he is describing the power that was claimed by Pope Boniface VIII, you need to read the entire statement of Boniface VIII but notice how this is described by this historian. “The papal theory . . . made the Pope alone God’s representative on earth and maintained that the Emperor received his right to rule from St. Peter’s successor. . . It was upheld by Nicholas I, Hildebrand, Alexander III, Innocent III, and culminated with Boniface VIII at the jubilee of 1300 when, seated on the throne of Constantine, girded with the  imperial sword,  wearing a crown, and waving a scepter, he shouted to the throng of loyal pilgrims: ‘I am Caesar—I am  Emperor.’” (Clarence Alexander Flick,  The Rise of the Mediaeval Church (reprint: New York: Burt Franklin, 1959), p. 413)...” that's what the Pope is saying.

How would you feel if if Ted Wilson said, “I am Caesar, I am the emperor” not that he's going to claim it, but would it be illegitimate? Of course it's illegitimate, because the Church need to be functioned as a Church, it doesn't have to mingle with the power of the state.

 

Sekarang simak hal. 281, ini Alexander Flick, dia sedang menggambarkan kuasa yang diklaim oleh Paus Bonifacius VIII, kalian perlu membaca seluruh pernyataan Bonifacius VIII tetapi simak bagaimana ini digambarkan oleh sejarahwan ini.  “…Teori Kepausan… menjadikan Paus satu-satunya wakil Allah di dunia, dan mempertahankan bahwa Kaisar menerima haknya untuk memerintah dari penerus St. Petrus… Ini dipegang oleh Nicholas I, Hildebrand, Alexander III, Innocent III, dan mengkulminasi dengan Bonifacius VIII di jubilium tahun 1300, ketika sambil duduk di takhta Constantine, dengan pedang kerajaan di pinggangnya, mahkota di kepalanya, dan melambaikan sebuah tongkat kerajaan, dia berseru kepada kerumunan peziarah setia: ‘Akulah Kaisar—akulah maharaja!’...” (Clarence Alexander Flick,  The Rise of the Mediaeval Church (reprint: New York: Burt Franklin, 1959), hal. 413).  Itulah yang dikatakan Paus.

Bagaimana perasaan kita jika Ted Wilson berkata, “Akulah Kaisar, akulah maharaja”, dia bukannya akan mengklaim begitu, tetapi apakah itu tidak sah? Tentu saja itu tidak sah, karena Gereja harus berfungsi sebagai Gereja, dia tidak perlu bergabung dengan kekuasaan pemerintah.

 

 

Notice the following statement, this is on page 282 as well. John N. Figgis, he wrote this, “[In] the middle Ages the Church was not a State,...” I love this quotation  “... [In] the middle Ages the Church was not a State, it was the State; or rather the civil authority  was merely the police department of the Church...” did you digest that?  “...[The Church] took over  from the Roman Empire its theory of the absolute and universal jurisdiction of the supreme authority, and developed it into the doctrine of the plenitudo potestatis of the Pope.” (John N. Figgis, From Gerson to Grotius, p. 4. Emphasis supplied).

 

Simak pernyataan berikut, ini di hal. 282 juga. John N. Figgis, dia menulis ini, “Di Abad Pertengahan, Gereja bukanlah satu negara bagian…”  saya suka kutipan ini,   “…Di Abad Pertengahan Gereja bukanlah satu negara bagian;  dia itulah negaranya; atau lebih tepatnya penguasa sipil pada saat itu hanyalah angkatan kepolisian Gereja…”  Apakah kalian mencerna ini?   “…Gereja mengambil alih dari kekaisaran Roma teorinya tentang jurisdiksi autoritas tertinggi yang mutlak dan universal dan mengembangkannya menjadi doktrin plenitudo potestatis (= kuasa penuh) Kepausan.” (John N. Figgis, From Gerson to Grotius, hal. 4.)

 

 

Notice what R.W. Southern wrote, these are reputable historians that are writing here, “During the whole medieval period there was in Rome a single spiritual and temporal authority [the papacy] exercising powers which in the end  exceeded those that had ever lain within the grasp of a Roman emperor.” (R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages  ~ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman’s, 1970, pp. 24-25)

 

Simak apa yang ditulis R.W. Southern, mereka ini adalah sejarahwan-sejarahwan yang punya nama yang menulis ini. “Selama periode abad pertengahan di Roma ada satu penguasa tunggal, untuk urusan rohani maupun duniawi (Kepausan) yang pada akhirnya menjalankan kekuasaannya melebihi apa yang pernah dimiliki oleh seorang kaisar Roma…” (R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages  ~ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman’s, 1970, hal. 24-25) (204)

 

 

Now beginning on page 284, we don't have time to do this because time is flying by, the following pages you are going to find the history of 1798 written by a historian six years after it happened, an eyewitness to what happened in the French Revolution culminating with the Pope being taken captive. It's a fascinating story we don't have time really to get into it, but read those pages from 284, let me see here, all the way to well practically to the end of this section, on the union of Church and state.

 

Nah, mulai dari hal. 284, kita tidak punya waktu untuk membahasnya karena waktunya cepat berlalu. Di halaman-halaman berikut kalian akan menemukan sejarah 1798 ditulis oleh seorang sejarahwan enam tahun setelah terjadinya, jadi oleh seorang saksi mata atas apa yang terjadi di Revolusi Perancis yang mengkulminasi dengan Paus akhirnya ditawan. Ini kisah yang menarik, kita tidak punya waktu untuk membahasnya, tetapi bacalah halaman-halaman itu dari 284 hingga, praktis sampai akhir bagian ini, tentang penggabungan Gereja dengan pemerintah.

 

 

Let's go to page 289, has the deadly wound healed yet? The answer is No! We must understand that the healing of the wound is a what? A process rather than a particular event. The process began as early as 1801, when Napoleon returned the Papal States and gave Pope Pius VII temporal power over his own jurisdiction in the Vatican. And then you know there's some information here about the further blow that the Papacy received in 1870, you know when Victor Emmanuel actually confiscated the Papal States and united Italy. The Popes declared themselves prisoners of the Vatican for the next 59 years.  You have here also the San Francisco Chronicle article, this is on page 290, where on February 12, 1929, an article appeared that said this, “In affixing the autographs to the memorable document, healing the wound which has festered  since 1870...” (The San Francisco Chronicle, February 12, 1929, p. 1)   So this is not talking about the healing of the wound of 1798 it's talking about the healing of the wound, the further wound, that was given in 1870. 

 

Mari ke halaman 289, apakah luka yang mematikan sudah sembuh? Jawabannya ialah Tidak! Harus kita pahami penyembuhan luka itu adalah suatu apa? Suatu proses, bukan satu peristiwa khusus. Prosesnya sudah dimulai sedini 1801, ketika Napoleon mengembalikan status kenegaraan Kepausan dan memberi Paus Pius VII kekuasaan sipil atas jurisdiksinya sendiri di Vatikan. Kemudian ada beberapa informasi di sini tentang pukulan selanjutnya yang diterima Kepausan di 1870, ketika Victor Emmanuel menyita negara Kepausan dan mempersatukan Italia. Paus-paus menyatakan diri mereka sebagai tawanan-tawanan dalam Vatikan selama 59 tahun berikutnya. Juga ada di sini sebuah artikel dari surat kabar The San Francisco Chronicle, ini di hal. 290, di mana pada 12 Februari 1929 muncul sebuah artikel yang berkata demikian,   “…Dengan membubuhkan tandatangan pada dokumen yang harus diingat itu, menyembuhkan luka yang telah membusuk sejak 1870…” (The San Francisco Chronicle, February 12, 1929, hal. 1). Jadi ini tidak bicara tentang menyembuhkan luka 1798, ini bicara tentang menyembuhkan luka yang lebih lanjut yang diberikan di 1870.  

 

 

Then you're going to have find some history about the United States. You know, Harry Truman wanted to establish diplomat relations with the Vatican, and there was such a strong protest from Protestants in the United States that he gave up the idea of sending a representative, an ambassador to the Vatican.

Then also I speak about Richard Nixon, he also was in contact with the Vatican.

And then you'll find here also how eventually diplomatic relations were established with the Vatican during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Hey, I covered 10 pages in 30 seconds. But you know, I just want to wet your appetite because it's a fascinating story. You know it doesn't deal with a lot of symbolic language where you have to use your gray matter a lot, you know it's just simply the story of how the United States eventually formed diplomatic relations with Vatican, which it has. There was a big debate of whether the United States should have an ambassador to a Church. Why shouldn't the Presbyterians have an ambassador from the United States? Why shouldn't the Methodists and the Baptists? Why just the Roman Catholics? Well, the final argument was that the ambassador of the United States is an ambassador to the state aspect of the Papacy. That's splitting hairs because there is no such thing as the state of the Vatican without the Church. You'll read the whole thing here.

 

Lalu kalian akan menemukan sejarah tentang Amerika Serikat. Kalian tahu, Harry Truman mau menjalin hubungan diplomatik dengan Vatikan, dan muncul protes keras dari Protestan di Amerika Serikat sehingga dia membatalkan rencananya untuk mengirimkan seorang wakil, seorang duta besar ke Vatikan.

Lalu saya juga bicara tentang Richard Nixon, dia juga menjalin hubungan dengan Vatikan.

Kemudian kalian juga akan melihat bagaimana akhirnya hubungan diplomatik terjalin dengan Vatikan di zaman kepresidenan Ronald Reagan.

Hei, saya telah meliput 10 halaman dalam 30 detik. Tetapi saya hanya mau membangkitkan selera kalian, karena ini kisah yang menarik. Ini tidak berisikan banyak bahasa simbolis di mana kita harus banyak menggunakan otak kita, ini hanya semata-mata kisah bagaimana Amerika Serikat akhirnya menjalin hubungan diplomatik dengan Vatikan, yang sudah terjadi. Ada perdebatan besar apakah Amerika Serikat harus punya duta besar untuk sebuah Gereja. Mengapa Gereja Presbyterian tidak boleh punya duta besar dari Amerika Serikat? Mengapa Gereja Methodist dan Baptist tidak boleh punya? Mengapa hanya Roma Katolik? Nah, argumentasi terakhirnya ialah bahwa duta besar Amerika Serikat adalah duta besar untuk aspek negara dari Kepausan. Itu cuma alasan karena tidak ada yang namanya aspek negara dari Vatikan tanpa Gerejanya. Kalian bisa membaca semuanya di sini.

 

 

Characteristic # 10: The  Papacy Ruled for 3½ Prophetic Times

will be our last characteristic that we're going to study today. And we're going to deal with number 11 in our first session tomorrow, that's the eyes of a man and the mouth, a human mouth.

 

Karakteristik # 10: Kepausan berkuasa selama 3½ masa nubuatan

Akan menjadi karakteristik terakhir yang akan kita pelajari hari ini. Dan kita akan membahas # 11 di sesi pertama kita besok, yaitu mata manusia dan mulut manusia.

 

 

Did the Papacy rule for “time, times, and the dividing of time”? Yes or No? Yes, from 538 to 1798. And by the way the Year=Day principle has been questioned by many, even in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, that a day is equivalent to a year. I wrote a document that's available on our website, the title of the article is “20 Reasons to Apply the Year=Day Principle”. Yeah, there's 20 reasons why we apply the Year=Day principle. It's not only the text from the book of Ezekiel, you know day for a year, there's much much more evidence in Scripture in favor of the Year=Day Principle. And by the way one of those evidences of the Year=Day Principle is the way in which the period is expressed. Imagine if I said to you, you know, “Our next Anchor School of Theology will be in 360 days.” You know that doesn't sound very very smart. Or you know, I'm going to take a trip to Europe I and I'm going to be back in three and a half years, I'll say, “I'll see you in ‘time, times, and the dividing of time’”; or “No sweat, I'll see you in 42 months”; or “Don't worry I'll see you in 1,260 days.” It's just the uniqueness of the expression that indicates that it's symbolic. Furthermore, in Daniel 7 everything there is symbolic, and so the time period must also be symbolic. These are two of the reasons why you apply the Year=Day Principle, but there are many many other evidences from all over Scripture, primarily from the Old Testament that prove that we have to apply the Year=Day Principle to these prophecies of Daniel 7, Revelation 12, Revelation 13.

 

Apakah Kepausan berkuasa selama “satu masa, masa-masa, dan setengah masa”? Ya atau Tidak? Ya, dari 548 sampai 1798. Nah, rumus 1 Tahun=1 Hari dipertanyakan oleh banyak orang, bahkan juga di dalam Gereja MAHK, bahwa satu hari itu sama dengan satu tahun. Saya telah menulis sebuah dokumen yang ada di website kami, judulnya ialah “20 Reasons to Apply the Year=Day Principle”. Ya, ada 20 alasan mengapa kita mengaplikasikan rumus 1 Tahun=1 Hari. Bukan hanya ayat dari kitab Yehezkiel, satu hari dihitung satu tahun, ada jauh lebih banyak bukti di Kitab Suci yang mendukung rumus 1 Tahun=1 Hari. Dan salah satu dari alasan-alasan rumus 1 Tahun=1 Hari itu ialah bagaimana periode itu diungkapkan. Bayangkan andaikan saya berkata kepada kalian, “Kelas Anchor School of Theology kita berikutnya akan diadakan dalam waktu 360 hari.” Nah, itu tidak smart. Atau misalkan saya akan pergi ke Eropa dan akan kembali 3½ tahun lagi, dan saya berkata, “Sampai bertemu lagi dalam ‘satu masa, masa-masa, dan setengah masa’; atau “Jangan khawatir, kita bertemu lagi dalam 42 bulan”; atau “Jangan khawatir, kita bertemu lagi dalam 1260 hari.” Hanya keunikan cara mengungkapkan yang mengindikasikan bahwa itu simbolis. Selain iitu di Daniel 7 segalanya di sana simbolis, maka periode waktunya tentunya juga harus simbolis. Inilah dua alasan mengapa kita mengaplikasikan rumus 1 Tahun = 1 Hari, tetapi masih ada banyak alasan yang lain dari seluruh Kitab Suci, terutama dari Perjanjian Lama yang membuktikan bahwa kita harus mengaplikasikan rumus 1 Tahun = 1 Hari kepada nubuatan-nubuatan Daniel 7, Wahyu 12, Wahyu 13.

 

 

Now here you have the history of  you know the 1260 years. When the 1260 years begin, what event leads to the end of the 1260 years? We don't really have a lot of time to go through this. It goes all the way through page 308.

So here's my question. So far 10 evidences that the Little Horn represents the Roman Catholic Papacy, does the Papacy stand guilty as charged? It stands guilty as charged. Folks, there is no other system in the world that fulfills all of these characteristics. There's no other way to interpret it. Antiochus Epiphanies didn't do half of these things that are mentioned here. And yet the Papacy says, “Oh the Little Horn is Antiochus Epiphanies.” And Protestants say this Little Horn of Daniel 7, “Oh an Antichrist that's going to sit in a rebuilt Jerusalem Temple after the Rapture, and he's going to stamp a 666 seal on the foreheads of his followers, so they can buy and sell and so that  not subjects of the death decree.” And so all of the Protestants are looking over there, not all the Protestants but the conservative Protestants, which are most. They look over there, they said, “Wow, let's put our eyes on Israel.” When they should be putting their eyes where? They should be fixing their eyes on Rome, on what's happening in Rome, and Rome's relationship with the United Nations, and what's happening in the United States, particularly in the United States Congress. But they're oblivious to the true fulfillment of prophecy because they're looking for the fulfillment in the wrong place. Satan is an expert at trying to convince people about things that occur in a different place than where God has said that they're going to occur. You know I'll give you an illustration.

In football you have what is called the counterplay. Does anybody here ever heard of a counterplay? Oh these guys over here, Denver Bronco fans, till death do us part, they know what the counterplay is. The counterplay is when the linemen who block for the runner, they all pull in one direction, thinking that the runner that they're blocking for the runner who's going to go in that direction. But then the runner goes in the opposite direction, and scores a touchdown.

And so the Devil is an expert at distracting people with the counterplay. Yeah, things are going to happen here, when really they're going to happen there.

 

Nah, di sini ada sejarah dari ke-1260 hari. Kapan ke-1260 hari itu mulai, peristiwa apa yang menyebabkan berakhirnya ke-1260 hari tersebut. Kita tidak punya terlalu banyak waktu untuk membahas ini. Ini di makalah ada hingga hal. 308.

Jadi ini pertanyaan saya. Sejauh ini 10 alasan bahwa Tanduk Kecil melambangkan Kepausan Roma Katolik, apakah Kepausan didapati bersalah seperti yang dituduhkan? Dia bersalah seperti yang dituduhkan. Saudara-saudara, tidak ada sistem lain di dunia yang menggenapi semua karakteristik ini. Tidak ada cara lain untuk menginterpretasikannya. Antiochus Epiphanies tidak melakukan separo dari hal-hal yang disebutkan di sini. Walaupun begitu Kepausan berkata, “Oh, Tanduk Kecil itu Antiochus Epiphanies.” Dan orang-orang Protestan berkata bahwa Tanduk Kecil Daniel 7 ini, “Oh, itu Antikristus yang akan duduk di Bait Suci Yerusalem yang akan dibangun kembali setelah pengangkatan, dan dia akan memberi stempel 666 pada dahi pengikut-pengikutnya, supaya mereka bisa berjual-beli, dan tidak menjadi sasaran titah pembunuhan.” Maka semua orang Protestan memandang ke sana, bukan semua orang Protestan melainkan Protestan yang konservatif, yang adalah sebagian besar mereka. Mereka memandang ke sana dan berkata, “Wow, ayo kita perhatikan Israel.” Padahal sebetulnya mereka seharusnya mengarahkan mata mereka ke mana? Mereka seharusnya memandang ke Roma, ke apa yang sedang terjadi di Roma, dan hubungan Roma dengan PBB, dan apa yang sedang terjadi di Amerika Serikat, terutama di Kongres Amerika Serikat. Tetapi mereka tidak tahu apa-apa tentang penggenapan yang sebenarnya dari nubuatan karena mereka mencari kegenapannya di tempat yang salah.  Setan itu ahlinya dalam hal meyakinkan orang tentang hal-hal yang terjadi di tempat yang berbeda dari apa yang dikatakan Allah di mana itu akan terjadi. Saya berikan sebuah ilustrasi.

Di sepak bola ada apa yang disebut counterplay. Apakah di sini ada yang pernah dengar tentang counterplay? Oh, orang-orang ini adalah fans Denver Bronco, sampai mati baru berpisah, mereka tahu apa itu counterplay. Counterplay ialah ketika gelandang yang memblokir pembawa bola, mereka semuanya bergerak ke satu arah, menganggap mereka sedang memblokir si pembawa bola yang akan berlari ke arah tersebut. Tetapi kemudian si pembawa bola malah berlari ke arah yang berlawanan, dan berhasil menggolkan bola.

Maka Iblis itu ahli mengalihkan perhatian orang dengan counterplay. Iya, itu akan terjadi di sini, padahal akan terjadi di sana.

 

 

And so I hope that our study of Daniel 7 has been productive. Sadly we weren't able to cover every single detail, read every quotation. I don't think it's necessary, I think that you understand the gist of the matter, and as I mentioned, in our class tomorrow morning the first class at what time? 9:00 in the morning sharp, we are going to begin on page 309 so mark it and we're going to talk about the Papacy depending on human wisdom. So don't miss the next exciting episode.

 

Maka saya berharap pelajaran kita tentang Daniel 7 itu produktif. Sayangnya kita tidak bisa meliput setiap detailnya, membaca setiap kutipannya. Saya rasa itu tidak perlu, saya rasa kalian memahami inti masalahnya. Dan seperti yang sudah saya singgung, di kelas kita besok pagi, kelas yang pertama, pukul berapa? 9:00 pagi tepat, kita akan mulai di hal. 309, jadi tandai itu dan kita akan bicara tentang Kepausan yang bersandar pada hikmat manusia. Jadi jangan melewatkan episode berikut yang menarik.

 

 

21 12 25

 

Encl. 20 Reasons to apply the Year=Day Principle tanpa terjemahan

 

 

20 REASONS TO APPLY THE YEAR/DAY PRINCIPLE

 

Introductory Matters

 

As we begin our study we need to underline two very important facts. First of all, the Bible month consists of thirty days (compare Genesis 7:11 with 8:3-4 and Deuteronomy 21:13 with Deuteronomy 34:8; see also, Esther 4:11 and Daniel 6:7, 12) Secondly, the Bible year consists of 12 months. (See I Kings 4:7 and I Chronicles 27:1-15). The year/day principle basically means that when time periods are used in the context of prophetic events which occur between AD 34 and the Second Coming, they are to be understood by applying the principle that one literal calendar day is equivalent to one literal calendar year.

 

The preterist and futurist schools of prophetic interpretation adamantly deny  the year/day principle. Most preterists interpret the little horn of Daniel 7 as well as the little horn of Daniel 8 as Antiochus Epiphanes (171-164 BC.), a Macedonian ruler who desecrated the Jewish temple from 167-164 BC  Preterists believe that the three and one half years and the 2300 days are literal time and apply to this period.

 

On the other hand, most futurists teach that the little horn of Daniel 7 represents a future Antichrist who will sit in a rebuilt Jewish Temple for three and one half literal years at the very end of the Christian dispensation. They also believe that the little horn of Daniel 8 represents Antiochus Epiphanes and that the 2300 days are literal time.

 

The common denominator of both systems is that they believe that the three and one half years and the 2300 days are to be taken as literal time. In contrast, historicism has always held that days, weeks, months and years in a prophetic context should be understood symbolically by applying the year/day principle.

Reasons for Applying the Year/Day Principle 

Reason # 1:

The expressions ‘time, times and the dividing of time’, ‘42 months’, ‘1260 days’, and ‘70 weeks’, are very peculiar. They could have been expressed in literal language but instead they are given a symbolic flavor. Notice, for example, that Luke 4:25 and James 5:17 refer to the period when there was no rain in the days of Elijah as ‘three years and six months’. This is the normal way of expressing time (see also, Acts 18:11; II Samuel 2:11; I Samuel 27:7).

 

It is significant that every measurement of time in prophecy is given a symbolic flavor: hour (Revelation 17:12; 9:13), day (Revelation 12:6), week (Daniel 9:24-27), month (Revelation 13:5), year (Daniel 7:25).  It is also significant that non-apocalyptic prophecies express time in literal  language: 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11-12), 400 years (Genesis 15:13-15), 120 years (Genesis 6:3) with literal persons performing literal actions!

 

Reason #2:

The symbolic time periods are always found within the context of apocalyptic passages where symbols predominate. For example, the three and one half times are found in the context of four symbolic beasts, a symbolic sea, symbolic winds, symbolic clouds, symbolic horns, and a symbolic little horn.

 

Similarly, the  1260 days are found in a context where a symbolic woman, clothed with a symbolic sun, stands on a symbolic moon, with 12 symbolic stars on her head. She is persecuted by a symbolic dragon who has seven symbolic heads, ten symbolic horns and who casts a third of the symbolic stars to the earth.

 

In Revelation 13, the 42 months are found within a context where a symbolic composite beast, with ten symbolic horns, receives its power from a symbolic dragon. It also arises from a symbolic sea and later uses a symbolic image beast to impose a symbolic mark!

 

The same could be said about Daniel 8. There we have a symbolic ram, a symbolic he-goat, and a symbolic little horn. It only stands to reason that if the scenes where these time periods are found in are symbolic, then the time periods must also be symbolic!!

Reason # 3:

The little horn of Daniel 7 arose among the ten horns on the head of the fourth beast (Rome). It is clear from history that the Roman Empire was fragmented when the barbarians came from the northern sector of the empire and carved it up. Daniel 7 makes it clear that there are no gaps in the historical flow of nations. The lion is succeeded immediately by the bear, the bear is immediately succeeded by the leopard, the leopard is immediately succeeded by the dragon beast, the dragon beast then sprouts the ten horns and the little horn then arises among the ten.

 

Now,  if the little horn arose among the ten and the ten were complete in 476 A. D., and the little horn ruled until the judgment (in 1844), then the three and one half times of dominion of the little horn must be 1260 years, and not literal days. If the days were literal, then the little horn would have ruled only from 476-479 A. D. But the fact is that the Roman Catholic Church ruled for 1260 years!!

 

Reason # 4:

Daniel 8 makes it crystal clear that the 2300 day prophecy was for the time of the end (Dan. 8:14, 17, 26-27). Daniel 12:4, 7 underscores the fact that the book which contains the 2300 day prophecy would be closed and sealed until the time of the end and therefore could not be understood until then.

 

This being the case, those who believe that Antiochus is the little horn of Daniel 8 find themselves in a serious dilemma. Assuming that Antiochus is represented by the little horn of Daniel 8 and that the 2300 days were the literal period of his dominion, a question immediately comes to the fore:  Why would we have to wait until the time of the end to understand this? It would simply be a matter of history! If Antiochus was the fulfillment, it should have been understood at that very time.

 

It is a matter of record that Josephus, Porphiry and others in the first centuries of the Christian era believed that Antiochus was the little horn of Daniel 8. If they were right then they were living in the time of the end. Yet we know that they were not living in the time of the end because over 2000 years of history have transpired since their time.

 

The simple reality is that Antiochus did not fulfill the little horn prophecy. Josephus and others mistakenly identified Antiochus as the fulfillment. They could not have comprehended the little horn prophecy because they did not live in the time of end! It is clear that this prophecy was not present truth in the days of Daniel or Josephus, or even of Martin Luther. None of these men lived in the time of the end and therefore, none of them could have understood this prophecy! It became present truth when the prophecy was fulfilled in 1844. This is why the Millerites preached on this very text. The book of Daniel was being opened and now the time period of the 2300 days could be understood.

 

Reason # 5:

The vision of Daniel 8:1-2 covers the whole period of the ram, the he-goat and the little horn until the cleansing of the sanctuary. In Daniel 8:13 the question is asked: ‘Until when shall the vision be?  The context indicates that the word vision includes the totality of what Daniel has seen in Daniel 8 to that point. Then, in Daniel 8:15 we are told that Daniel wished to comprehend the vision. The question is: Which vision? The answer is simple:   It must be the totality of the vision of Daniel 8 because when the Angel Gabriel comes to explain the vision in answer to Daniel’s request, he begins with Persia and then continues with Greece, the little horn,  and  culminates  with  the  conclusion  of  the  2300  days  when  the  sanctuary  is  to  be cleansed.

 

Thus it is clear that the 2300 days which cover the whole vision of Daniel 8 must involve CENTURIES and not literal days, (that is, six and one half literal years). Incidentally, this explains the reason why Daniel 8 begins with Persia and not with Babylon. The 2300 days begin when Persia gives the decree to restore and build Jerusalem and that is why the vision begins with Persia. Thus, Daniel 8 and 9 must be connected in order to comprehend the 2300 day prophecy.

 

Notice the following illustration:

 

Vision   = Ram   +   He-goat   +   Pagan Rome   +   Papal Rome  +  Judgment

 

 

How Long?  2300 Days/Years

Reason # 6:

What do conservative evangelical Christians do with the prophecy of the 70 weeks? Don’t they have to employ the year/day principle to convert the weeks to years?  The answer is that they attempt to get off the hook by saying that the expression ‘70 weeks’ really means ‘seventy sevens’ or even ‘70 weeks of years’. In this way they get rid of the year/day principle. This they must do because if they employed the year/day principle for the seventy weeks, they would also have to employ it for the other prophetic time periods in order to be consistent!! Let us look at a few facts about the word translated ‘week’ here in Daniel 9.

 

Is it true that the Hebrew word shabuwa should be translated ‘sevens’ or ‘weeks of years’?  This word is used a total of 19 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and in every single instance it refers to a literal week of seven literal days (Genesis 29:27; 29:28; Exodus 34:22; Leviticus 12:5; Numbers 28:26; Deuteronomy 16:9 (used twice); 16:10; 16:16; II Chronicles 8:13; Jeremiah 5:24; Daniel 9:24; 9:25(used twice); 9:26; 9:27 (used twice); Daniel 10:2; Daniel 10:3).

 

Evangelicals frequently use Daniel 10:2-3 as an argument for translating the word shabuwa as ‘weeks of years’. They point out that in these verses the word ‘weeks’ is qualified by the word ‘days’, in other words, ‘weeks of days’. They then imply that if these are weeks (with the qualifier ‘days’), then the other weeks (without the qualifier ‘days’) must mean ‘weeks of years’.

 

For example, the New International Version translates the word week with ‘seven’ or ‘sevens’ in Daniel 9:24-27 but then translates the very same word as ‘weeks’ in Daniel 10:2,3.  The only problem with such an explanation is that it ignores the meaning of the Hebrew idiom ‘weeks of days’. When the word ‘week’ in Hebrew is qualified by the word ‘days’, it simply means ‘full weeks’. Notice the following examples: In Genesis 29:14; Numbers 11:20-21; Judges 19:2 the Hebrew  literally reads,  “month of days”.  Is there  a month  that does not  consist of  days? Furthermore, in Genesis 41:1; Leviticus 25:29; II Samuel 13:23; 14:28 the Hebrew literally reads ‘years of days’ but the translators have recognized that this means ‘full years’.

 

The fundamental reason why futurist and preterist scholars refuse to translate shabuwa in Daniel 9 as ‘weeks’ is because they would then have to admit, in order to be consistent, that the year/day principle must be applied to other prophetic time periods as well. Furthermore, if they applied the year/day principle to the 70 weeks, they would have to apply it to the 2300 days (of which the 70 weeks constitute the first part) and this would force them to admit that prophecy was fulfilled in 1844!! This would then make them Seventh-day Adventists!! Have mercy!!

 

Incidentally, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew shabuwa with the Greek word hebdomas. This word is consistently translated ‘week’.

 

Reason # 7:

A comparison of Daniel 8:11-13, 23-25 with Daniel 11:31-45 also reveals why Antiochus cannot be represented by the little horn. As we compare these two passages it becomes crystal clear that the King of the North of Daniel 11 represents the same power as the little horn of both Daniel 7 and 8.

Particularly in Daniel 11 (but also in Daniel 7 and 8) it is clear that the king of the north is the last power to rule the earth before Christ sets up His everlasting kingdom. This is also true of the little horn of Daniel 8. He is broken “without hand”, an expression used in Daniel 2:34; 8:25; 11:45. The little horn/king of the north is destroyed by Christ at his coming. Obviously, this makes it impossible for Antiochus Epiphanes to be the little horn.

 

Daniel 11:31-45 also contains many elements which are common with the little horn of Daniel 7. These considerations leave no doubt that the little horn of Daniel 7, the little horn of Daniel 8 and the king of the north of Daniel 11 symbolize the same power. Thus, those who see the little horn of Daniel 7 as a future Antichrist and the one in Daniel 8 as Antiochus Epiphanes are at a loss to explain why Daniel 11 blends the description of the little horn of Daniel 7 with that of the little horn of Daniel 8. Why would Daniel 11 blend the two descriptions if they represented two different powers, one past and the other future?

 

Reason # 8:

In the book of Daniel, the word ‘days’ can mean ‘years’.  Daniel 1:5 refers to three years but in Daniel 1:18 the same period is described as ‘days’. The seven times of Daniel 4:25 are referred to as ‘days’ in Daniel 4:34. Daniel 5:11 speaks of the days of Nebuchadnezzar. These days were obviously years. Compare, Daniel 2:28, 44 where ‘latter days’ and ‘days of these kings’ means ‘years’. See also, Daniel 8:14, 26; 10:14; 12:13; 11:20; 11:33 in the light of Daniel 7:25; 12:7.

 

Reason # 9:

In the historical books of the Old Testament, days and years are used in a parallel fashion. Notice the following illustrations:

 

       Exodus 13:10 reads literally in Hebrew that the Passover was to be celebrated ‘from        days to days’. Obviously this means from year to year.

       I Samuel 20:6: The Hebrew literally reads ‘sacrifice of the days’ but the context clearly

       shows it refers to the yearly sacrifice.

       I Samuel 2:19 literally reads, ‘from days to days’

       I Samuel 1:21 literally reads, ‘sacrifice of the days’

       Judges 11:40 literally reads, ‘from days to days, four days each year’

       I Samuel 27:7 literally reads, “days and four months”

       I Kings 1:1 says that David was stricken ‘in days’ but it means ‘years’.

       Genesis 47:9 is an interesting verse in that Jacob speaks of ‘the days of my years’

       Genesis 5:5 states that the days that Adam lived were 930 years.

       Genesis 6:3 is the first time prophecy in the Bible where days are linked with years.

 

 

Reason # 10:

In  Old  Testament poetry,  days and  years  are employed  in synonymous parallelism. Please notice the following examples: Job 10:5; 15:20; 32:7; Deuteronomy 32:7; Psalm 77:5.

A very interesting text is Psalm 90:9-10 where the translation, “years of our lives” literally reads in Hebrew, ‘the days of our years’. In every place where the Old Testament couples days with years, the word ‘day’ is in the ‘A’ line and the word ‘year’ is in the ‘B’ line. Regarding this, the Old Testament scholar, William Shea comments:

 

“When we come to the occurrence of the word ‘days’ in the time prophecies, therefore, an ancient Semite whose mind was steeped in this parallelistic type of thought would naturally have made an association of ‘years’ with the ‘days’ found in a symbolic context, just as he naturally would have identified ‘years’ as the B-word that would follow the A-word ‘days’ in its occurrence as part of a well-known parallel pair.” (William H. Shea, Selected Studies in Prophetic Interpretation, p. 69)

 

Reason # 11:

In the prophetic books of the Old Testament days are also used interchangeably with years. For instance, Ezekiel 30:3 refers to the ‘day of the Lord’ but Isaiah calls it ‘the year of the Lord’ (Isaiah 61:2). Isaiah 10:3 speaks of the “day of visitation” but Jeremiah 11:23 refers to the same event as ”the year of visitation”.  Isaiah 34:8 speaks of the ‘year of recompense’ but Hosea 9:7 refers to the ‘days of recompense’.

 

Of course, we would not want to leave out the traditional texts which have been used by Seventh-day Adventists to corroborate the year/day principle. In both Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, God Himself employs the year/day principle in the context of prophecy!!!

 

Reason # 12:

We can also approach this subject from the perspective of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years. It is obvious that the weekly Sabbath is the foundation for both of these!  That is to say, the seventh day of the week becomes symbolic of the seventh year and the forty-ninth day comes to symbolize the forty-ninth year. Leviticus 25:1-7 addresses the Sabbatical year. This passage contains the earliest Biblical use of the year/day principle. It becomes clear when we compare verses 3 and 4 with verse 5 that the weekly cycle is being used as a pattern for the seven year period. We have ‘six years’ which are followed by the ‘seventh year’ and the seventh year is one of rest. This arrangement is patterned after ‘six days’ of labor followed by the ‘seventh day’ which is a day of rest. Here we clearly have an example of the year/day principle. The same is true of the Jubilee year (see Leviticus 25:8 and compare with Leviticus 23:15).

 

Reason # 13:

If we accept the testimony of Jesus, the little horn of Daniel 8 cannot represent Antiochus Epiphanes. Jesus made it clear that the “abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” was still in the future in His day!! How could Antiochus, who lived in the second century before Christ, fulfill a prophecy which Jesus clearly indicated was still unfulfilled in His day? (See Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20).

 

Furthermore, the little horn of Daniel 7 could not have been fulfilled by Antiochus either, because the apostle Paul specifies that this horn was still future in his day (II Thessalonians 2:1-13)  The  book of  Revelation  also places the fulfillment of this prophecy  in the future (see Revelation 12:6, 14; 13:5; 11:1-2).

Reason # 14:

As a rule of thumb the shorter the time period in apocalyptic prophecy, the more likely it is to be symbolic of a longer time period. For example: Is it really possible to fit into one literal week all of the events spoken of in the last of the 70 weeks? (See Daniel 9:26, 27). Would ten literal days  of  persecution  during  the  period  of  Smyrna  really  be  such  a  terrible  ordeal?  (See Revelation 2:10). Would three and one half literal days be enough to fulfill all of the events of Revelation 11? (See Revelation 11:9). If the two witnesses, the two Olive Trees, the two Lampstands, the sackcloth, etc., are all symbolic, then, why not the time period?

 

Reason # 15:

Preterists  and  futurists who  apply these prophetic time periods literally  encounter serious problems in another sense as well. In the Old Testament God is presented as the One who reveals the course of human history and provides His divine evaluation of it. There we find a revelation of the continuous and unbroken flow of human history from creation until the first coming of the Messiah. The Gospels then present the story of Jesus’ ministry on earth. The book of Acts and the Epistles continue the flow by describing the history of the early church. After this is where the preterists encounter serious problems. You see, in the preterist view, there is no revelation from God concerning the entire history of the Christian church. There are almost two thousand years of silence. According to them, God’s description and evaluation of history ended with the Roman Emperors in the Early Church.

 

The futurists are not in better shape. According to this school, Revelation 4-18 refers to a short period of human history at the very end of time. Likewise, God’s description and evaluation of human history as found in Daniel (according to this school) ends with the Roman Empire and does not pick up again until the last seven years of human history. Thus, there is a 2000 year gap in God’s description and evaluation of human history (with the brief exception of the seven churches). God has been silent about the events of the church for 2000 years!!!

 

Only the historicist method is able to reveal a God who is concerned with His church during the entire period of church history, including the period of dominion of the little horn. Only historicism is able to show the providential guidance of God in human history and His loving care for His church during the last 2000 years!!

 

Reason # 16:

The Apostle Paul makes it absolutely clear that the Man of Sin was already working in his day and yet this man of sin will not be destroyed until Jesus comes. How could this be a literal person, if he was alive in Paul’s day and yet is not destroyed until Jesus comes? Is this one literal man who has lived over 2000 years? The inevitable conclusion is that the Man of Sin cannot be a literal man nor can his period of dominion be literal time. (See II Thessalonians 2:1-13).

It is also significant that Paul is getting his picture of the Man of Sin from the little horn of Daniel 7, the little horn of Daniel 8 and the King of the North in Daniel 11. This being the case, the little horn and the King of the North must have ruled for centuries, not for a few literal days.

 

Reason # 17:

The acid test  of the  year/day principle is whether the events forecasted  were fulfilled on schedule. In other words, the pragmatic test of historical fulfillment must be applied to the historicist interpretation of these prophecies. Does the historicist method pass the test?  Notice the following incontrovertible facts:

 

The Papacy did indeed rule for 1260 years and the true church had to flee during that period. The dates can be corroborated by history (538-1798 A. D.).

 

    The Church during the period of Smyrna did experience ten years of severe persecution under Diocletian (303-313 A. D.). In fact, it was this period of persecution which led to Constantine’s famous Edict of Milan in 313 A. D.

 

    A decree to build and restore Jerusalem was given in the year 457 B. C. Jesus was anointed in the year 27 A. D. Jesus did die in the spring of the year AD 31  Stephen was stoned in the fall of the year 34 A. D.

 

    The Millerites did indeed preach from Daniel 8:14 that the Sanctuary was about to be cleansed, and this preaching took place right before the 2300 years came to an end. Why didn’t they preach from some other text? Simply because God wanted to bring to the world’s attention that the 2300 years were about to end and a significant event was about to take place in heaven! The great Second Advent Awakening in the 1830's provides powerful evidence that the year/day principle must be applied to Daniel 8:14.

 

    Churches were closed and Bibles were forbidden in France during the French Revolution for about three and one half years (March of 1793 A. D. to November of 1797 A. D.).

 

Thus, historical fulfillment vindicates the historicist method of interpreting the prophetic time periods.

 

Reason # 18:

Many great scholars, both Seventh-day Adventist and non-Seventh-day Adventist have understood and taught the year/day principle. Unfortunately, after the Great Disappointment of 1844, Protestants gave up on the year/day principle which had been used by the Millerites to calculate the prophetic time periods. In other words, because Jesus did not come as predicted in 1844, the Protestant world threw out the method which the Millerites had used. Thus they threw out the proverbial baby with the bath water!! We will limit ourselves to comments which were made by two men whose last name is Newton:

 

“Three times and a half; that is, for 1260 solar years, reckoning as time for a calendar year of 360 days, and a day for a solar year. After which the judgment is to sit, and they shall take away his dominion, not at once, but by degrees, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” (Sir Isaac Newton, Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, part 1, chap. 8, p. 114. London: J. Darby and T. Browne, 1733).

“We must therefore compute the time according to the nature and genius of the prophetic language. A time, and times, and half a time are three years and a half; and the ancient Jewish year consisting of twelve months, and each month of thirty days, ‘a time and times and half a time,’ or three years and a half, are reckoned in the Revelation 11:2,3; 12:6, 14, as equivalent to ‘forty and two months,’ or ‘a thousand two hundred and threescore days:’ and a day in the style of the prophets is a year: ‘I have appointed thee each day for a year,’ saith God to Ezekiel 4:6; and it is confessed that ‘the seventy weeks’ in the ninth chapter of Daniel are weeks of years; and consequently 1260 days are 1260 years.”  (Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the prophecies, London: B. Blake, 1840, p. 247)

 

Incidentally, neither of these two authors were Seventh-day Adventists. The question might be asked, why didn’t the early church comprehend the year/day principle?  It is true that the early church generally interpreted these time periods literally. But it must be remembered that the fulfillment of Bible prophecy is fully comprehended only by those who are living shortly before or during the time of fulfillment. This principle is clearly brought out in John 14:29. Even the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not comprehend the prophecies about the Messiah until Jesus explained them.

 

Reason # 19:

Practically every futurist writer is willing to concede that the seven churches represent seven epochs in the history of the Christian church. Most see Ephesus as a symbol of the Apostolic Church. Let’s take a look at the fourth church in the series, Thyatira. It is obvious to any objective reader, that this church bears many similarities to the condition of Israel during the period of Elijah. Notice the following parallels:

 

In both cases Jezebel instigates the apostasy. In both cases the cardinal sins are fornication and idolatry.   In  both  cases  there is no rain. In both cases Elijah flees. In both cases Elijah is sustained in his flight to the wilderness. In both cases the period of apostasy lasts three and a half years. These parallels indicate that the church during the period of Thyatira is reliving the story of Elijah. Yet the historical period of the church of Thyatira does not last only three and a half literal years, not even by the calculations of conservative non-Adventist scholars!!   If, in Revelation 2, Jezebel is not one literal person, Elijah is not one historical person, rain is not literal rain, fornication is not literal fornication, etc., then the three and a half years are not literal years either!! Time and space will not allow us to show that the harlot of Revelation 17 represents the second, future, stage of this Jezebel period of the church!

 

 

Reason # 20:

A study of the literary structure of Revelation 20 and Isaiah 24 reveals that ‘days’ in Isaiah 24:21-23  is  parallel  to  ‘years’  in  Revelation  20:2.  This  is  clear  evidence  for  the  year/day principle.  Read the following verses and then study the chart at the end of this document: “It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones, and on the earth the kings of the earth.  22 They will be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and will be shut up in the prison; after many days they will be punished.  23 Then the moon will be disgraced and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before His elders, gloriously.”

“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2  He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.”

 

In conclusion, I would like to include a quotation from T. R. Birks on the year/day principle:

 

1.      That the church, after the ascension of Christ, was intended of God to be kept in the lively expectation of His speedy return in glory.  

2.      That, in the divine counsels, a long period of nearly two thousand years was to intervene between the first and the Second Advent, and to be marked by a dispensation of grace to the Gentiles.  

3.      That, in order to strengthen the faith and hope of the church under the long delay, a large part of the whole interval was prophetically announced, but in such a manner that its true length might not be understood, till its own close seemed to be drawing near.  

4.      That, in the symbolical prophecies of Daniel and St. John, other times were revealed along with this, and included under one common maxim of interpretation.

5.      That the periods thus figuratively revealed are exclusively those in Daniel and St. John, which relate to the general history of the church between the time of the prophet and the second advent.  

6.      That, in these predictions, each day represents a natural year, as in the vision of Ezekiel; that a month denotes thirty, and a time three hundred and sixty years.” (T. R. Birks, First Elements Sacred Prophecy. London: William Edward Painter, 1843. P. 311)

 

For further study read:

          Prophetic Principles Edited by Ron Du Preez (Published by the Michigan Conference of SDA)

          Selected Studies in Prophetic Interpretation by William Shea  (Available from the Biblical

Research Institute of the General Conference of SDA)

 

Miniature Symbolization

 

Explanation of the Year/Day Principle

 

 T.R. Birks:

“. . . a type is a real, and a symbol an unreal or ideal representative of a real object. In the type, the spies, who were real persons, represented the whole nature; and the forty days of their search, a real period, represented the real time of the stay in the wilderness. In the visions of Daniel or St. John the ten-horned beast or the sun-clothed woman, unreal figures, represent an empire, or the Church of Christ; and the twelve hundred and sixty days, or forty two months, an unreal period grammatically suggested, represent the true period designed, of as many years. The analogy, therefore, contained in this Scripture history is precise and complete. It supplies us, from the lips of the All-wise God himself, with a distinct scale, by which to interpret every prophetic  period which  bears the internal marks of a suggestive character, as a miniature representation of some larger period.” T. R. Birks,  First Elements of Sacred Prophecy: Including an Examination of Several Recent Expositions, and of the Year-Day Theory, p. 339. Emphasis supplied

Numbers  14:34

 .      12 men (smaller) 12 tribes (larger)

       14:10-12 The whole congregation rebelled against God

       14:33, 34: The sentence upon Israel

 

 

“And your sons shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years, and bear the brunt of your infidelity, until your carcasses are consumed in the wilderness. 34 According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for each day you shall bear your guilt one year, namely forty years, and you shall know My rejection.”

 

 

       Spies and days are the microcosm

       Tribes and years are the macrocosm

       Numbers 13-14 is typology in miniature

       The expression “for every day a year” appears in a historical setting

 

Ezekiel 4:6

 

Ezekiel 4 is a symbolic representation in miniature

 

4:1-3: The brick represents Jerusalem and the  siege represents the siege of the city by the Babylonians. This is a miniature symbol.

 

4:4-8: The prophet himself becomes a symbol for Israel and Judah

 

The prophet is the microcosm and Israel and Judah are the macrocosm

 

The man represents the nation in miniature, the 390 days represent the period of 390 years in miniature and the 40 days on his side represents 40 years for Israel.

 

Prophecies from Daniel

     Daniel 7:25: Smaller symbols are representative of larger empires so the time periods must also be larger

       Daniel 8: Smaller symbols represent larger nations so the time period must also be larger

    Daniel 9: Because it is connected with the 2300 days of Daniel 8 the smaller time periods represent greater time periods

       Daniel 12: Reference to the daily and the abomination of desolation connects with Daniel

11 and also with Daniel 8. This shows that these periods are to be understood in the light of the past and not in the light of the future

       Daniel 7:1-14: Vision  Daniel 7:25: Time period

       Daniel 8:1-12: Vision  Daniel 8:14: Time period

       Daniel 11: Explanation of vision  Daniel 12: Time period

 

Prophecies from Revelation

 

       Revelation 2:10: ten days

       Revelation 9:5, 10: Time periods in a symbolic context

       Revelation 9:15: Symbolic context

       Revelation 11:2, 3: Symbolic context

       Revelation 12:6, 14: Symbolic context

       Revelation 13:5 Symbolic context

 

 

Merely Historical Time Prophecies

 

       Daniel 4: One person, seven times both fulfilled with that literal person (4:25ff)

       Jeremiah 29:10; 25:11, 12: Fulfilled literally (Ezra 1:1-4)

       Daniel 10:2, 3: No symbols involved

       Genesis 6:3: No symbols involved. Fulfilled literally with Noah and the ark

       Genesis 15:13-15: fulfilled exactly 400 years later in Exodus 12:40

       Genesis 41:25-36: Was literally fulfilled. There is no indication of any symbolism in the passage.

 

 

What About the Thousand Years of Revelation 20:

 

The year/day principle was already applied to this time period in Isaiah 24:21-23 where the ‘many days’ are interpreted in Revelation as one thousand years. Thus there is no need to apply the year/day principle to this time period in the book of Revelation.