Cliff, your logical fallacies are becoming thicker in each post of late. Especially with the title you're giving these posts, it's doubly dissonant.

Essentially your argument using Dale consists of:

I disagree with D on X. But I agree with D on Y. Isn't it a big zinger that D agrees with me against you on Y? And then I believe you had three "Hees".

Oh wait, as any undergraduate student of logic might retort: I think D lacks hermeneutical evidence on X and Y, this applies on his historical understanding of the law, Sabbath and scripture. 

In fact, I believe that D would probably not agree with how you read much of Daniel. But frankly, I couldn't care less.  

To make an interesting and logical argument above, you'd have to show how your epistemological foundations with D over X don't apply with Y.

But on those grounds, the lack continues. You make a fallacious guilt by association argument that the date used in the Jerusalem Bible is wrong because the Bible is Catholic in theology. But then you don't go on to actually address the historical or form issues involved in the later date.

What have you read on dating in Daniel lately? I don't see any sources listed in your post. First, most of the post-Hasel age scholars, even in the Adventist Theological Society take much from historical-critical methodology - no thoughtful Adventist scholar would do what you did above and fail to address the issues raised by Daniel’s historical, linguistic and theological context.

So where exactly has anyone posting on the Spectrum Blog "demeaned" scripture? Just because the means between us may be different doesn't mean that the end of following Christ's example is not possible.

Recognizing an ex eventu message in Daniel actually shows respect for the Word and God. My faith in God isn't predicated on some sort of magically predicative quality in the Bible. There are deeper stories about the movement of God through the First Testament and self-revelation in Christ. In light of the evidence, this life-affirming truth seems more vital than basing belief on the clearly problematic issue of almost singular prophetic prescience. But don't take my word. Go read both sides in depth like I did.

Consider this extremely careful discussion of Alexander Di Lella's conservative support for a late date for Daniel.

http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/2006/03/dating-the-book-of-daniel/

From Leonie Coffin:

Cliff,

Alex--  Not quite sure what you're saying, though I'm sure it's deep, very deep.  Maybe I'm just a simpleton but when Daniel dates itself one way and some scholars date it another, I'm gonna stick with what the Bible says about itself. 

I don't know, when Ratzlaff says that the liberals in the SDA church are questioning "the reliability of Scirpture," and then someone who blogs for Spectrum argues a date for Daniel other than what the book gives for itself, a reasonable person could conclude that the folks over at Spectrum, the liberal wing of the church (or what has been called The-Elaine-Nelson-Wing of Adventism) are, indeed, questioning the "reliabity of the Scriptures.  Thus, one could conclude that Ratzlaff has a point. 

 Is that such an outrageous leap of logic?

Cliff

Cliff,

I read your introductory post with interest. Leonie suggests that the post is a harangue. I can understand why some would read it that way. But, I suspect there is something else going on here. On the surface this may be a way of amusing yourself by reading the retorts. Or much deeper you see the church unraveling because of the heresy espoused by "thinking Adventists."

So there is a schism between one Bible (New Jerusalem Bible, Catholic) and the Bible you ascribe to with regards to the date Daniel 2 is written. Lets say for argument you are right and 600 BCE is the correct. Fine, can we get on with the spiritual meaning of the story now? On the other hand lets say the later date 167 BCE is correct. Once again what does the date have to do with spiritual meaning of the story?

Some scholars say that genesis 1 (P story) was written around 585 BCE putting it within the Babylonian captivity. Genesis 2 (J story) written approx 400 yrs earlier around 900 BCE. So what? Just because one can accurately date the writing of a particular text does not necessarily add or detract from the spiritual "truth" of the story. I do not think either one of these stories represents events that "truly happened" within the course of history. However, the dates when the text were written are probably correct. Once again, so what?

"Thinking Adventists" are just that, thinking. That said I do not hold a view that you are "non thinking." You have evaluated the scripture for yourself and you take it literally and you arrived at your position through a series of thinking steps. Some of us have arrived at a different conclusion through the same method.

The truth about thinking, courtesy of Ogden Nash:

LINES FRAUGHT WITH NAUGHT BUT THOUGHT

If you thirst to know who said, "I think,therefore I am,"
your thirst I will quench;
It was Rene Descartes, only what he actually said was,
"Je pense, donc je suis," because he was French.
He also said in Latin, "Cogito, ergo sum,"
Just to show that he was a man of culture and not a tennis tramp or a crackle barrel philosophy bum.

Descartes was one of those who think, therefore they are,
Because those who do not think, but are anyhow, outnumber them by far.
If of chaos we are on the brink
It is because so many people think that they think.
In truth, of anything other than thinking they are fonder.

Because thought requires the time and effort to reflect, cogitate,
contemplate, meditate, ruminate and ponder.
Their minds are exposed to events and ideas but they have
never pondered or reflected on them
Any more than motion picture screens meditate on the images that
are projected on them.

Hence our universal confusion.
The result of the unreasoned, or jumped at, conclusion.
People who think that they think, they secretly think that
thinking is grim.
And they excuse themselves with signs reading THIMK, or, as
Descartes would have said, PEMSEZ, and THINK or THWIM.

Instead of thoughts, they act on hunches and inklings,
Which are not thoughts at all, only thinklings.
Can it be because we leave to the Russians such dull pursuits as
thinking that the red star continues to twinkle so?
I thinkle so.

Cliff, you know that I care for you very much and I have read your latest entry with great interest. James Coffin gave a great quote from Ogden Nash and I give a great quote from Ellen White. All of us need to ponder what it says and how we can apply its message today. While the context is soul winning I believe the principles Ellen White gives are applicable to all situations.

"In the work of soul-winning, great tact and wisdom are needed. The Saviour never suppressed the truth, but He uttered it always in love. In His intercourse with others, He exercised the greatest tact, and He was always kind and thoughtful. He was never rude, never needlessly spoke a severe word, never gave unnecessary pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure human weakness. He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears were in His voice as He uttered His scathing rebukes. He never made truth cruel, but ever manifested a deep tenderness for humanity. Every soul was precious in His sight. He bore Himself with divine dignity; yet He bowed with the tenderest compassion and regard to every member of the family of God. He saw in all, souls whom it was His mission to save."--Gospel Workers, p. 117.

Ah Man! Mr Goldstein! I loved  your last two posts! I was literally jumping on my chair as I was reading... So amazinly true it has to hurt!

I mean, I really don't mean to offend carpenterale, but what was His comment all about (I mean the D = Y+X)? You just proved Mr Goldstein's point! It's this over rationalizing of nothing that caused so called bright thinking SDAs to stall congregations. Instead of moving foward we are going back to issues that the Daniel and Revelation Committee series addressed thouroughly and those stuff were written about the time I was born!

What also struck me considerably was Doctorf asking to move on with the spiritual meaning of the chapter in Dan 2, which is very "shocking" (for a lack of a better word), since applying the correct date is the WHOLE spiritual point of the chapter - relying on God and not on man when King Nebuchadnedzzar thought of himself as invinsible - understanding that God is in control, that He knows what He's talking about, He knows in advance what is going to happen and we can trust in Him-

You want the spiritual lesson of the story, then apply the right date and TRUST in Him instead of poor human judgment that has been proven wrong already

The only comment that really made sense was the one from jdavidnewman - it's true that Mr Goldstein's post was rough, but then again, so wonderfully true...

David

---Ignorance is bliss... yet life was never meant to be easy... hum wonder why?

Folks--I'm just not so clear as to why what I wrote was so mean-spiritied.  The whole point of the self assigned phrase "thinking Adventist" is that the conservatives are non-thinking, kind of a pejorative term, is it not?  The liberals in the SDA church have done nothing but attempt to tear down everything that makes the SDA church the SDA church (I plan on writing a blog called "The Vacuity of a Liberal SDA Faith" ), and then the moment we fight back, and call it for what it is, they start whining about tone, etc (I'm not talking about you, JDavidN, since you know me personally, we are friends, and you have talked to me about this many times before!). 

And Doctorf, I appreciate your post.  I'm just a little surprised that you would use some of the Documentary Hypothesis Theory to buttress  a point.  With rare exceptions, it's been pretty much abandoned by critical scholars.  Funny, but in a sense, your use of it kind of helps prove my point. For years, this was the rage, this was the filter through which scholars read the Bible, and it no doubt caused a lot of folks, particuarly the honest and logical thinking ones, to give up their faith.  Now, today, it's been all but abandoned.  So folks gave us their faith because of a critical theory that almost no one believes any more. 

Again, my only thought is that Dale Ratzlaff has a point, a very good point, when it came to the liberal wing of the SDA church, especially in regards to his statment about their  attitude toward the "complete reliability of Scripture."  The Spectrum blogger who accepted a date for Daniel that is contrary to what the book wrote is just one example of it, that's all.  Someone might disagree with me, and that's fine (I wouldn't expect much else on here) but I don't see where the logic is so faulty that I get my good friends Alex's diatribe against it.

Shalom

Cliff,

I am confused about the "complete reliability of the scripture comment." Scholars can date the time that the two creation stories were written. But, that dating does not necessarily make them a "literal" truth, especially in the light of paleontological history. The problem here is that humans have a pictoral and written history that spans what, 6,000-10,000 yrs? Before that there is evidence humans existed but probably did not have a written language. When one goes deeper into the record of life, humans are gone. To place humans within the history of dinosaurs takes some real creative working with the data.

It makes no sense to me to regard the Bible as some historical text of the history of the world no matter how accurately one can date the texts. Just because Nebuchadnezzer and Daniel existed and that existence can be accurately dated, does not make all Biblical stories, factual. Some are factual, some are not. Christ used parables that probably were not factual but were profoundly true regarding the human condition.

For what its worth, when I read your latest post within the context of your other posts, I do not get the sense you are being "mean spirited." These topics seem to bring out the passion that you have regarding your view that "thinking Adventists" are way off target. But, that is OK, I have been "off target" before. Then again life is a journey.

Leonie Coffin raises a fine question. Cliff, I'd love to see your lack of vacuity on that.

And did you read the link I shared discussing, clearly and briefly the dating issue?

As someone who purchased and read my first volumn of DARCOM while in academy - I'm curious if our friend who cited it as the final word has actually read it and the scholarly critique.

One doesn't lose faith by actually seeking to integrate knowledge. 

A faith built on sentences here and there in the Bible (Do you still believe the day for a year theory?), rather than the whole story, is actually built on shifting sand, because as scholarship increases the logical evidence moves and the fundamentalists in any faith lash out, just like Cliff does. 

It's based on fear, note Cliff's recent "fear" those on the side post, which makes no sense, given the fact that he's been "inside" the GC longer than almost all living Adventists. Should we have feared the insiders in the 30s, 50s, 70s, 80s, 90s too? 

Also, you mischaracterize thousands of Adventists by linking one person to Spectrum. Making that weird remark without written awareness of the disagreements among many continues to reveal a broad-brush, title-deep reading approach online. (I see that you haven't answered my question from two essays ago about the blog posts.) I don't care how you come across on the nice-meter, but are you honestly seeking to understand the issues from multiple sides before opining? It's embarrasing to see someone I looked up to while growing up in Adventism comment sans sources and evidence of theological and hermeneutical reading. Why bifucate Adventist beliefs from the rest of our literary and epistemological lives? Are you really afraid of losing your faith because Daniel is dated differently? Why not trust God and follow the truth (make up your mind, modernity or postmodernity?) and stop attacking people who seek to integreate faith and learning in ways you, in your own words, don't currently get?

To Doctorf, Alex, and others:

I've followed this discussion (and others like it), and I'd just like to try to get a better personal understanding of your position here. Please note that I respect the scholarly citations here, and I've done a fair amount of reading on both sides of Daniel's dating, but right now I'm just interested in your perspectives as fellow Christian believers. 

If I understand correctly, you're saying it's not necessarily an issue of great importance whether Daniel was written (by an actual prophet named Daniel )in 600 BCE or by someone else in 167 BCE--after at least some of the events in question had come to pass.  Is that a fair understanding? 

Doctorf wrote: "...lets say the later date 167 BCE is correct. Once again what does the date have to do with spiritual meaning of the story?"  

Alex wrote: "Recognizing an ex eventu message in Daniel actually shows respect for the Word and God. My faith in God isn't predicated on some sort of magically predicative quality in the Bible. There are deeper stories about the movement of God through the First Testament and self-revelation in Christ. In light of the evidence, this life-affirming truth seems more vital than basing belief on the clearly problematic issue of almost singular prophetic prescience."

Here are my questions--and please accept these as honest inquiries.

1. If a prophet called Daniel wasn't really having these experiences (e.g., "I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision" Dan. 10:7) and writing about them, then this book called Daniel is obviously lying about the claims it makes--that a prophet, Daniel, was having these experiences and visions. My question is How, in the face of such blatant lies, are you able to still benefit from the "spiritual meaning of the story"?  Isn't it hard to do this? 

2. In Matt. 24:15, Jesus refers to "the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet."   What do you do with this statement from Jesus?  It's hard for me to see how Jesus isn't referring to a specific person, Daniel the prophet.  And if Daniel is called into question, isn't the omniscience of Jesus then called into question as well?  (Not all slopes are slippery, but this one would seem to be.) 

Thanks for helping me understand your perspective better on these points. 

 Andy

Thanks a lot Andy for that great post, you actually brought up questions I hadn't thought of before and that do make a very interesting point...

If I may and along the line of what Andy said I was quite suprised at a remark from carpenterale -> "Why not trust God and follow the truth"... Well given that the Bible is the Word of God and that His Word is truth why say that Daniel was written in 160 BC when the WOG says 600 BC... I would assume trusting and following the truth meant believing what God said was true

And in regard to carpenterale comment on DARCOM and whether I read it-> thanks for calling me a friend :D - I have read that part of the DARCOM (the one about the dating), I haven't read all the volumes back to back yet, but after reading Grafitties in the Holies of Holies and as I realized God was leading me to become a pastor the first books I bought were the 7 volumes and they are truly remarkable masterpieces, but I disgress -> If you have any critique, I'll gladly get the references!

I'm actually very interested in critiques, I believe our congregations lack pastors that can tell them what's out there and how to respond

 God bless

 David

---Ignorance is bliss... yet life was never meant to be easy... hum wonder why?

Andy, has asked some great questions.  If Daniel was written in the second century rather than the seventh century then it was much easier to write about four four kingdoms because three had already come to pass.  But if he wrote in the seventh century there is no way that he would have known about these future kingdoms unless God told him.

So here's the rub.  If you believe in the supernatural, in miracles, then a seventh century dating is not a problem.  If you do not believe in miracles, as some have indicated, then it is a problem.

Regarding the issue of a story giving spiritual lessons regardless of whether it is factual or not.  I know from preparing my sermons that a true story is far more powerful in reaching people than a fictional story.  You can always argue with fiction that it is not realistic, etc., but with a true story the facts are there, you cannot rationalize them away.

I don't believe you can benefit much from stories that are not real, at least on the personal experiential level.   My grandchildren love for me to tell them stories but the ones they like best are about when I was a little boy, what really happened!   

Read the following Scripture from Paul.  Here he makes it clear that there are no worthwhile spiritual lessons to be drawn from the death and resurrection of Christ unless they actually happened.  Something to think about.

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Cor 15:12-19)

Folks who think that they can meld evolution into Genesis aren't going to take Daniel seriously, either.  A second century date for Daniel destroys it, period.  Just like evolution does Christianity.  You don't have to Einstein to see that either (even a Goldstein will do).

I mean, it we're not going to take things that literally . . . David has a point.  Sounds like, Alex, you're not all that far from those who don't take the resurrection of Christ literally.  I mean, why do we need to?  Why can't we just do with that as  you say we should do for Daniel, forget about what it says and just, well "trust God and follow the truth" regardless of how our understanding of truth contradicts the plained and clearest statements in Bible?  Why not be consistent?   

 Your statement about the day-year principle being based on "a sentence here and there in the Bible" shows total ignorance of all the scholarship done on that as well.  So I guess, Alex, you don't believe in that, either?  Then I guess you mustn't have any time for 1844 either (or is that a rather dumb question?) 

I've been reading literature on the date of Daniel for decades now, and, however wildly impressed I have been with all that brilliant critical scholarship, I'm going to stick with what the Word of God says about itself as opposed to what a whole bunch of scholars say about it.  I mean, these poor folks are still teaching the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes (I suppose you probably believe that, too). I 

Funny, these are debates that I've been done with for decades now, only to find them argued on here. 

Professed SDAs arguing for a second century date of Daniel . . .? Amazing.  And how innovative! how cutting edge! how avant garde! and how original too!   

ayn col hadash tahat hashamesh 

Cliff 

Andy,

You state, "So here's the rub.  If you believe in the supernatural, in miracles, then a seventh century dating is not a problem.  If you do not believe in miracles, as some have indicated, then it is a problem."

This is a most important understanding of how one views scripture. Is it just a compilation of man's experiences within his own cultural setting? Or is it also guided by God and inspired writers. (1 Peter 1:10-12)

"Liberal scholars" have the proclivity to accept only naturalistic explanations. To accept the early date of Daniel would mean that God actually does know the future and he relates that to the writer not through a cultural setting alone but "inspiration."

I would say that the outcome of the two views is quite significant. At what point does the Bible become only a product of our creative revisionism?

regards,

pat travis

Hi Pat, that post was actually from David Newman, but I concur with his sentiment and appreciate yours as well.  

Andy 

Sorry and Thanks Andy.

 Edwin M. Yamauchi is a "conservative scholar" skilled in the ancient languages who would say there are no insurmountable problems to the early date.

Although I dare say along with myself he would likely disagree with our/SDA exegesis of Dan.8:14.

And Cliff, I see this problem. I see the "liberal wing" of adventism reframing much of scripture and I see the "traditional" and "right wing" of adventism relying on EGW guiding the exegesis of parts of Daniel (8:14) and other scripture rather than attempting to use scripture alone.

regards,

pat

So what does a "conservative evangelical" do in the SDA church?

Boy posting a comment hear is like getting in Ft.Knox...practically impossible...On this "issue" Spectrum has the edge.  :~)

David, C, I really agree with the last part of your post. I have been mulling over the same issue recently, especially as all the "thinking" Adventists, reveal themselves.

While there are certainly positive elements to Adventist culture, such as vegetarianism and temperance, as a culture, per say, Adventism is a joke, compared to, for instance, Judaism or even monastic Roman Catholicism.

Ministries such as Amazing Facts put forth their misguided efforts to bring people into Adventism. Those people are then informed by those who have been around a while that the Bible, Creation, the Sabbath, the Flood, Prophecy, and EGW are simply character building stories, morality tales, and hoaxes. Why would anyone want to stick around a community like that?

Luke Ford displays more nobility in this respect than many others.  He doesn't pretend to be a Christian and deny its basic tenets. 

Cliff, are you a 'thinking Adventist'? Are you a 'reading' Adventist? Over the last 15 years, the Christian scholarly books and articles have broken much new ground. Insight isn't restricted to Adventists.

I would suggest that we need to look carefully at what Jesus said and didn't say about Daniel. I would also say that Jesus is not only the Ultimate Prophet but is Himself the Prophecy.

The restoration of the Sanctuary to its rightful state took place when Jesus raised up the temple of His own body. The first 12 chapters of John speak again and again of Jesus replacing the Temple with His own body. What we have here is the fulfillment of Dan.8:14.

The Olivet Discourse which is Jesus' own explanation of Daniel needs close inspection. It is when we compare the key words in the Olivet Discourse to the words and events that follow in relation to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, that we begin to understand that the cross event is the key to understanding the Olivet Discourse. All the major themes found in the Olivet Discouse are found in Revelation.

The Temple is the Place of atonement, forgiveness of sins, access to God, the Place of judgment, fellowship with God, Edenic restoration, the Place where we worship and meet with God. Christ at Calvary followed by His resurrection fulfills all these functions. A Christ centred cross centred approach is the only sure way to interpret Daniel.

Dan.9 which is the immediate contextual explanation of Dan.8:14 is all about covenant and restoration. Dan.9 explains Dan.8. Calvary explains Dan.9. Consequently the cross explains Dan.8

To hang onto a wooden historicist view that is unwilling to let the words of Christ interpret Daniel for us is deeply problematic.

Thinking people talk to others, not just to themselves.

Cliff, have you read N.T. Wright's "The Victory of God" or Rikki Watts' "Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark" or Greg Beale's commentary on Revelation? If you have not, you should.

The implication in the question is that most Adventists aren't thinking and you are. The fact of the matter is that none of us know what we don't know. The body of Christ has many thinkers. we need to consult with them from time to time.

Richard L. Noel, DMD

I am interested to note that you have read much of Darcom.  I have it in my library and have read it with interest.  Unfortunately, after doing my own research in the Bible, I find that DARCOM is not nearly as excellent as it may sound on first reading.  Much of it ignores key bibical information and twists the arguments to avoid facing a direct reading of the Bible.  This may sound harsh, but if they had tried to publish their work in the evangelical world outside the SDA church they would have been shredded for their lack of careful scholarship.

Just because something is slick in its presentation, does not make it correct.  I personally have written questions to BRI and found them unwilling to address my questions. They passed them off with the comment "the real question is"... and then proceeded to talk about anything except my real question.  It is time for a real open, thinking forum for doctrinal and exegetical discussions that is not tainted with the witch hunting approach of DARCOM.  They were only defending the doctrinal status quo.

We need to get back to the Bible and study it instead of trying to defend a specific position.

Richard -> I really don't mean to be condescending and I pray this post doesn't appear to be so.

You write: "We need to get back to the Bible and study it", saying we should defend it instead of a specific position

How can one, in all intellectual honesty, criticize the 600 BC date and say he/she is going back to the Bible and studying it and defending it, when there's not a single place in the Bible that says Daniel was written in 160 BC?

Defending the 160 BC date means defending a specific position instead of defending the Bible that clearly mentions 600 BC.

And given your criticism of DARCOM, I'm assuming you defend the 160 BC date (but if I'm mistaken, please accept my apologies)

I became a 'thinking' SDA when it seemed that getting straight answers from the church leaders about - EG White & Rea, Ford and Glacierview 1980, Bible Conf of 1919, etc. - were as difficult as eatring soup with a fork.  I am just a regular 'ol SDA - educated in public schools, don't work or have any relatives that work for the church - that has tried to follow the truth but now with the internet and having become acquainted with some SDAs who seem to have some connections (ie, a pastor that worked at the White Estate at the GC) in the church concerning both theology and politics within the church have heard enough that I figure I need to do some "thinking" about SDAisms.  Getting information from blogs and people who know other people and the occassional book from GR Knight, I just hope that my thinking is SDA enough to be part of that remant.

Leonie has some valid points but I agree with Hansen that this thread is not the place to deal with them.   The Washington Post Sunday edition carries on the editorial page a column by the Post ombudsman, Debbie Howell.  I read this column faithfully.  Her role is to bring to account the editors and reporters of the Post and she is very forthright about it.

The Adventist church needs an ombudsman at each level.  One for the General Conference would be great.  This has to be a person who is completely independent yet allowed to ask whatever questions they want and to report publically what they find.

The main point of this thread is Thinking Adventists and the theology of the church.  Maybe Cliff you might want to start another thread dealing with ethics in the Adventist church.  

I lost my position at the General Conference in part because I tried to play the ombudsman role.  When you work for an organization you need to support that orgainization.  If you can no longer believe in its values then you need to find another organization to belong to.  A house divided against itself cannot prosper.

This is what Cliff is trying to do---establish the fundamental values of the Adventist church one of which is the infallibilibty of the Bible which a number of respondents reject.  If there is no agreement on this vital point then there can be no real discussion.

---

nwatts says:

What Cliff misses.

Cliff dismisses the historical-critical method, which he rightly recognizes has been problematized in recently scholarship, particularly via “text-immanent” approaches.

But he completely misses what Biblical scholars are actually saying. What they now dismiss of the historical-critical method is its claim to value-neutral interpretations, the idea that we could actually ascertain what the texts meant “originally” without our piety, culture or ideology influencing our hermeneutic.

"Pomo" text-immanent scholars don’t attack the dating done by their historical-critical fore-bearers. In fact, Cliff deconstructs his own “Daniel meant 1844 arguments” via his attacks on the historical-critical method and its concurrent assumption about timeless textual meaning.  What the former Deist (as were many hist-crit. scholars, Wm. Miller passed on to Adventism (to which Cliff still clings) is the idea that the text contain this sort of objective meaning.

This indebtedness to historical-critical ideology should not be lost on the close observers of Adventism’s apologists, who champion their own “historical-grammatical method.” Hasel was steeped in this wissenschaftlich approach. Note how even in the titular rhetoric, not to mention their methodology, Adventist apologists are indebted to the 19th century historical critic’s belief that meaning can be objectively unlocked and transmitted if only we use the correct tools. (The day for a year principle, for instance.) They replaced metaphysical doubt with defensive, but the methodology was/is essentially the same.

One will notice this anxiety with the theories some Adventist scholars spin out like that each text has an inherent meaning for the “original readers” and for us today. Sorry 5th century Jews and Christians. Since Cliff has already falsely questioned my belief on other matters, I’ll add that I do believe that Scripture has meanings for readers in every age, granted, in part, by the Holy Spirit, but let’s not kid ourselves about it being “inherent” and “unlockable” from the text without our own leanings playing a role.

While Cliff is making a 60s argument that he learned in the 80s and is still parroting in 2008, the rest of the Biblical studies world is having really interesting discussions as revealed in New Historically sympathetic John Barton’s Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, Bruggeman’s riveting discussion of the political and poetical function of the prophets or as someone already mentioned, the ubiquitous N. T. Wright. Apparently Cliff, you got it all figured out awhile back, but apparently there are some big thinkers who didn’t get the memo.

While shattering the myth that questions of dating are motivated by unbelievers, (in fact, most have been believers) Barton incisively traces that tradition of Biblical criticism to the Reformation. In rooting authority in the text vs. the Church, the Protestant principle is that believers “have the right to ask whether the Bible really means what the Church says it means. In that sentence lies the whole development of Biblical criticism in germ. Faced with an ecclesiastical interpretation of this or that text, the biblical critic does not automatically accept that the magisterium of the Church (or its “you’re not a real Adventist” defenders) guarantees that the meaning proposed is the true one, but reserves the right to apply rational principles of criticism.

This further reveals Cliff’s lack of theological understanding (and lack of wide reading in our denomination) because it’s on these imminent value and ethics points that most young Adventist Spectrum contributors have disagreed with Elaine Nelson’s popular reductionism, which is mirrored inversely by Cliff.  It’s not clear that he’s read Nancey Murphy (Fuller), Lamin Sanneh (Yale), Richard Jenkins (Penn State), Bull and Lockhart (Seeking a Sanctuary) all of whom have headlined recent Adventist Forum | Spectrum conferences and have made very significant contributions to helping at least me think of religion in antifoundational and wholistic ways.

My stab at Andy's interesting questions.

Andy, I understand where you’re coming from and your questions raise issues of hermeneutical conherence, in ways similar to what Mrs. Coffin asks Cliff. I don't have it all figured out, but here's my reflections as a believer who wants to be honest about what appears to be good scholarship.

First, the idea of a text lying is an invention of our (Adventist) late-modernist hermeneutical legacy. I believe that Adventism’s experience with Ellen White helps us address the “is it true?” questions you raise.

In doing so, I’m going to assume that you’ve read the essential texts such as Prophetess of Health, the White Lie, the discussion at the 1919 Bible Conference and the Estate’s gradual shift on this issue and that much of what she saw in vision, wrote about the life of Christ and wrote as history came from others.  As Ann Taves shows, Ellen White functioned in the "fits, trances, visions" prophetic tradition. To discount Ellen White while embracing an idea that this same prophetic authorial complexity is not evident in Ancient Near Eastern Judaism is an example of the academic 19th century objectivity that makes historical-criticism fail. How Ellen White functioned in Adventism (a religious community exponentially more literate than 165 BCE) shows how questions of authorship don’t actually as much as some would like, outside of the academic community.

I believe that Ellen White is a prophet in this tradition. For those who rush to dismiss her while embracing the Bible as free from this, from John to David, Ezekiel to Samuel we recognize an embodied ecstatic tradition that also manifests itself in other religions. 

Was Daniel lying? Was Ellen? As scholars have shown, our very concept of authorial originality has evolved in the last 100 years, not to mention 3000 years.  For instance, the separation of fiction and non-fiction literary categories, the use of pseudonyms. Both of the Christian canons and the Jewish canons were committee decisions based on a pre-existing theological points they both wanted to get across. It’s really hard for us to understand, but imposing our idea of textual authority back to a pre-literate society is like a Martian coming across a History Channel documentary on WWII with its mix of a celebrity reading the text of a script writer for a voice over, survivor interviews, archival footage, reenactment footage, the reading of era documents, interviews with current historians and wondering if the whole war was fake just because the actor voice reading a letter home wasn’t actually the soldier.  

I just don’t think that we have enough reference points to fully understand (at least to start questioning each others’ faith) how the historical figure, the stories, the authors and redactors and community and God all functioned in a pre-literate society to make meaning.  That we go back and take a sentence from one letter, combine it with another in the voice over, connect it to a verse from the background music and some words from one of the soldiers does seems to miss the ethical point of the story.  That post-538 CE Europe is divisible into ten toes (what about the fingers and Medo-Persia?) requires incredible creativity.

2. Before we address the NT text, you ask about the omniscience of Jesus. Where is the Biblical evidence that Jesus knew everything while He was on earth? In fact, I believe that there’s much Biblical evidence that Jesus did not know in the garden, or on the cross, if the plan of salvation would work. Furthermore, Jesus asks lots of questions, was he lying about not knowing the answer? 

In addressing your larger point, it’s important to recognize that the Gospels were themselves later written documents and what we have in English are compilations by men working with thousands of fragments with tens of thousands of variations.  For instance, the woman caught in adultery does not appear in single copy of any of the Gospels until it appears as marginalia around the 12th century CE and then slips right into the text as we know it.

The text as a closed vehicle for meaning is a human construction, from the inspiration process to the copying process to the translation process to the interpretation process.  That doesn’t mean that God’s not present, but God doesn’t override human free will. God is a part of the process, but it is always through humans and no human is perfect, in fact, thousands of humans, with varying relationships with God, over 2000 years means that we are justified in always asking questions about how earlier generations saw the text.

How we read verses in English (sans paraphrase) are translations by committees (everyone knows how well those work) that reach compromises.  Thus, often the text as received is what makes sense in their context given what their thinking is at the time, not necessary what Jesus meant. The Gospel of Matthew mimics Mark, but also adds in bits that are First Century Jewish specific. Reading the first part of chapter 24, it’s pretty clear that Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Perhaps in this example we have Jesus speaking to the assumptions of the people of the times, or at least how the author remembered it or thought how Jesus

Does inspiration give perfect memory? See Ellen White. Sometimes she got history wrong or copied facts that don’t match up.

I believe in Ellen White’s prophetic gift and I’ll always fight to make sure we don’t lose her, in part because it helps us see how prophets and inspired writers actually function in religious communities, particularly in the Judeo-Christian inter-textual tradition. There are books in the Bible that copy whole passages, with contradictory variations from other books right in the canon.  Now some extreme apologists for Ellen White will make excuses for the plagiarism by noting the less formal citation conventions of the 19th century. Fair enough. But if we can do that, then let’s drop back to an almost pre-literate era with no concept of originality of authorship. 

So no, I don’t think that Jesus would get it wrong, but there’s no doubt that humans, even when inspired, get meanings wrong, and of course, even the meanings in one time don’t always apply through the last 2000 years and in every culture. Not to mention that Christian history is littered with outdated interpretations.

This assumes that you agree with most scholars that Ellen White’s writings are a mix of her own words and the words of others.  Also, in the Adventist context we’ve also seen how what Sister White says takes on a variety of meanings in believer oral communication. For instance, immediately after the terrible attacks on 9-11, I heard folks say that she predicted the events in the Testimonies.  In the less critically-aware mind, these sorts of textual bits take on outsized meaning, especially after the fact.

In some popular Adventist usage, Sister White the prophet takes on different meanings than Ellen G. White the actual author.  If one wanted to avoid some of the big questions about epistemology and religion, one could take the rather conservative approach and talk about how Daniel the prophet might mean different things to the writer of Jesus’ words in Matthew. Separating the historial, the narrative characters of Daniel and the spiritual message of God's presence (remember the Babylon captivity folks. Now under these new oppressors God is in control) is really not the troublesome. The author of Daniel might have some dating problems in similar ways that one might quote the words one heard from General Patton in the aforementioned WWII documentary without presuming that the whole film is by him even though it may open with a first person narrative.