“Clarifications.”

“After having shared 24 articles related to the prophecies of Daniel, it is possible that most of the readers of these publications may conclude that the purpose of this blog is to discredit the Seventh-day Adventist Church and weaken the faith of our brothers and sisters; which is completely wrong, because the true purpose is to encourage a review of our traditional prophetic interpretation of the mentioned book; and if necessary, proceed to an honorable rectification. It is important to highlight that the research done on the book of Daniel was not with the intention of finding errors and interpretative faults, but with the desire to better understand the Scriptures. Approximately 30 years ago, after having read the entire Bible at least a dozen times, I realized that this method of reading did not satisfy my spiritual need, because there were portions of the Scriptures that I had not fully understood up to that moment; because I was reading mechanically and without much reflection. In view of the above, I decided to read the entire Bible once again, but in small portions found between subtitles; without moving on to the next portion if I was not satisfied with my understanding of the portion being studied. For this purpose, I acquired the Hebrew-Spanish and Greek-Spanish Interlinears of the Old and New Testament, the Strong’s Concordance, the seven volumes of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, the biblical commentaries of Adam Clark and Matthew Henry, the Adventist Bible Dictionary and other biblical dictionaries, the two volumes of the Spirit of Prophecy Library, the Hebrew Bible and the Peshita, which is a translation of ancient Aramaic manuscripts, and at least half a dozen different Bible versions, both Catholic and Protestant. I also acquired numerous books on Hebrew history, highlighting the works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities and The Jewish War, as well as works that recount the beginnings and development of Christianity in its twenty centuries of existence. Reading and scrutinizing the Word of God in this new modality took me several years; which allowed me to realize that some of our minor beliefs are not very well-founded biblically. The major problem I found when I reached the book of Ezra, especially chapters 6 and 7, where I could not find the foundation of our traditional interpretation that the prophecy of the 2,300 evenings and mornings began in 457 B.C., because the third decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 6; is referring to the completion of the House of God – a work that was completed and dedicated in the reign of Darius, approximately 50 years before Ezra traveled to Jerusalem -, and not to the order to rebuild Jerusalem. The second major problem I encountered was when I reached the book of Daniel, particularly chapter 8, where again I could not find the foundation of our interpretation that the little horn of Daniel 8 is represented by Rome, because that nation became a world power approximately 300 years after 457 B.C.; the year in which we have indicated the prophecy of the 2,300 evenings and mornings began during the Persian Empire, in order for the prophecy to end in 1844. If we are objective, we will find that our traditional interpretation of Daniel 8 is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, which discredit us before scholars of other denominations who have not been influenced by what we have wrongly repeated for almost two centuries. I must confess that, as a good Adventist, I initially resisted what I was discovering: that it was not based on the Scriptures, because it was difficult for me to accept; that as the remnant church that had the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – of which I was proud – could have interpretative errors. Over time, and faced with the overwhelming evidence I was finding, I had no choice but to accept the possibility that some of our prophetic interpretations might lack a solid biblical and historical foundation. Because of this, hoping to be wrong; I decided to share the research with prominent and experienced theologians from our church in North, Central, and South America, asking them to question what was proposed. Of the approximately 50 recognized and experienced theologians – some with postgraduate studies – with whom I shared the research, 98% did not present any objections, but they did take an attitude of denial and consequently, a certain rejection of me. The remaining 2% is represented by an experienced and prestigious Chilean theologian, who not only presented valid objections that helped improve what was shared, but also suggested sending the research to the Biblical Research Institute. Seeking satisfactory answers, we sent part of the research to the aforementioned institute, receiving in response the same arguments that were objected in the research sent to them; which makes us think that they either didn’t read them or didn’t understand them. After exhausting in the last fifteen years all the organizational instances of the church, from the pastors in charge of the local church I attended, continuing with the deans and professors of theology from some of our main universities with whom I shared part of the research, to the Biblical Research Institute; and not having received any objections or questions so far, we have seen it necessary to open this blog, with the purpose of making our inconsistencies and contradictions in the interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies public, so that we are compelled to present reasoned objections; and if we don’t have them, proceed to an objective review of what we have believed and taught about those prophecies, which may culminate in an honorable rectification that we so greatly need. Blessings.