Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents

101 Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    19. Ford and Antiochus Epiphanes

    How does Ford’s interpretation of the 2300 days and Daniel 8’s little horn differ from the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?QSEW 17.7

    In his commentary on Daniel, published in 1978, Ford essentially endorsed the historic Adventist interpretation of the little horn of Daniel 8, applying it primarily to Rome rather than Antiochus Epiphanes. He wrote:QSEW 17.8

    “The obvious reason for such repudiation of the Epiphanes interpretation is the admission by most that the climax of the vision just does not fit, with any precision, what happened during the day of Antiochus ... This inadequacy of a Maccabean fulfillment for the fourteenth verse is matched by others ... Its chief applications are to Rome— pagan and papal—and to the final apostasy, as indicated by Christ Himself.... These verses [Daniel 8:23-25] interpret the little horn. What is said fits pagan and papal Rome with considerable exactitude (and Antiochus Epiphanes to a much lesser extent).”—Ford, Daniel, 173, 174, 191. (See also Page 200.)QSEW 17.9

    In his 1980 document prepared for the Glacier View Committee, Ford departed from the Adventist position when he wrote, “Only Antiochus Epiphanes fulfills the chief specifications of Daniel 8’s little horn,” and “the approximate period of oppression by Antiochus was 2300 days,” from 171 to 165 BC. (Ford, pages 469, 383).QSEW 18.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents