Seventh-Day Adventists/For Tom Norris

Advertisement


Question
QUESTION: From: Ryan Van Dolson [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013 12:56 AM
To: HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
Subject: Re: for TOM NORRIS

I will make sure Tom gets your message.  However, I am the administrator and moderator for the ATomorrow forum at http://www.atomorrow.net and am not affiliated with AllExperts.  I am happy to invite you to post at ATomorrow as it seems you have insight into nisdaq that could benefit the average layperson.  

Cheers,
Ryan Van Dolson
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM, HKEA Evangelistic Alliance <> wrote:
My email to Tom is dated 23 January 2013 – he does not seem to know about it – please forward it to him.  I can’t login to AllExperts as I am not registered.  Thanks.

From: HKEA Evangelistic Alliance [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 6:59 AM
To: 'AllExperts'
Subject: for Tom Norris (Adventist Reform In America)
Hello Tom,
I am time pressed & travelling.  I love brevity.  I am blind-copying this email to Dr Ford as he needs to know.
CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENTS
•         I am not a paid employee/apologist of the SDA Church.  I work full time in the enterprise software space (SAP, Oracle etc).  I am also a volunteer gospel lay evangelist.
•         HKEA is a ministry independent of the SDA church, although a year ago it was recognised as a supportive ministry.
•         I do not defend the traditional IJ doctrine but have tried to blow gospel air into a pre-advent judgment the platform for which is forensic justification.
•         I have never vilified Dr Ford.  Prior to GV I studied under Dr Ford for 2 years at Avondale College.  My relationship with him today remains friendly, respectful and polite.  We still dialogue from time to time.  I heartily endorse his teaching on the Christian gospel although we differ on some aspects of apocalyptic prophecy.
•         As a gospel evangelist I stress salvation in Christ by faith and forensic justification as the correct stimulus for loving obedience.  
KEY POINTS
•         The traditional IJ doctrine is void of good news. The flawed remedy it offers is ‘salvation by character development’ which is just wrong.
•         I’ve thrown a pebble into the pond that sends waves of relief across much of the flawed IJ landscape.  That pebble is the Biblical meaning of ‘nisdaq’.  Correctly understood, it goes a long way to answering the 7 points you raise.
•         It is true ‘nisdaq’ only occurs once, but it’s just the niphal form of  ‘tsadaq’.  There are 40 OT uses of ‘tsadaq’ – providing us the inspired dictionary for ‘nisdaq’. It is ratified by how the NT also transliterates it into ‘justified’.  See http://www.logosapostolic.org/hebrew_word_studies/6663_tsadaq_justify.htm
•         Most Jewish Rabbis today correctly see ‘nisdaq’ as ‘justified’ or ‘exonerated’.  Example:
From: Chaya Sara Silberberg, Chabad.org [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012 2:40 PM
To:
Subject: Chabad.org: Ask the Rabbi {Ref. No. 2540649}
Dear Herb, the primary meaning of the word tzedek is righteousness. Thus, a tzaddik is a righteous person. As a verb, tsadak is used to mean “he was right.” So the word “nitzdak” in Daniel would have the meaning “he was [found to be] right/correct/not guilty” – or, in the translation on our site, “exonerated.”
I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you want to discuss this any further.
Chaya Sarah Silberberg
Chabad.org

•         In his unpublished commentary on Daniel, Dr Raymond Cottrell wrote “cleansed is interpretation and not translation”. He says it comes from the LXX.  I agree.  
•         D8:14 is the only instance in the LXX where the LXX departs from its established practise in rendering ‘tsadaq’ as justified and renders D8:14 with the aberration ‘cleansed’.  (It is suspected this was done to aggrandise the Maccabean victory over Antiochus which they saw as the fulfilment of D8:14. Can’t prove it but Dr Steven Weizman – non-SDA scholar – agrees).  
•         Thus ‘cleansed’ in D8:14 sits on LXX error on which the historic SDA platform for the IJ sits.  I have sought to correct this.

I do not have ample free time to engage with you in lengthy debate.  If you see that as me fleeing the battle zone it would be quite wrong.  My research on this matter has been in the public domain for years. You consider my focus on ‘nisdaq’ a dishonest diversion from the main issues; I see it as the golden key that addresses most of the issues.  You have done Adventist Reform In America a service by drawing your reader’s attention to it.  Feel free to post this email as my official reply to your lengthy thread.
Regards,
Herb Kersten
www.hkea.org.au

ANSWER: Hello Tom,

I am time pressed & travelling.  I love brevity.  I am blind-copying this email to Dr Ford, as he needs to know.

Tom said:  Welcome.  We are all “pressed for time” as each day brings us closer to death.  This is why it is so important to understand the Gospel correctly.  I am sure Dr. Ford would agree.  Please give him my best regards.

Herb said:  CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENTS: I am not a paid employee/apologist of the SDA Church.  I work full time in the enterprise software space (SAP, Oracle etc).  I am also a volunteer gospel lay evangelist.

Tom said:  I was responding to a question on the All Experts site about you and your claims about the IJ.  The questioner said you were an “SDA Pastor” and I assumed it was so.   

If you don’t want people to get the wrong idea, I suggest that you clearly state on your website that you are NOT an SDA pastor or even a trained theologian.  Because this is what you appear to be.  I don’t think people know you are just an amateur and not a professionally trained theologian or historian.

In fact, in your Acknowledgments section, you thank over a dozen SDA “pastors” and theologians.  So let’s not pretend that you are acting “independent” of SDA church or their doctrines.  You are not.  You support them and they have approved what you teach.

Here is what I was asked:

“Tom, I have a question concerning the 1844 Investigative Judgement (IJ). You see, first i believed the IJ because of what the SOP tells us. Then i found out the gospel and the IJ contradict each other and i was totally convinced by Dr. Desmond his point of view concerning the IJ. I already made up my mind that the IJ was an erroneous teaching.”

“However, i found video presentations and a website of a pastor named Herb Kersten.”

“He tries to reconciliate the gospel with the Investigative Judgement. Since you are a truth-digger like me, would u mind visiting his website and read his articles concerning 1844 and shed your personal opinion on this matter?”

Rogier,
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Herb, you should know that this questioner is satisfied with my response and with Dr. Ford’s position; he correctly thinks the IJ is “a huge error,” and so too does the vast majority of the SDA Community.  Unless you have a mountain of evidence to disprove the experts, like Dr Ford, you are wasting everyone’s time.

Here is what he said:

“First of all i would like to express my gratitude because you are very sincere in your quest for truth. I used to be a traditional Adventist for almost 7 years but now i can step back and look at the SDA church from an extern point of view and behold the doctrinal mess the church is preaching.”

“I think it's a religious crime to preach another gospel and use that other gospel to create a money-making bureaucracy.  I thank God for people like Desmond Ford, Walter Martin, John Ankerberg. I am thoroughly convinced that many people fall into the SDA trap because traditional sound Protestantism seems almost dead.”

“In the beginning i thought you (Tom Norris) were just a Jesuit spreading disinfo and confusion, i can't believe how blind i was.”

“Right now i came to accept the IJ as a huge error, the work-based gospel as a serious error (mildly put), Daniel 8 as talking about Antiochus Epiphany and the three angels' message judgement as the judgement of this world instead of the judgement of the saints (there is no such thing)…”

Rogier,
Groningen, Netherlands
-------------------------------------

So Herb, you and the rest of the SDA’s are wasting their time trying to rehabilitate and save the IJ.  It is so easily defeated that that it will never be embraced by anyone with a working brain and a computer.  

Blame Dr. Ford if you want, but also blame it on the fact that there is no support for this error in the NT.  NONE.  So the IJ is doomed and so too any that cling to such false doctrine that Christ never taught.

Second, your website leads people in America to believe you are the Australian version of Doug Batchelor, with his Amazing Facts circus of error.  This is not good.  

Third, you have clearly gone public in support of Traditional Adventism, including the IJ, so you are indeed an “apologist” for SDA doctrines, including the promotion of Ellen White.  Why did you just deny it?  One can be an apologist without being on their payroll, and you are clearly a cheerleader for SDA doctrine.  How can you deny such an obvious point?

Herb said:  HKEA is a ministry independent of the SDA church, although a year ago it was recognized as a supportive ministry.

Tom said:  In America, it is the “independent ministries” that cause a lot of problems.  They were the greatest critics of Dr. Ford and the most legalistic and full of slander.  Your claim to be an IM places you in very bad company.  It is also no excuse to promote false doctrine and pretend you are an expert when you are only an amateur and part time volunteer.

Herb said: I do not defend the traditional IJ doctrine but have tried to blow gospel air into a pre-advent judgment the platform for which is forensic justification.

Tom said:  I do give you high marks for “blowing” lots of hot air around.

Perhaps your intentions were well meaning?  So what?  False doctrine is false doctrine.  There is no such doctrine in the Bible as the IJ.  Period.  So you can try to make it sound better all you want, it will not matter.  

Furthermore, the IJ is not only false and against the Gospel, it is also against the fundamentals of the Three Angels Messages.  You would know this fact if you paid attention to what Dr. Ford was saying about church history.  

You need to pay more attention to what Dr. Ford is saying if you want to learn Gospel truth.  You have made a big mistake to buy into the official SDA position that Dr. Ford is wrong about Dan 8: 14.  He is not.  The SDA’s are wrong, and so too any that support them.

Herb’s Website says:  The Judgment of professing believers in Christ is underway now and occurs before Jesus returns.

Tom replied.  No.  There is no such judgment taking place now.  Nor did any such judgment start in 1844.  The IJ is not the PAJ of the church.   

So we are at an impasse.  The burden of proof is on you to show Jesus and the apostles teaching this doctrine.  If you can’t do this, and you cannot, then you must repent and stop teaching doctrines that lack the proper Gospel authority.

This is why the first proposition placed on the table is about Jesus’ view of Dan 8: 14.  Unless you can find him singing the praises of your special Hebrew word, and teaching the IJ, you cannot hope to prevail.

When it comes my turn to respond, I will be able to show Jesus supporting the typical Jewish view of Dan 8:  14, which is Hanukkah.  You will not be able to show him teaching the IJ.

Herb said:  I have never vilified Dr Ford.  

Tom said:  First off, in 1980, the SDA’s leaders vilified and exiled Dr. Ford for his views about the IJ.  They called him a heretic and worse.  And ever since, the Adventist Community has been divided over whether Dr. Ford was a saint or a sinner.  

Those that understood the Gospel thanked Dr. Ford and repudiated the IJ.  Those that thought him guilty of heresy, continued to embrace the IJ and promote a false, Judaizing Gospel, which is what you have done.  There is no in between as you pretend.  To embrace the IJ in any form, is to stand with those who exiled and vilified Dr. Ford and the Gospel.  This is what you have done.  You are guilty by the bad company you keep.

So you are standing in the wrong line, even as you have set yourself up to be the judge and jury, correcting Dr. Ford, a world-class theologian, whose library you are not qualified to dust.  

Dr. Ford is a true Gospel expert, a genuine scholar and professional about the book of Daniel.  You are not so qualified.  So why are you holding yourself out as such?   While you may be a genius when it comes to software, you are not even close when it comes to theology and church history.  (Please post up your resume so we can see what, if any, qualifications you bring to this discussion?)

Moreover, you are arrogant to think you are qualified to “cross examine “ Dr. Ford, as if you were a skilled and serious theologian and his peer.  You are none of those things.  Nor have you conducted an honest “examination” of his views, which I have already pointed out in my initial response on All Experts.  You played fast and loose with the material, ignoring critical points that proved you wrong.  Sorry, but I am not impressed.

Herb said:  Prior to Glacier View I studied under Dr Ford for 2 years at Avondale College.  My relationship with him today remains friendly, respectful and polite.  We still dialogue from time to time.  I heartily endorse his teaching on the Christian gospel although we differ on some aspects of apocalyptic prophecy.

Tom said:  First off, if you believe in the IJ, you do NOT believe the same Gospel as Dr. Ford or Tom Norris.  Period.  Maybe such a myth makes you feel good, but I can assure you that your version is not even close to what is taught in the NT.  To be blunt, the Christ I follow is the not the same as the fraud you promote, so let’s not pretend we agree on the Gospel.  We do not.

Second, do not misunderstand the kindness of Dr. Ford as an endorsement of your false views.  No doubt he wishes you could understand the Gospel and be saved, but he also knows you are on the wrong path.  There is only one Gospel, and it is not what you teach, so you do the math.

Third, I can tell you were a student of Dr. Ford’s because you have adopted a number of his Gospel sayings, as if they were your own.  But you must have been a poor student, because you have misunderstood the genuine Gospel.  

Anyone that embraces the IJ, tithing and OC Sabbath keeping does not, not, not, understand the New Covenant.  This is the problem with the SDA’s, they don’t understand the Gospel or even the fundamentals of the Three Angels Messages.  But yet they pretend otherwise.  Sad.

Herb said:  As a gospel evangelist I stress salvation in Christ by faith and forensic justification as the correct stimulus for loving obedience.  

Tom said:  You preach a false, “distorted” Gospel.  Your views are wrong.  Period.  If Paul were alive today he would curse many of your SDA doctrines as he did those of Peter and James.  

Gal. 1:6  I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Gal. 1:7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Gal. 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Furthermore, the object of the Gospel is not to “stimulate obedience to the law.” The Gospel does not serve the law, nor is that the point of following Christ, who does not teach that the 4th commandment must be kept holy by refraining from work.

Like all SDA’s, you do not understand the proper relationship between the law and the Gospel.  Until this blind spot is corrected, the Gospel cannot be understood correctly, and neither can the Sabbath.  We can discuss the doctrine of the Sabbath after the IJ if you want.

SDA Sabbath Vs. Gospel Sabbath
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=836

Herb said:  Key Points by HK.  The traditional IJ doctrine is void of good news. The flawed remedy it offers is ‘salvation by character development’ which is just wrong.

Tom said:  The IJ was wrong from the very start of its invention in 1857.  Of course such legalism is wrong.  Some SDA’s understood this back in 1888, including Ellen White, but not Uriah Smith.  So the SDA’s self-destructed over the Gospel, retreating to Takoma Park where they went on to repeat their Battle Creek errors.

After Glacier View, the leaders pretended to make some improvements to the IJ, as you are trying to do, but it could not stop millions from correctly leaving the church.  The IJ is false no matter how it’s promoted.  Those who embrace it are turning their backs on the genuine Gospel of Christ.  

While some innocently embrace false doctrine, that is not the case today as Dr. Ford and others have explained this error, so there is no longer any excuse.  The IJ is false doctrine, and this fact is in the public domain for all to see.

So I stand with Dr. Ford, and with all the rest of the world, in refuting the IJ.   There is no such doctrine in the Gospel Story!  Don’t try to find a way to rehabilitate false doctrine.  There is no such thing as a PAJ in the OT, much less in Dan 8: 14.  Sorry.

If there is a PAJ, it must be in the NT.  This point is to be discussed when we deal with the 2nd proposition.  It represents new doctrine for the Advent Movement.

Herb said:  I’ve thrown a pebble into the pond that sends waves of relief across much of the flawed IJ landscape.  That pebble is the Biblical meaning of ‘nisdaq’.  Correctly understood, it goes a long way to answering the 7 points you raise.

Tom said:  Get over yourself.  It is Dr. Ford who sent waves of Gospel relief to the SDA Community by denouncing the IJ.  You are preaching a false, tired Gospel.  Ford taught the true Gospel; what you are promoting a foolish and false doctrine.  

Furthermore, your special little word hardly makes a difference.  Did Jesus point out this special word in Dan 8: 14 and teach the IJ?  Did Peter or Paul, James or John?  No, no, no, and no.  So that ends the matter.  

Your spin on this Dan 8: 14 does nothing to defend the IJ.  And it goes nowhere.  You are wasting your time on minor points easily refuted.

Moreover, this point should be discussed with proposition # 5.  It is not a very important point as you think.

Herb said:  It is true ‘nisdaq’ only occurs once, but it’s just the niphal form of  ‘tsadaq’.  There are 40 OT uses of ‘tsadaq’ – providing us the inspired dictionary for ‘nisdaq’. It is ratified by how the NT also transliterates it into ‘justified’.  

See http://www.logosapostolic.org/hebrew_word_studies/6663_tsadaq_justify.htm

Tom said:  Herb, you just don’t get it, do you?  Jesus often quoted from Daniel.  Why did he not quote Dan 8: 14 and point out this wonderful word and teach the IJ?  Did he forget?  Was he too busy?  Did he make an error?

The NT is the “inspired” dictionary for the Gospel.  Not the book of Daniel.  What is the matter with you to talk this way?  The book of Daniel is not part of the Gospels or the NT.  So why are you trying to pretend otherwise?  

This is your real problem.  You do not understand proper hermeneutics, which is an important science for any theologian.  Dr. Ford and Cottrell understood hermeneutics.  You do not.  Which is why you are not qualified to instruct or correct such professional scholars.  You are a rank amateur, lacking the necessary knowledge, discipline, and skill sets to understand, much less teach, biblical doctrine.

Repent of the IJ before it is too late.  Give up these cultic ideas about the Gospel being found in Daniel.  Such a true confession will not destroy the Advent Movement as you assume, but save it.  I strongly suggest that you study the Words of Christ in the Gospels to find the Gospel.  The Gospel is not to be found in the book of Daniel.

Herb said:  Most Jewish Rabbis today correctly see ‘nisdaq’ as ‘justified’ or ‘exonerated’.  

Example:

From: Chaya Sara Silberberg, Chabad.org [mailto:]

Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012 2:40 PM

Subject: Chabad.org: Ask the Rabbi {Ref. No. 2540649}

Dear Herb, the primary meaning of the word tzedek is righteousness. Thus, a tzaddik is a righteous person. As a verb, tsadak is used to mean “he was right.” So the word “nitzdak” in Daniel would have the meaning “he was [found to be] right/correct/not guilty” – or, in the translation on our site, “exonerated.”

I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you want to discuss this any further.

Chaya Sarah Silberberg
Chabad.org

Tom said: Ha!  Why play word games?  Why did you not ask if the Rabbi embraced the IJ?  Why did you fail to ask what the Jews teach about Dan 8: 14?

Answer:  No Rabbi embraces the IJ, and you know this fact.  All Rabbi’s agree that Dan 8: 14 is about the Hanukkah Story.  So you need to stop playing word games, which do not matter.  Diversions and double-talk are not the same as facts.  The fact is that the Jews have the correct view of Dan 8:14.  The SDA’s were not raised up to re-write the history of the world.  

Herb said:  In his unpublished commentary on Daniel, Dr Raymond Cottrell wrote “cleansed is interpretation and not translation”. He says it comes from the LXX.  I agree.  

Tom said:  Herb, why would you quote Dr. Cottrell?  He agrees 100% with Dr. Ford.  He is on the record as saying that Dan 8: 14 is all about Hanukkah.  He has repudiated the IJ.  

So you are being very dishonest with these quotes, as if Dr. Cottrell supports your views.  He does not!  Stop the double-talk.  Stop being dishonest with your sources.  Those you quote in support of the IJ, repudiate the IJ.

Herb said:  D8:14 is the only instance in the LXX where the LXX departs from its established practice in rendering ‘tsadaq’ as justified and renders D8:14 with the aberration ‘cleansed’.  (It is suspected this was done to aggrandise the Maccabean victory over Antiochus, which they saw as the fulfillment of D8:14. Can’t prove it but Dr Steven Weizman – non-SDA scholar – agrees).  

Tom said:  This is old news.  The SDA’s have been trying to defend the use of the word “cleansed” for many years, especially as one translation after another moved away from that word in order to better fit the context.  You have found nothing new or paradigm shifting.  So stop pretending.

Look at this article from the 1960’s and this book from 2003.  It’s the same old SDA nonsense about Dan 8: 14 that has been used to defend the IJ for years.  Give it up!

Daniel 8:14 and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary (1967)
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/March/daniel-8:14-and-the-cleansing-of-the-sanctuary

The Good News of Daniel 8:14 (2003)
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Good_News_of_Daniel_8_14.html?id=0TPjcjA

by Daniel E. Augsburger

Seventh-day Adventist authors and Bible scholars have maintained a fairly consistent understanding of Daniel’s major prophecies, though significant disagreements have taken place. One well-known difficulty, and the theme of this study, has been the Church’s historic preference for the word “cleansed” in Daniel 8:14 over the word “justify“ which some modern translations use.

Is there a difference, and what does it mean to my salvation? This book explores 4 main thoughts:

1. It clarifies the word “cleansed,” and clearly shows the validity of this choice for the translation from the Hebrew;

2. It compares the judgment described in Daniel 8:14 with other scenes of judgment described in Daniel and Revlation; 3. It compares the Day of Atonement activities described in Leviticus 16 with these scenes from Daniel 8, showing them to be the same event, with the original Hebrew words accurately describing the judgment from different perspectives; 4.

It establishes why the investigative judgment is not only necessary but welcome news, describing God’ work on behalf of His people to restore them to their rights and privileges.  Paper, 94 pages.

http://www.lmn.org/catalog/product_info.php/manufacturers_id/273/products_id/398

In fact, this same tired defense keeps being published by the SDA’s every few years.  Over and over they try the same double-talk.  But it no longer works.  The Gospel is not to be found in any OT book, much less the pre-advent judgment of the church.  (This point is #2 on the list of 7 IJ errors.)

So it is futile to try and save the IJ through the use of Hebrew word games.  It doesn’t matter what word is used in Dan 8: 14.  No word or passage in the OT can render the IJ true doctrine.  And in fact, regardless what word is used, all agree that the context is about Hanukkah.  NONE but the SDA’s see the IJ.  None!  Why?  Because it is not there.

Herb said:  Thus ‘cleansed’ in D8:14 sits on LXX error on which the historic SDA platform for the IJ sits.  I have sought to correct this.

Tom said:  Who are you to try and correct any translation of the Bible?  Are you a biblical scholar or ancient linguistic specialist?  If not, who are you to correct the many scholars that have worked on translating the Bible?  You are not qualified, so spare us your amateur attempts to correct the world so you can save the IJ for the SDA’s.  You are wasting everyone’s time.

There is no error as you assume.  The translators were all well aware that Dan 8: 14 is about Hanukkah.  No matter what word was used, Dan 8: 14 has always been about Hanukkah and will always be about that time in Jewish history when the Temple was captured by heathens and retaken by the Jews.  There can be no debate about this historic fact, which renders any suggestion about the IJ absurd and impossible.

Herb said:  I do not have ample free time to engage with you in lengthy debate.  

Tom said:  There is no need for a lengthy debate.  This subject is not that deep or difficult.  Nor is it about the meaning of any words in the book of Daniel.  The first proposition alone is sufficient to prove the IJ false.  So, here it is.

1. Jesus does not support the SDA interpretation of Dan 8:14; He embraces another view, which all that follow Christ must also embrace.

So Herb, you must show Jesus teaching the IJ.  You must show him quoting from Dan 8:14 and explaining the IJ.  It’s a very simple task, upon which the fate of the IJ hangs.  

If you can somehow get past this question, there are 6 more and then you are home free.

Herb said:  If you see that as me fleeing the battle zone it would be quite wrong.  

Tom said:  If you refuse to address and answer the 7 Propositions, then you will be branded a coward and a quitter, just like Clifford Goldstein who refused to answer these same questions.  Then he ran away.  Let’s see if you can do any better?

Herb said:  My research on this matter has been in the public domain for years.

Tom said:  I don’t think you have any original research.  None that I have seen.  What you are saying has been said long ago by the SDA’s, over and over.  Besides, you are not a proven and degreed scholar like Dr. Ford.  You are not an expert about the things you promote.  You are just being used by the SDA’s to defend their great error of Glacier View.  Sad.

If Dr. Ford is against your IJ views, and so too Dr.Cottrell, and even the entire world, then you might want to consider the possibility that perhaps you and the SDA’s are wrong.  Has this ever occurred to you?  If not, give it some serious thought.

Herb said:  You consider my focus on ‘nisdaq’ a dishonest diversion from the main issues; I see it as the golden key that addresses most of the issues.  

Tom said:  The Gospel Story is not dependent upon any Hebrew words from the book of Daniel.  Your obsession over a singular word in the OT is a useless diversion from the teachings of Christ and the NT.  

While you claim you have found the secret to defending the IJ, it is just wishful thinking.  You are shooting blanks and promoting false doctrine.  In fact, you are leading people AWAY from Christ and his Words.  Are you sure this is what you want to be doing?

Herb said:  You have done Adventist Reform In America a service by drawing your reader’s attention to it.  

Tom said: First off, understand that the person who asked the question about you has since determined the IJ to be a worthless fraud.  But he was from Europe.  

However, I can assure you that you have said nothing that would convince any thinking person in America to support the IJ.  Most SDA’s have already rejected the IJ and want nothing to do with it, which is why the SDA church in North America is self-destructing.

So the more people that read our discussion, the worse it will be for the SDA’s, who are self-destructing because of the IJ.  This is sad and unnecessary.  You are on the wrong side of church history.

Second, your inability to address and honestly answer my 7 points will underscore the impossibility and absurdity of the IJ.  I look forward to your attempts.  

So we are not going to waste any more time about Hebrew word games in Daniel.  Rather, we need to turn our attention to what Jesus teaches.  If you can’t find him clearly teaching the IJ, then that is the end of the matter, and all that follow the genuine Christ must repent of the IJ.

Thus, it is Jesus who must settle the debate about the IJ.  Not Daniel.

Herb said:  Feel free to post this email as my official reply to your lengthy thread.

Tom said:  I think this went well.  I will post your response on both the All Expert Site as well as the Adventist of Tomorrow Forum.  

You may also send an e-mail to Ryan Van Dolson, and he will help you sign up on the Adventist of Tomorrow Forum, where you can post freely.

Adventist for Tomorrow
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/index.php

IJ Discussion: Tom Norris & Herb Kersten
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=1173

I look forward to your attempt to address and the  ** 7 Irrefutable Points Proving the IJ False.**   If you are pressed for time, just respond to the first point, and then we can take our time and work our way through them all, if you can last that long.  

Here once again is our discussion agenda, note that it includes the NEW DOCTRINE about the PAJ in #3:

** 7 Irrefutable Points Proving the IJ False **

1. Jesus does not support the SDA interpretation of Dan 8:14; He embraces another view, which all that follow Christ must also embrace.

2.  The Pre-Advent Judgment of the Church cannot be in the OT or the book of Daniel.  If the PAJ exists at all, which it does, it must be found in the NT.  Only the NT can define Gospel doctrine for the church, not the OT.

3.  The PAJ of the last church is found in Rev 3: 14.  It is not found in the OT book of Daniel as the SDA’s claim.  Here is the true doctrine of the Pre-Advent Judgment, which applies to every church and denomination today, including the SDA’s!

4.  Neither the OT nor the NT supports a “Celestial Judgment” to examine the believer’s sanctification.  There is no such Judgment in the Bible.  The IJ is an error, and no amount of double-talk from the SDA’s can change the theological or historical facts.

5.  No serious scholars or historians support the IJ, nor has any church or denomination ever embraced this teaching, except for the SDA’s, and most of them now repudiate this doctrine, including their best scholars, like Dr. Ford and Raymond Cottrell.  The SDA’s are being very dishonest to pretend otherwise.

6.  While Traditional, Takoma Park Adventism defines the IJ as a fundamental “pillar” of the Advent Movement, anchored in Rev 14: 7.  This was never true.  Not one Pioneer, including Ellen White or Uriah Smith ever made such a claim.  In fact, there is no such “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages, nor is this doctrine the reason why Adventists exist, as many have been indoctrinated.

The doctrine of the 2nd Coming as the Day of Judgment is the reason why the Advent Movement came into existence.  Rev 14: 7 was only interpreted as being the Judgment of the 2nd Coming.  The later developing IJ, (1857) had zero to do with the doctrinal development of any the Three Angels Messages, which pillars had already been erected by 1847.

7.  The doctrine of the IJ is associated with long list of additional false, legalistic doctrines from the SDA’s, such as tithing, OC Sabbath keeping, Jewish food laws and perfectionism, just to name a few.  The IJ is not a stand-alone error, but one of many that must also be repudiated.

The IJ repudiates the Gospel and marginalizes the 2nd Coming, which is the real Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message.   It refutes the Gospel and the Foundational pillars of Historic Adventism, which means it must be repudiated by anyone who claims to embrace the Three Angels Messages.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herb, let’s make this a little more interesting;  Why don’t we each agree to change our minds as the evidence unfolds?  In other words, I will be willing to change my view and support the IJ, if you can show me sufficient evidence.  Dr. Ford will no doubt make the same pledge.  The question is will you?  Can we make such an agreement to follow truth, and stick to the Gospel facts?

Here is my review of where we are at so far.  You are free to respond as you see fit, and articulate your own summary.

Tom Norris’ Conclusion #1

1.  Herb K is not an SDA Pastor, scholar, or historian, only a part time, amateur who promotes SDA theology as a volunteer.  You were also a student of Dr. Ford.  But none of this shows you to be an expert or a professional theologian.  Your lack of qualifications shows that you are not anywhere close to being a peer of Dr. Ford or Raymond Cottrell, so as to correct or instruct their views.

2.  Your obsession with the Hebrew word for cleansed in Dan 8: 14 is a useless diversion.  Such a point is better discussed in #’s 4 or 5, if you ever get that far.  Jesus is the head theologian of the church and unless you can find him teaching the IJ and embracing the SDA view, you have lost the discussion.

3.  The Advent Movement is self-destructing because of the IJ.  Unless the SDA’s repent of this error and apologize to Dr. Ford, they are doomed to cultic irrelevance, unable to go forward and embrace their noble mission to prepare the last church for the 2nd Coming.

I look forward to your response,

Tom Norris, for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: It is perplexing why you would publicly launch into such personal and bitter invective against me without putting some questions to me first, in the interests of accuracy. Your responses contain numerous errors of fact:

•   That I am an SDA Pastor - despite the clear announcement on the HKEA website that I am a volunteer who works in the information technology industry – see http://www.hkea.org.au/index_files/hkeaboard.htm

•   That my research paper cross-examines Dr Ford - despite the manuscript title ‘Cross Examining The Investigative Judgment’.

•   That I defend the traditional IJ doctrine - despite my repeated challenge that D8:15 does not read ‘cleansed’ but ‘justified’- cutting across the traditional SDA position and breathing OT and NT gospel air into the verse.

•   That I am obsessed with one Hebrew word in Daniel not supported by the NT - despite forty OT uses of the root word ‘tsadaq’ (a verb) outside of the book of Daniel combined with additional NT support that transliterates its derivatives as the basis for forensic justification.

•   That the manuscript supports the traditional SDA IJ position.
This it does not do.  It does not support ‘cleansed’ or ‘salvation by character development’ or ‘lack of assurance’ arising from judgment or a 'two apartment heavenly sanctuary'. This is the clearest indication you have not even read the manuscript. In an ancillary document it even argues for the more accurate translation “then shall holiness be justified” instead of “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”.  

•   That D8:14 supports Hanukah - This is simply impossible when ‘nisdaq’ means ‘justified’ (not ‘cleansed’).  Even more so when ‘qodesh’ means ‘holiness’ (not sanctuary).

•   That D8:14 supports Hanukah - This is again not possible. There is compelling evidence the LXX departs from its own established practice in rendering ‘tsadaq’ as ‘justified’ (in 40 other instances in the OT) except in D8:14 where it mysteriously reverts to ‘cleansed’ probably from a desire to see fulfilment of the verse in a Maccabean victory over AE.

•   That my discovery of ‘nisdaq’ as ‘justified’ as ratified by NT transliteration is not a new discovery at all - despite no prior evidence that makes this key point, namely that ‘nisdaq’ is the seed of forensic justification in the NT.

•   That HKEA website is "an Australian version of Doug Batchelor" -
apart from going to the same hairdresser there is no hint of such duplication or intent.

•   That I do not know the gospel - despite the HKEA ‘brand’ has been the Christian gospel (as both the NT and Dr Ford proclaim it) since HKEA’s inception and which has raised the ire of SDA conservatives.

•   That I am an amateur - this is bizarre considering you never asked me for my academic qualifications before publicly launching your invective.

Reading your mega-verbose responses is like trying to drink from a fire hose. If you had the gift of brevity and exercised the fruits of the Spirit I would be willing to engage in further conversations with you, time permitting.  The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Answer

Can The IJ Be Saved?

We did not have to wait too long to hear a response from Herb, the SDA evangelist from Australia, who claims he can explain, defend, and rehabilitate the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.

Herb claims to be smarter than Dr. Ford, and thinks Tom Norris is impolite, unclear, and lacks the necessary knowledge to understand this topic.  

http://www.allexperts.com/expert.cgi?m=12&catID=2318&expID=70484

If true, this should be an easy and quick debate for Herb to win.  The SDA’s will then hail him as the man who saved their most precious doctrine, upholding the outcome of Glacier View.

Issues Not Addressed

As I suspected, Herb has refused to address the 7-Point IJ Agenda, preferring instead to make wild charges and diversionary objections.  This is the typical response from those intent on defending the IJ.  Clifford Goldstein would also act this way, so this is par for the course.

In fact, Herb actually claims that I have not even asked him any questions.  Which is rather bazaar, because I have posted up 7 major questions, a number of times, asking him to address each, starting with the first.  Why would he say such a strange thing?  

Let’s see if Herb can score any points for the IJ?  Here is his response to my last post and my reply:

Complaints & Errors?

Herb said:  QUESTION: It is perplexing why you would publicly launch into such personal and bitter invective against me without putting some questions to me first, in the interests of accuracy.

Tom said:  Herb, I don’t think you are seeing things clearly.  But this is not a surprise.  Those that try to defend false doctrine are easily perplexed, as they have a hard time understanding the real issues.  They often engage in denials, tangents, and diversions.  This is what you have done from the start and you need to stop the double-talk and deal with the issues, if you can.

First off, I have placed a 7-point discussion agenda on the table, repeatedly, for you to answer.  Why do you pretend otherwise? Why have you failed to address these points?  Did you not see them?

Like I said previously, you don’t get to control the agenda and censor the questions you don’t like.  This is an old trick of the SDA’s and I am not going to put up with it.  If we are going to have an honest, worthwhile discussion, you must address the 7-points that I have posted and deal with them.  I have no problem responding to any point you raise, but yet, you refuse to address my primary case.

Stop running from the issues and pretending there are no questions on the table for you to address.  Please answer these 7 points, in order, if you can.  If not.  You lose by default.  Do you understand?

Second, I have not made any rude or “bitter” comments as you claim.  While you may not like to hear what I have to say, because it makes you look bad, that is the nature of debate.  I am not here to support false SDA doctrine, but to bluntly refute it.  

So Herb, you have to be strong enough, and professional enough, to deal with the issues without taking them personally, or acting like a spoiled child.  If you can’t do that, then you are going to have a hard time, like so many others who have tried and failed to defend the IJ.  

Moreover, if you have any specific complaints, please post up the offending remarks that you claim are “bitter invective,” and I will be happy to address them.  If they are out of line, and not conforming to Gospel protocol, I will apologize and make a retraction.  But if not, you will have to deal with some pointed words that you obviously do not like.  Sorry.

Furthermore, it is my viewpoint that you do not understand the Gospel, nor are you being honest about doctrine or church history.  I could be wrong.  But you will have to prove I am wrong, just as I must prove you wrong.  Which is already taking place for all to see.

Complaining like a child in order to get some sympathy, is not going to work.  You need to address the real issues and answer the questions put to you by Tom Norris.  Stop running from the 7-point discussion agenda.  Face up to the real issues and deal with them.  

Herb said:  Your responses contain numerous errors of fact:

Tom said:  There is no intent on my part to misstate any facts.  If this has taken place at any point, I will be the first to apologize and make whatever corrections are necessary.  But you need to be specific and coherent, so I can respond.  I reject the charge and wait for you to try and prove that I have misstated the facts.

Herb’s List of Alleged Errors Made By Tom Norris:

Herb said:   That I am an SDA Pastor - despite the clear announcement on the HKEA website that I am a volunteer who works in the information technology industry – see http://www.hkea.org.au/index_files/hkeaboard.htm

Tom Replied:  This point has been correctly addressed.  I believe you when you state that you are not an SDA Pastor.  In fact, in my conclusion #1, I stated that “Herb K is not an SDA Pastor, scholar, or historian, only a part time, amateur who promotes SDA theology as a volunteer.”  Did you miss this?  Apparently so.

I also said that your website is misleading because it makes it seem that you work for the SDA’s and that you are a professional Pastor or theologian.  I suggested that you clear up this confusion with a disclaimer.

Here is what I also said:

“I was responding to a question on the All Experts site about you and your claims about the IJ.  The questioner said you were an “SDA Pastor” and I assumed it was so.”
 
‘If you don’t want people to get the wrong idea, I suggest that you clearly state on your website that you are NOT an SDA pastor or even a trained theologian.  Because this is what you appear to be.  I don’t think people know you are just an amateur and not a professionally trained theologian or historian.”

So Herb, your complaint is groundless.  I take you at your word that you are not an SDA pastor, or even a retired pastor.

No points for you!

Mixed Metaphors About the IJ

Herb said:  That my research paper cross-examines Dr Ford - despite the manuscript title ‘Cross Examining The Investigative Judgment’.

Tom Replied:  How does one “cross examine” a doctrine, or a concept?  

Can a doctrine take the stand in court and answer questions?  No.  

So once again, you are being sloppy and imprecise with your words as well as with your thoughts.  One cannot “cross examine” the IJ, so your title is foolish, wrong, and misleading.

cross-ex·am·ine (krôsg-zmn, krs-)

v. cross-ex·am·ined, cross-ex·am·in·ing, cross-ex·am·ines
v.tr.

1. To question (a person) closely, especially with regard to answers or information given previously.

2. Law:  To question (a witness already examined by the opposing side).
v.intr.  To question a person closely.

cross-examine vb (tr)

1. (Law) Law to examine (a witness for the opposing side), as in attempting to discredit his testimony Compare examine-in-chief

2. to examine closely or relentlessly

cross-examination  n
cross-examiner  n

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cross-examine

Dr. Ford Not Wrong

Tom said:  Herb, you are an amateur, that can’t even write a title that makes sense.  Perhaps you should stick to software instead of throwing rocks at serious scholars like Dr. Ford, pretending you have some deep insight about the Gospel.  You are being very foolish for all to see.  After all, if you can’t get the most simple of points, like a title, correct, how can you be trusted to deal with complex matters?

Luke 16:10  “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.

Dr. Ford is a genuine Gospel Evangelist, you are not.  Which is why the very first words to defend the IJ, - the Title - are incongruous and illogical, just like the doctrine you are trying to save.  

However, I understand why you used the term “cross examination.” This is a legal term, which is fitting, because Dr. Ford was placed on trial at Glacier View about the IJ.  He was the star witness, examined by the SDA leaders and found guilty of heresy.  

Now you think you can place him on the witness stand of public opinion and show him to be wrong.  Many before you have tried this same stunt, but to no avail.  

You can forget such delusions so long as I am around.  I am not going to let you deceive the unsuspecting, and revise the history for the SDA’s who clearly rejected the Gospel at Glacier View.  Consequently, I am placing you on the witness stand, and cross-examining you, even as I allow you to do the same to me.  I have no doubt of the outcome.

In fact, many people have already seen my previous response to you on All Experts and have determined that the IJ is worse than they ever thought.  It is viewed as a “huge error” that gets worse over time, not better.  

The IJ, regardless how it is viewed, or which version, is false doctrine, and Dr. Ford is very correct to take this view.  Your feeble attempts to defend it and prove him wrong are falling flat for all to see.

So you are once again playing word games and showing us that you do not pay close enough attention to the details.  The IJ is not a person, not subject to “cross examination.”  You are really claiming that Dr. Ford is wrong, and you are attempting to prove it.  But he is not wrong.  You are!  

So I stand by my previous remarks:

“Moreover, you are arrogant to think you are qualified to ‘cross examine’ Dr. Ford, as if you were a skilled and serious theologian and his peer.  You are none of those things.  Nor have you conducted an honest “examination” of his views, which I have already pointed out in my initial response on All Experts.  You played fast and loose with the material, ignoring critical points that proved you wrong.  Sorry, but I am not impressed.”

Once again, your complaint is groundless, even as your title makes no sense.  

Herb, I see a pattern of sloppy double-talk, evasion, and diversion.  Is this how you intend to defend the IJ here in America? If so, you are wasting everyone’s time and making yourself look foolish in the process.  I hope you can get serious and make some cogent points, but so far you are blowing nothing but hot air.

No points again!

Herb said:   That I defend the traditional IJ doctrine - despite my repeated challenge that D8:15 does not read ‘cleansed’ but ‘justified’- cutting across the traditional SDA position and breathing OT and NT gospel air into the verse.

Tom said:  The basic point of the IJ is about a Celestial, pre-Advent Judgment of the church, (the saints), which supposedly commenced in 1844 and is still ongoing in heaven today.  In fact, this is what the SDA’s teach, and this is what you said you believed.  Here is a quote from your website:

Herb said: “The Judgment of professing believers in Christ is underway now and occurs before Jesus returns.”

Tom replied: “No.  There is no such judgment taking place now.  Nor did any such judgment start in 1844.  The IJ is not the PAJ of the church.   

So we are at an impasse.  The burden of proof is on you to show Jesus and the apostles teaching this doctrine.  If you can’t do this, and you cannot, then you must repent and stop teaching doctrines that lack the proper Gospel authority.

This is why the first proposition placed on the table is about Jesus’ view of Dan 8: 14.  Unless you can find him singing the praises of your special Hebrew word, and teaching the IJ, you cannot hope to prevail.

When it comes my turn to respond, I will be able to show Jesus supporting the typical Jewish view of Dan 8:  14, which is Hanukkah.  You will not be able to show him teaching the IJ.”
--------------

While I understand that you are trying to add some Gospel concepts to this great SDA error, it takes far more to than Hebrew word games to sustain the IJ.  Protestant hermeneutics does not allow the Old Testament to control NT doctrine, much less be the source of it.

In order to claim that the IJ is a true Gospel doctrine, you MUST first establish this point from the NT; from the very words of Christ in the Gospels.  Which is why I keep asking you, over and over, to show us what JESUS, the head theologian of the church, teaches about Dan 8: 14.  Why do you keep avoiding this first of 7 propositions?  Why do you fear going to the Gospels to find truth?

Answer:  Because you cannot show Jesus or the apostles teaching the IJ.  You already know this or you would have posted up this information, which is so critical to defend the IJ.

So once again, you are shooting blanks and avoiding the real issues and the 1st question I keep asking you.  This is not going well for you, and if you continue to double-talk and run from the issues, it will get worse.

No points!

Herb said:  That I am obsessed with one Hebrew word in Daniel not supported by the NT - despite forty OT uses of the root word ‘tsadaq’ (a verb) outside of the book of Daniel combined with additional NT support that transliterates its derivatives as the basis for forensic justification.

Tom said:  It is not wrong to be obsessed with Gospel truth.  But you are obsessed with error.  You have already admitted that you think “nisdaq” is “the golden key” that addresses most of the IJ issues.  

So if this were true, I can understand why you have fallen in love with this Hebrew word.  

But once again, you are wrong.  This OT Hebrew word, regardless how it is translated, is not the key to defending the IJ or understanding the Gospel.  This is a point that you need to understand.  

Pay careful attention:  The book of Daniel is not part of the NT or the Gospels.  Repeat this point over and over until it sinks into your mind.  Look at any Bible; Daniel is not in the New Testament.

No one should ever read any OT book, much less Daniel, in an effort to find or understand the Gospel.  I don’t know why such a point should even have to be made?  But the SDA’s are so confused, they don’t understand this most simple concept.  Or at least they don’t want to understand such a point, because it proves the IJ worthless and wrong.

This is why the first question put to you is about Jesus’ view of the IJ.  You must find Jesus clearly explaining and teaching the IJ for it to be considered Gospel doctrine.  

Consequently, I have asked you to address this point over and over again.  When are you going to show us what Jesus, the highest authority in the church  teaches about the IJ?  We are all waiting.

Herb, your obsession with some “golden key” from the Old Testament reminds me of how the Jews acted towards Christ.  They too embraced trivial diversions in the Old Testament in order to refute the Gospel.  But Jesus was not fooled:

John 5:38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

John 5:40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

Herb, why do you fear the Gospels?  Why do you run away from Christ?  if you want to understand the Gospel, including the Judgment, you must stop searching for “Golden Keys” in the Old Testament.  You must go to the NT and learn from Jesus.  At this point you and the SDA’s are acting very much like the Jews.  Sad.

No points!

Herb said:  That the manuscript supports the traditional SDA IJ position.
This it does not do.  It does not support ‘cleansed’ or ‘salvation by character development’ or ‘lack of assurance’ arising from judgment or a 'two apartment heavenly sanctuary'. This is the clearest indication you have not even read the manuscript. In an ancillary document it even argues for the more accurate translation “then shall holiness be justified” instead of “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”  

Tom replied:  The Adventists have taught numerous positions about Dan 8: 14, starting with William Miller.  All of them are WRONG!  Your spin is the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Which is to say it does not matter.  The IJ ran into an iceberg named Dr. Ford.  Dooming this unique SDA doctrine that is headed into the depths of the sea.

Herb, you must not have read my post about the IJ where I explained the history of the Dan 8: 14.  You need to read this information and understand it.  See; “The Changing Sanctuary Doctrine” in the “Follow Up” to:

The Investigative Judgment
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2012/10/investigative-jud

Here is some of that information:

The Many Views of Dan 8:14

There has been 6 different doctrines of Dan 8:14 in the Advent Movement.  It was not until the 4th revision in the late 1850’s, when the doctrine became legalistic.  Before that, there was the 3rd Revision, which was called the “Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary”  While this was wrong, it was not legalistic.  There was no character perfection associated with this early and innocent SDA view.

So when you say “traditional,” you are not referring to the 3rd view, but the change that took place after it.  But so far, every view of the IJ has been wrong, and now it is time to finally get it right.

Moreover, your views fit with the 6th revision, which took place after Glacier View:

The 6th Revision

The post Glacier View leaders were naturally anxious to stop the debilitating Glacier View schism and promote church growth.  They were weary of all the angry debate over the IJ. So they had to act.  Although the Conservatives loudly protested any change to their victory at Glacier View, it was to no avail because it was obvious that Dr. Ford's Gospel was far superior to Uriah Smith's legalistic theology, and therefore, the sixth revision to Dan 8:14 was about to take place.

Within a decade after Glacier View, the Review back tracked about the Sanctuary Doctrine and started to promote most of Dr. Ford's Gospel views, (without ever admitting this), even as they took steps to silence the legalistic Conservatives.

At the same time they also introduced a new policy called "pluralism," which allowed both sides of the IJ debate to embrace either the fifth or the more recent and Gospel friendly, sixth version. Such a compromise was designed to allow the church to move forward without having to admit that they had been wrong about Glacier View.  

Notwithstanding all this post Glacier View politicking and propaganda, the hierarchal leaders now declared that this celestial "investigation" was not about who was "good enough" to be saved--but rather--who had “saving faith in Christ.”  

In addition, instead of the saints being placed on trial, as Uriah Smith taught, the new version placed God on trial, claiming that he needed to prove that he was just and fair.

Here was a very different teaching about the PAJ that represents the sixth revision to Dan 8:14. It promoted points that were never contained in Uriah Smith's legalistic version, even as it used semantics to hide the real issues.  But regardless, this new spin about the Sanctuary was officially promoted by the Denomination as if the IJ were a Gospel friendly doctrine.  Such a plan could only work if everyone ignored the facts and forgot about Dr. Ford and Glacier View.

Today, after SIX revisions of Dan 8:14, no one should be under any illusion that the sanctuary doctrine is correct or unchangeable. As if it has not undergone numerous and repeated revisions over time.  

The fact of the matter is that Dan 8:14 is the most problematic, revised, and controversial doctrine in the SDA church. Consequently few today correctly understand its complex and checkered history that has destroyed the mission and the message of the Adventist Movement.

The failure to correctly understand the Pre-Advent Judgment has left the SDA church mired in theological chaos and endless schism that will never be resolved until the Seventh and final interpretation of Dan 8:14 takes place.  
------------------------------

So Herb, you just don’t know what you are talking about.  You don’t understand the details of Adventist history or theology.  Nor do you seem to care much about the facts.  Sad.  This is why you are not fit to challenge Dr. Ford or correct him.  You lack the knowledge, experience, discipline, and honesty.  

No Points!

Herb said:  That D8:14 supports Hanukah - This is simply impossible when ‘nisdaq’ means ‘justified’ (not ‘cleansed’).  Even more so when ‘qodesh’ means ‘holiness’ (not sanctuary).

Tom replied:  Ha!  Why is this impossible?  Because it makes the IJ impossible and wrong?  Too bad.  The facts are what they are, and so too world history.  Why did you fail to ask your Rabbi friend the meaning of Dan: 8: 14?  

Answer:  Because you don’t like the answer, which is Hanukkah.  So rather than embrace well established history, the modern SDA’s want to revise world history to fit their false views.  Absurd!  

The SDA’s have no right, nor mission, to dishonestly revise Judaism or world history.  Such attempts are cultic and outrageous.  The SDA’s need to learn from history, not try to change it to fit their false doctrines.  

No doubt you are one of those that think wine in the Bible is non-fermented grape juice, if so, this is just another example of the SDA’s trying to change world history to support their false views.  They do this about many other things, including the Sabbath.  (You could no more win a debate about wine or the Sabbath, then you can the IJ.)

The SDA Scandal of Abstinence
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=238

No Points!

Herb said:  That D8:14 supports Hanukah - This is again not possible. There is compelling evidence the LXX departs from its own established practice in rendering ‘tsadaq’ as ‘justified’ (in 40 other instances in the OT) except in D8:14 where it mysteriously reverts to ‘cleansed’ probably from a desire to see fulfillment of the verse in a Maccabean victory over AE.

Tom replied:  Regardless of the Hebrew word used, or the translation, the history of the Jews cannot be changed.  Dan 8: 14 has always been viewed by the Jews as the Hanukkah story, and so it shall ever be.  No one even wants to change such well-established history, EXCEPT the SDA’s.

No spin on any OT word is going to change and revise world history.  The Jews are united on the meaning of Dan 8: 14.  There is no debate with them or with scholars.  The only people in the world who are divided, confused, and angry about Dan 8: 14 ARE THE SDA’S.

Wow! Something is very wrong with such a situation.  The SDA’s are too easily diverted from their primary and necessary mission to prepare the last church for the Second Coming and the end of the world.  They are way off message, even as they are self-destructing because of Glacier View and the exile of Dr. Ford and his correct view of the Gospel.

Thank heaven for Dr. Ford, who stood up and pointed to Christ and to the Gospels.  He saved the Advent Movement, and gave it hope through the Gospel.  He also refused to turn his back on the 7th day Sabbath, as so many did.  Thus he was leading the church to find the active and Reformed Sabbath of Christ, which completes the long quest of Sabbath Reform for the SDA’s.

80th Birthday Tribute to Dr. Ford
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=226

SDA Sabbath Vs. Gospel Sabbath
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=836

Jesus, a Jew, also supports Hanukkah.  Did you not read Dr. Cottrell’s confession about discovering this fact in a Hallmark Card Shop?  

Listen to Dr. Cottrell, who supports Dr. Ford:

"My first great shocker about the ‘IJ, Daniel 8:14 and 1844’ was when I read a Hallmark Hanukkah Card in a store that explained the entire story about how the FIRST Hanukkah, and how it lasted for 8 days because that's how long the oil lasted that they'd found in the Temple, once they had "cleansed" the Sanctuary" and set it back up for proper worship.”

“The Jews had even carried OUT every single stone that had been used in the alter because they couldn't take a chance of having a stone in the alter of God that would have such a history of holding up a pig at one time! The Hallmark Card Company had gone to great lengths to tell this story correctly, and they did it!"

"And there I was reading the story WELL OVER 2000 years later that fit a part of the puzzle that at one time had me greatly perplexed. You don't need to go to what "the Christians" think Daniel 8:14 is talking about, but just go to the JEWS who it was written for and ask THEM what the meaning was all about and you'll see that it had nothing to do with 1844, but everything to do with 165 B.C. instead! "

Dr. Raymond Cottrell
---------------------------------------

So Herb, you have said NOTHING that changes the facts of history.  So the SDA’s are not fighting against Dr. Ford, but against the history of the Jews and every translator of the Bible.  They are making cultic fools of themselves for all to see, even going so far and to publish their own view of the Bible where they change Dan 8: 14 to reflect their great error.

Herb, understand that you have been caught up in this utter nonsense and stubborn error.  You need to step back and understand that the IJ has turned out to be a huge error.  You need to humble yourself and repent; embracing the genuine Gospel that Dr. Ford teaches-- before it is too late.

No Points!

Herb said:  That my discovery of ‘nisdaq’ as ‘justified’ as ratified by NT transliteration is not a new discovery at all - despite no prior evidence that makes this key point, namely that ‘nisdaq’ is the seed of forensic justification in the NT.

Tom said:  You have not discovered anything new or true.  Rather, you are part of the Denomination’s post Glacier View propaganda that has tried to make the IJ seem more Gospel friendly.  Your views fit nicely with the official plan to clean up this troublesome doctrine.

But it is all a big waste of time because the Gospel is not to be found in the OT.  And neither is the PAJ, which is a true concept.  The fact you think both are featured in Daniel, is laughable and doctrinally impossible.

If you want to have any chance at rehabilitating the IJ, you MUST find Christ teaching this doctrine in the Gospels.  If you fail, then this is the end of the matter and you need to repent.  

So stop with this nonsense about special Hebrew words and show us the IJ from the teachings of Christ.  Also show us the PAJ from his words.  I dare you!

No Points!

Herb said:  That HKEA website is "an Australian version of Doug Batchelor" - apart from going to the same hairdresser there is no hint of such duplication or intent.

Tom said:  I didn’t think Doug Batchelor had enough hair to have a barber?  Maybe he is just going through the motions with his barber, pretending he has hair?

Regardless, my comments should have been taken as a compliment because Amazing Facts is a large operation, and they too promote the IJ, and a whole host of other false SDA doctrines, just like you.  They are not only online, but also on TV.  No doubt you would love to run such a propaganda shop?

http://www.amazingfacts.org/

No Points!

Herb said:  That I do not know the gospel - despite the HKEA ‘brand’ has been the Christian gospel (as both the NT and Dr Ford proclaim it) since HKEA’s inception and which has raised the ire of SDA conservatives.

Tom replied:  No one that embraces the IJ can claim to correctly understand the Gospel.  And when a long list of other false doctrines are added, like tithe, and Old Covenant Sabbath keeping, - that proves the charge beyond a doubt.  

So I don’t say this lightly or with tongue in cheek.  Your view of the Gospel is so wrong and confused that I have no doubt you are following a false and worthless Christ.  Many do this, which is why the entire Laodicean Church has been called blind and wretched by Christ in the genuine PAJ.

Many that claim to embrace the Gospel have no clue how wrong they are.  Which is why Jesus teaches that “many” who claim to follow him will be denied Eternal Life.

Matt. 24:5 “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many.

No Points!

Herb said:  That I am an amateur - this is bizarre considering you never asked me for my academic qualifications before publicly launching your invective.

Tom replied:  First off, you are the one who denies being a trained pastor, only a volunteer evangelist, who works full time on software development.  So are you changing your story, do you now claim to be an expert theologian and one schooled in ancient linguistics?

Second, I did ask you to show us your resume so we could see how you compare with Dr. Ford, who you seek to teach and correct.  Here is what I said to you previously:  

“Dr. Ford is a true Gospel expert, a genuine scholar and professional about the book of Daniel.  You are not so qualified.  So why are you holding yourself out as such?   While you may be a genius when it comes to software development, you are not even close when it comes to theology and church history.  (Please post up your resume so we can see what, if any, qualifications you bring to this discussion?)”

See: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2013/2/tom-norris-1.htm

So you have accused me of acting in a “bizarre” manner for not asking for your qualifications, when it was one of the first questions I asked.  This underscores your inability to grasp the issues and shows that the details and facts easily elude you.

I think you need to apologize and admit you are wrong on this point.  While you are at it, post up your resume for us, as previously asked, to see how you compare to Dr. Ford.  I doubt you are qualified to challenge him on any level.

No Points!

Herb said:  Reading your mega-verbose responses is like trying to drink from a fire hose.

Tom replied:  A fire hose is designed to put out large fires with great pressure; it is not meant for drinking small amounts of water.  

So I think you may be mixing your metaphors again, but I understand your point.  You had no idea you were going to be so easily blown away and “hosed” down in this discussion.  

In fact, you are so stunned, that you have not been able to address the 7-point agenda,  much less answer the first of seven questions, and I doubt you will ever try.  You know it is impossible.

So I get it.  I have seen this happen many times, so don’t feel bad.  The IJ cannot be defended.  Those who try are easily blown away by the force of the Gospel facts.

The Gospel Story is long, complex, and powerful.  It is not easy to understand this ancient teaching, requiring those who master it to have a working knowledge of world and church history, especially Judaism, as well as understanding all phases of New Testament theology.  

Those who cannot deal with such a vast amount of data, have no business teaching the Gospel Story to anyone.  Nor can they claim to be experts, like Dr. Ford.  

I remember 1980 when many complained that Dr. Ford wrote too much and had too many facts.  Thus many used this absurd argument as an excuse to not read his material and judge him wrong.  His critics claimed his work on Dan 8: 14 was just too big and complex to understand.  So he must be wrong.

How can you have too much truth, and too many facts?

Matt. 25:29  “For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.

Warning:  Those that teach the Gospel will be held to a higher standard, so be warned.  Dr. Ford and Tom Norris stand on a mountain of Gospel facts, while you stand in the valley of the damned, confused and lost, lacking much knowledge.

James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

The fact that you have been overwhelmed by a few posts, unable to address the issues, or answer the questions, proves that you are an amateur, in too deep and well over your head.  You are not a real evangelist at all, because you don’t know the Gospel or understand the Judgment.

You miss even the simplest points, like my request for your resume, which you claimed I never made.  You are obviously not ready for prime time, my friend.  

Understand that there is a record being made of our discussion. Every word is online for all to see.  So I suggest that you slow down and take a deep breath, and reread what has transpired so far, because at this point you are flailing around and making little sense.  You have not scored any points and at this rate you never will.

You have given no evidence why anyone should support the IJ, nor will you ever be able to do so.  But you are welcome to keep trying.

So once again, I ask you to focus on the 7 -point agenda, and request that you address these issues, starting with #1.  Can you do that?  

If not—you should repent of the IJ and start working to Reform Adventism.  Both Dr. Ford and Tom Norris want to help the Advent Movement go forward, you too are welcome to join Adventist Reform, becoming part of the solution, not part of the problem.

No Points!

Herb said:  If you had the gift of brevity and exercised the fruits of the Spirit I would be willing to engage in further conversations with you, time permitting.

Tom replied:  First off, there is no such spiritual gift as brevity!  So once again, you have been caught making up doctrines and misusing the scriptures.

Second, you have yet to address and answer my 7 points.  So don’t pretend that you have seriously “engaged” in an honest discussion, and now you are so busy that you have to run off and save the world.  

All you have done is complain and make false charges, all the while avoiding the real issues, refusing to even address the first question put to you over and over. So who are you kidding?  There is a written record for all to see, do you understand this fact?

Furthermore, let me explain something to you;  those who believe in the Gospel are under an apostolic injunction to “always” ANSWER THE QUESTIONS of their critics.

1Pet. 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

So if you are a Christian, you are duty bound to answer my questions about the IJ.  Please do so.

No points!

Herb said:  The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Tom replied:  The fruit of the Spirit is not false doctrine, double-talk, or diversion.  Nor does anyone with the Spirit refuse to answer questions about doctrine or show where Jesus supports doctrine.  

The very fact that you are trying to lead people away from the Gospels, and deep into the Old Testament proves you are a charlatan and a fraud.  Daniel is not the Good Shepherd; Christ is.  I suggest that you try and understand this point and follow the right person.

John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,

Moreover, when it comes to dealing with wolves pretending to be sheep, the Spirit says “beware.”  And beware does not mean be nice to wolves, but to expose them and chase them away.

Matt. 7:15  “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

As for brevity or timidity, they are not gifts at all.  But I do prize the gifts of Gospel knowledge, faith, and power.  Dr. Ford and Tom Norris have these gifts; you do not.  Sorry.

1Cor. 12:8-9 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit,

2Tim. 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.

Sorry to be the one to tell you; but you have the “spirit of error.”  Not the spirit of truth.  Which explains why you do not teach the Gospel correctly.  Maybe you want to follow Christ, but unless you repent of the IJ, you are a dead man preaching a worthless, cultic Gospel.  So I suggest that you repent before it’s too late.

1John 4:6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Herb, you and I have different Christ’s and different Sprits, as well as very different views about many doctrines, including the Judgment and the Sabbath.  Those who refuse to listen to the written words of apostles, preferring to run to the Old Testament to find salvation and truth, are following the spirit of error.  This simple test condemns your twisted views.

2Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

John 15:26  “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

Note that the Spirit points to the words and teaching of Christ, --NOT to Daniel.  And when Jesus did make a specific reference to Daniel, it was not Dan 8:14 but Dan. 12:11.

Matt. 24:15  “Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Christ defines and teaches the Gospel, of which the Judgment is a part -- NOT Daniel.  The Gospel is not to be found in any OT book, nor is Daniel to be viewed as an apostle.

So once again, I ask you to answer the 1st question put to you, over and over and over;  what does Jesus teach, in the Gospels, about the IJ?  How does Christ view Dan 8: 14?  

Unless you can answer this first question successfully, and the other 6 that follow; you are just wasting time.  Proving that you are unfit to preach the Gospel, because you don’t even know where it is, much less what it is.  Shame on you!

At this point, you have not scored a single point for the IJ.  I don’t see how you are going to avoid an embarrassing shut-out, but you are welcome to keep trying.

So I await your response, and hope that you will be able to show us how Jesus supports Dan 8: 14.  If you can’t do this, then you lose by default. Which means you should stop promoting false doctrine to the public.

However, I am sure there must be some educated and skilled SDA pastor or scholar in Australia that would face up to these 7 points.  (I can’t find any in America).  

If you can find one, or two, or ten, please invite them to view this thread and let’s see if they can make a better case for the IJ then you have done.

Tom Norris: Conclusion #2

1.  Herb has made a number of false charges and childish accusations that have been easily refuted.  He should reconsider his weak position and consider the possibility that Dr. Ford is correct and the IJ beyond rehabilitation.

2. Herb has also repeatedly failed to address or refute the 7-Points that Tom Norris has put forward.   Even though there is an apostolic command to answer the critics, it does not appear that Herb is able to do so.  Which means he should join the majority of the Adventist Community in repudiating the IJ, apologizing to Dr. Ford and the public.

3.  The Advent Movement is self-destructing because of the IJ.  Unless the SDA’s repent of this error and apologize to Dr. Ford, they are doomed to cultic irrelevance, unable to go forward to embrace their noble mission to prepare the last church for the 2nd Coming.

Herb, I look forward to your response, but only if you are going to follow the agenda and address the 7 points that I claim prove the IJ false.  If not; we don’t need to hear any more of your confusion and double-talk.  

Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,

Rev. 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

Rev. 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

Mark 4:23 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Tom Norris, for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Seventh-Day Adventists

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Tom Norris

Expertise

I can answer most any question about church history and theology, starting from 1818 when William Miller articulated the 1st Angels Message that became the foundation of the Adventist Movement. While this first prophetic message terminated in the spring of 1844, it was followed by what Adventists refer to as the 2nd Angels Message, which dates from the spring of 1844 until the great disappointment of October 22, 1844. By 1847, the 3rd Angels Message had been developed and this Sabbatarian theology represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Moreover, I can explain the historical and theological development of the SDA denomination from its beginning and on through the great Battle Creek schism that forced the SDA's to retreat to Takoma Park. Here the 20th century church recovered from their internal battles that had erupted at the 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis over the definition of the law and the Gospel. Fearing another repeat of this disaster, President Daniels, determined to hide this debate. However, this policy led to more conflict, especially over the role and authority of Ellen White, a unique and accomplished religious writer that had remarkable spiritual gifts. However, by the decade of the 1970`s, the church once again erupted into debate. The hierarchy settled the turmoil in 1980 with the trial of Dr. Desmond Ford at Glacier View. Here Dr. Ford was exiled because he supposedly disagreed with Ellen White over the Fundamentals. But this controversial action resulted in another major schism that is still in progress today.

Experience

Tom Norris was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist in Takoma Park, Md. He attended SDA grade and High schools, moving on to study Adventist theology at Columbia Union College. He also spent significant time conducting independent research in the General Conference Archives and the Ellen G. White Estate. Over the years he has also interviewed a number of prominent Adventist scholars, theologians, and Pastors ranging from the late Arthur White to the exiled Dr. Desmond Ford. In addition, he has amassed a large private library, which includes numerous rare books and manuscripts about Adventist theology and history. He is presently the online editor of Adventist Reform, and can be found at Adventist for Tomorrow answering questions online about SDA theology and history as well as promoting Adventist Reform. http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/

Education/Credentials
Tom Norris attended SDA grade and High schools, moving on to study Adventist theology at Columbia Union College. He also spent significant time conducting independent research in the General Conference Archives and the Ellen G. White Estate.

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.