Daniel 11:40-45 - its causing a quite a stir!

Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments, especially the testimony of Jesus.

Simplfied Summary versus Overly complicated book version??

Postby Piggler » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:43 am

Eugene,

I thought you were helping me to understand this? Question by question?

You seem to be saying the following;


The book of Daniel in particular, is conditional.

It gives an overview of what will happen in the future starting from the kingdom of 'Babylon' to the end of time.

This future, will happen as stated in Daniel, however the timing of the 'end' of this overview of the future, can be shortened, depending on the actions of God's people.

So as well as outlining the general overview of the future, it also contains 'meshed' within it, 2 possible senarios of what might happen in the future to end this overview early.

Maybe the general overview of Daniel 2 could be considered the future at its 'longest' period possible.

The whole overview is so skillfully worded that it 'makes sense' thinking of it as just 'one' overview of what is going to happen in the future.

Specifically, Daniel suggests that the 'end of time' could happen at 2 points in the future. The end of the Greek Kingdom or at the end of the Roman Kingdom.

These two senarios are highlighted by the existence of 2 Little horns or 2 Antichrists in Dan 8 and Dan 9.

If one sees only one little horn i.e Dan 8 and 7 speaks of the same person or power- one has to 'bend' the text to fit history as it really happened, leaving lots of discrepancies.

These two ending senarios are similar to each other in that they both have these 2 little horns, fighting at different time periods against Gods people, and eventually coming up against the Messiah and then a short time after that, destroying the Temple, and the end of time happening shortly after.

Historically, we see 'parts' of both scenarios happen, but conclude that some parts were 'cancelled' depending on the interplay of Gods people's actions with the overall plan.

It transpires, that Gods people did not do what they should have 'done' and so not all of the events in each senario worked out completely, the way it was exactly predicted.

Historically we see that the ending in the Roman kingdom was the senario that 'most' nearly happened, but that too was partially 'thwarted' by the actions of Gods people.

So we move on to the general overview 'ending' given in Chapter 2.

The source of this 'understanding' of Daniel is found particularly in Dan 2 and 7, Dan 8 and 9, Dan 11-12, and Mat 24.

Do I understand your views correctly?

Piggler.
Piggler
Seventh-day Adventist
Seventh-day Adventist
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: London, England

Re: Simplfied Summary versus Overly complicated book version

Postby Eugene Shubert » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:24 am

Piggler wrote:Post subject: Simplfied Summary versus Overly complicated book version??

Eugene, I thought you were helping me to understand this? Question by question?

And I thought that you already understood my unique overview of all of Daniel's prophecies as a single revelation. In speaking of Daniel in a Nutshell, you wrote: "Your Daniel in a Nutshell was a beautiful, so simple a revelation. ... I have looked at your 2 possible ending senario idea and its amazingly clear and ...simple."

If that is true, then you only have to understand the many details in the book of Daniel that supports this interpretation.

Piggler wrote:Maybe the general overview of Daniel 2 could be considered the future at its 'longest' period possible.

So we move on to the general overview 'ending' given in Chapter 2.

I see no reason to believe that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 contradict each other.

Piggler wrote:These two senarios are highlighted by the existence of 2 Little horns or 2 Antichrists in Dan 8 and Dan 9.

The antichrist of Daniel 8 is the same as one in Daniel 9. He is also the king of the north in Daniel 11:21-45. The most stunning peculiarity of the tyrant mentioned in Daniel 11 is that he takes a different yet similar course to the career path prophesied of him in Daniel 8 and 9.

Piggler wrote:Who was the Greek Antichrist in Daniel 8 IYHO?, and give a reason for your answer?

I believe that the book of Daniel should be interpreted with all the precision allotted by the grammatical-historical method. I have concluded, for example, that proper exegesis leads us to see the ten horns of the 4th beast in Daniel 7 as being ten literal kings. I can't name for you any of those ten kings. Likewise, I'm not able to point to any one person as the fulfillment of the little horn is in Daniel 8.

Jesus did say,
"So when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains" (Mark 13:14).

A parallel passage reads,
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains" (Luke 21:20-21).

As it is stated in The Ends of Time,

The “abomination of desolation” is certainly a reference to the abomination of idols since the Hebrew word for abomination has this specialized meaning (2 Ch 15:8; 1 Ki 11:5,7; 2 Ki 23:13,24; Isa 66:3; Jer 7:30, 32:34; Ezk 20:7,8,30; Da 11:31, 12:11; Ho 9:10; Zec 9:7).

The Adventist commentary, Symposium On Daniel, p. 442, says: “The Greek phrasing of Mt 24:15 does not derive from 8:13 or 9:27. It more closely resembles that of Dan 11:31 [‘Theodotion’]. It is identical with Dan 12:11.”

If Daniel 8 and 9 would not have happened, then the alternative scenario in Daniel 11 could have been fulfilled by Roman armies erecting a gold statue of the Emperor Caligula in the Jewish temple. If you like to reason by analogy, then you should consider what Daniel 11 says literally and then compare it with both history and reasonable scenarios. Here is some interesting history that I have compiled from several sources that suggests that Daniel 11 almost had a possible first century fulfillment:

Shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the mad Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus - nicknamed Caligula ("little boots") - attempted to desecrate the Temple. Everywhere else in the Roman empire subjugated peoples had been forced to conform to the cult of Rome and acknowledge not only Caesar as Lord but also fall into line by adopting the Roman pantheon of gods. The Jews had been left alone and it was time they began to conform. Caligula gave an order to set up his statue in the Holy of Holies in the Temple:

"Now Caius Caesar did so grossly abuse the fortune he had arrived at, as to take himself to be a god, and to desire to be so called also, and to cut off those of the greatest nobility out of his country. He also extended his impiety as far as the Jews. Accordingly he sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem to place his statues in the temple, and commanded him that, in case the Jews would not admit of them, he should slay those that opposed it, and carry all the rest into captivity."

The Roman writer Tacitus adds that Caius commanded the Jews to place his effigies in the Temple. Josephus records that the Jews pleaded with Petronius not to do this. The Jews in their stubborn monotheism were willing to sacrifice their whole nation before they would allow the Temple to be defiled. Petronius marveled at their courage and ceased with the process so confrontation was temporarily averted. An enraged Caligula commanded that Petronius be put to death. Josephus records that Caligula himself died soon thereafter and due to bad weather at sea, the letter ordering Petronius' death arrived three weeks after the news arrived of Caligula's death. Petronius was not executed and the Temple was spared this particular abomination.

"But it happened that those who brought Gaius's letter were tossed by a storm and were detained on the sea for three months, while others who brought the news of Gaius's death had a good voyage."

Something nearly like this happened in 40 a.d. when Caligula was the Emperor of Rome. He was a madman and decided to set up a statute of himself in the holy place of the temple in Jerusalem. He sent the statue by ship on its way down to Jerusalem, but he died before it arrived and they never set it up.

Gaius Claudius Caesar Germanicus “Caligula,” adopted son of Tiberius (reigned 37 - 41) “whose uncontrolled passions resulted in manifest insanity; noted for his cruelty and tyranny; was assassinated.” Caligula ordered his statue to be set up and worshiped in the Jerusalem Temple, but was murdered before it came to pass.

In AD40 the Roman Emperor Caligula ordered the erection of his own statue in the Temple. He already had his own Temple in Rome, in which stood a golden statue of himself to which sacrifices were daily offered by a college of priests, wealthy Romans who paid 80,000 pounds each for the honor.
To Jews from Alexandria, he said: "You alone refuse to acknowledge me as a god, while every other nation of the earth adores and worships me as such; but you reserve your worship for a God Whose very Name you do not know"; and then, stretching his arms toward heaven, he uttered unrepeatable blasphemies.
Petronius, governor of Syria, set artists to work on a colossal statue of the emperor in gold; and advanced towards Jerusalem with a powerful army, Caligula having authorized him to use half the imperial forces in the East to crush all resistance. But Petronius suddenly found himself surrounded by a vast multitude of suppliant Jews, unarmed, and prostrate before him, and ready themselves to be sacrificed if only he would spare their beloved Temple, and who gave themselves to passionate entreaty for forty days.
The Syrian governor reported the cause of the delay to Caligula; who (according to Josephus) was so enraged that his reply, in consonance with Roman etiquette, left Petronius no choice but to commit suicide; but the unhappy governor was saved by receiving the news of Caligula's death before the Emperor's letter reached him (Ewald's History of Israel, vol. vii, p. 243). Caligula had been suddenly murdered in Rome: his was not the time, nor was he the man to erect his statute in the holiest spot in all the world -- "the abomination of desolation standing IN THE HOLY PLACE" (Matthew 24:15).

NOTE: Some scholars think this idea may have been influenced by the plan of the Roman Emperor Caligula to set up a statue of himself in the Temple around A.D. 40. If Caligula had gone through with it, Jews and Christians would have regarded the statue as an "abomination of desolation," a desecration of the Temple (see Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, which probably refers to the government-imposed worship of the pagan god Zeus in the Temple around 167 B.C.).

I'm only saying that this scenario is compelling and that it parallels Daniel 11:31 to some extent. I should also point out that there are commentators who believe that it really did happen:

So great was the caprice of Caligula in his conduct towards all, but especially toward the nation of the Jews. As he was excessively hostile to these, he appropriated their places of worship to himself in all the cities, beginning with those at Alexandria, filling them with his images and statues. For having permitted it when others erected them of their own accord, he now began to erect them by absolute command. But the temple in the holy city, which had been left untouched as yet, and been endowed with privileges as an inviolable asylum, he changed and transformed into a temple of his own, that it should be publicly called the temple of Gaius the younger, the visible Jupiter.
Source: Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History; translated from the original with an introduction by Christian F. Cruse, Pub by: Baker Book House, June 1984; p 56... Eusebius Pamphilus was Bishop of Caesarea.
Eugene Shubert
Millerite
Millerite
 
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:35 pm
Location: Richardson Texas

... time for tough questions, are there any?

Postby Piggler » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:29 am

Hello Eugene,

Lets assume then, that your hypothesis is correct. So good so far, and so far I am only looking at Daniel. There may be some questions on whether certain 'cancelled conclusions' actually turn out to be not 'cancelled' at all. For example;

"At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." [DAN. 12:1.] {GC88 613.1}

This 'cancelled conclusion' is quoted by EG White as having significance at a distant future point to Daniel's day. The time period she is referrring to, is in fact future to our day, and is quoted here:

"At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." [DAN. 12:1.] {GC88 613.1}

When the third angel's message closes, mercy no longer pleads for the guilty inhabitants of the earth. The people of God have accomplished their work. They have received "the latter rain," "the refreshing from the presence of the Lord," and they are prepared for the trying hour before them. Angels are hastening to and fro in Heaven. An angel returning from the earth announces that his work is done; the final test has been brought upon the world, and all who have proved themselves loyal to the divine precepts have received "the seal of the living God." {GC88 613.2}

You said "If Daniel 8 and 9 would not have happened, then the alternative scenario in Daniel 11 could have been fulfilled by Roman armies ...

You also linked Dan 11 with Dan 12 - I quote you here:

Daniel 11-12 presents another scenario, a more hopeful possibility. Here, the world is portrayed as actually ending soon after the appointed time...

So my question is:

Is Daniel 12 then, a part of 'plan A' and not part of the alternate short ending of Dan 11 which I think you suggest . I see that EG White refers to it with regard to our future and therefore could not be apart of any of the 'cancelled conclusions' - possibly its the last 'installment' to plan A, once any of the senario endings had gotten underway - You appear to say Dan 11- 12 is a senario that did not happen - an apparent contradiction??

I see that, Daniel 8 did not happen in full, because Dan 7 happened in full - and because Dan 8 is linked with Dan 11 and therefore linked senarios you confuse me, by saying that 'Dan 8 did happen, but not Dan 11?? How do you arrive at that conclusion? What link am I missing?

Am I right in saying that what ever senario happened (i.e Dan 7 or Dan 8), Dan 9-10 and 12 continue on, in the general overview.

Aside from the above questions:

I think I can see what you mean when you say you cannot name the 10 kings.

It sounds as if then, (like you assert in your introduction to your book) that you will always stop, irritatingly short, of interpreting the prophecy for its present day meaning or application. But surely, one can, allude to the kingdoms of which those '10 kings' were the leaders - no??

Piggler.
Piggler
Seventh-day Adventist
Seventh-day Adventist
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: London, England

Re: ... time for tough questions, are there any?

Postby Eugene Shubert » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:41 am

Piggler,

Please do not refer to anything in the book of Daniel as "Plan A." The book of Daniel presents two possible outcomes: bad and worse. Plan A in my book is a completely different scenario.

Piggler wrote:I see that, Daniel 8 did not happen in full, because Dan 7 happened in full

And I see no contradictions between Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 9. I said that Daniel 8 "reveals but a fragment of the whole picture given earlier." That means that a certain period of time was cut off from the longer scenario and was placed under a microscope.

Daniel 12 is just a commentary on Daniel 11. Both of those chapters form a unit and should not be thought of as being disconnected in any way.

There is no question that the Apostle Paul and Ellen White saw a meaning in Daniel 11-12 that goes beyond my interpretation. For example:

Ellen White wrote:We have no time to lose. Troublous times are before us. The world is stirred with the spirit of war. Soon the scenes of trouble spoken of in the prophecies will take place. The prophecy in the eleventh of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment. Much of the history that has taken place in fulfillment of this prophecy will be repeated. In the thirtieth verse a power is spoken of that "shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant." [Verses 31-36, quoted.]

The very next line says, "Scenes similar to those described in these words will take place." 13MR 394.

I examine the most familiar scenes out of Ellen White's writings with this end-time theme in mind. I see that it applies to an existing crisis in the Seventh-day Adventist church that is now biting and hissing at faithful Seventh-day Adventists. If you are interested in the final, last-day interpretation of Daniel 11:31-36, to which Sister White said that the historic interpretation would be repeated in an endtime context, I did write up an outline form of it. See Musings About An Adventist Antichrist.

The application that Paul made of Daniel 11-12 future to his day can be found in The Ends of Time. The emphasis that I give in my Daniel commentary is primarily what all the Old Testament prophecies meant in their original context and not how those prophecies were later reinterpreted by inspired writers. Keep studying. You still don't grasp the simplified picture of the future that Daniel received as opposed to how history really unfolded.

Piggler wrote:time for tough questions, are there any?

Yes. When are you going to do some serious reading instead of trying to guess at my meaning?
Eugene Shubert
Millerite
Millerite
 
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:35 pm
Location: Richardson Texas

lets take it from here

Postby Piggler » Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:23 pm

Ok Eugene,

E G White refers to the prophecies of Dan 11 as nearly reaching their complete fulfillment.

She also says, that scenes similar to those already fulfilled in Dan 11 will be repeated. I take that to mean historical scenes relating to the papacy during medieval times will be repeated in a similar fashion when its wound will be healed.

But you say, Dan 11 was a 'hopeful possibility' part of a shorter scenario that did not happen as foretold.

Question: How do you reconcile your view with these statements of EG White? - on the one hand she says Dan 11 was fulfilled and did happen in a certain way, and will continue to be fulfilled completely with a repetition of similar scenes, and your idea that Dan 11 and was a cancelled conclusion that did not happen as foretold.

Piggler
Piggler
Seventh-day Adventist
Seventh-day Adventist
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: London, England

Re: lets take it from here

Postby Eugene Shubert » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:23 am

Piggler wrote:How do you reconcile your view with these statements of EG White? - on the one hand she says Dan 11 was fulfilled and did happen in a certain way, and will continue to be fulfilled completely with a repetition of similar scenes, and your idea that Dan 11 and was a cancelled conclusion that did not happen as foretold.

There is no doubt that Ellen White believed that the prophecies of Daniel 11 and 12 are unconditional. I also believe that there is no question that I am right in my broad outline of the book of Daniel. Ellen White herself admitted

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. —Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 37.

Also, please note that Ellen White never really interpreted the prophecy of Daniel 11. If Sister White had a genuine understanding of that chapter, do you think she would keep that light to herself? Clearly, whatever she thought that chapter meant was just on the periphery of understanding. By contrast, I have received direct revelation on the subject and have written a detailed exegesis of all of Daniel's prophecies. And Bible scholars can test my exegesis. All my details are self-evident truths. Ellen White's statement that Daniel 11 has a historical fulfillment isn't self-evident. Even the Adventist Bible commentary traces 4 major Adventist views on Daniel 11 and I think it's obvious that those four differing Adventist views cancel each other out.

It's a mistake to think that every word that Ellen White wrote was without error, even when she included a detailed argument. For example, in the 1888 Great Controversy, Ellen White argued why Babylon in the second angel's message didn't refer to Rome: "that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries." Then in the 1911 edition of the Great Controversy, Ellen White completely reversed herself and said that the second angel's message did include Rome.

In the 1888 edition of the Great Controversy, Ellen White wrote:The woman, Babylon, of Revelation 17, is described as "arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness. . . . And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots." Says the prophet, "I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." [REV. 17:4-6.] Babylon is further declared to be "that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." [REV. 17:18.] The power that for so many centuries maintained despotic sway over the monarchs of Christendom, is Rome. The purple and scarlet color, the gold and precious stones and pearls, vividly picture the magnificence and more than kingly pomp affected by the haughty see of Rome. And no other power could be so truly declared "drunken with the blood of the saints" as that church which has so cruelly persecuted the followers of Christ. Babylon is also charged with the sin of unlawful connection with "the kings of the earth." It was by departure from the Lord, and alliance with the heathen, that the Jewish church became a harlot; and Rome, corrupting herself in like manner by seeking the support of worldly powers, receives a like condemnation.

Babylon is said to be "the mother of harlots." By her daughters must be symbolized churches that cling to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of Revelation 14 announcing the fall of Babylon, must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the Judgment, it must be given in the last days, therefore it cannot refer to the Romish Church, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries. Furthermore, in the eighteenth chapter of the Revelation, in a message which is yet future, the people of God are called upon to come out of Babylon. According to this scripture, many of God's people must still be in Babylon. And in what religious bodies are the greater part of the followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant faith. At the time of their rise, these churches took a noble stand for God and the truth, and his blessing was with them. Even the unbelieving world was constrained to acknowledge the beneficent results that followed an acceptance of the principles of the gospel. In the words of the prophet to Israel, "Thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty; for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God." But they fell by the same desire which was the curse and ruin of Israel, —the desire of imitating the practices and courting the friendship of the ungodly. "Thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown."

Many of the Protestant churches are following Rome's example of iniquitous connection with "the kings of the earth;" the State churches, by their relation to secular governments, and other denominations by seeking the favor of the world. And the term Babylon—confusion—may be appropriately applied to these bodies, all professing to derive their doctrines from the Bible, yet divided into almost innumerable sects, with widely conflicting creeds and theories. —Ellen G. White, GC88, pp. 382-383.

In the 1911 edition of the Great Controversy, Ellen White wrote:The message of Revelation 14, announcing the fall of Babylon must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the judgment, it must be given in the last days; therefore it cannot refer to the Roman Church alone, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries. —Ellen G. White, GC, p. 383.

The difference between "it cannot refer to the Romish Church" and "it cannot refer to the Roman Church alone" does indicate that Ellen White corrected herself at least in a small way in her understanding of prophecy.

When Ellen White wrote about Daniel 8:14, she just accepted the conventional understanding of the time that the King James translation of Daniel 8:14 was correct. The King James translation of this verse, like the Adventist understanding of it, is wrong. Does the Adventist misunderstanding of Daniel 8:14 invalidate the fact that God was leading the Millerite movement? No. Did Sister White ever have a vision on the meaning of the Hebrew in Daniel 8:14? No.

Piggler wrote:She also says, that scenes similar to those already fulfilled in Dan 11 will be repeated. I take that to mean historical scenes relating to the papacy during medieval times will be repeated in a similar fashion when its wound will be healed.

You make unwarranted assumptions.
Eugene Shubert
Millerite
Millerite
 
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:35 pm
Location: Richardson Texas

Re: Still running with you!

Postby leavinglaodicea » Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:59 pm

Greetings Piggler and friends;

Have you read
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/antio ... hanes.html

by William Shea?

Take a look

leavinglaodicea (its lukewarm state)
Greetings to all of you!
leavinglaodicea
Seventh-day Adventist
Seventh-day Adventist
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: usa

Re: Daniel 11:40-45 - its causing a quite a stir!

Postby debj » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:33 am

Hi,

I am new to the forum. Just thought I'd share what I think about these last verses.

First, I great respect the work that Uriah Smith did in his book Daniel and the Revelation. So whatever I say, even if in some disagreement, I still respect his work.

Verse 36 is where I depart from Smith's conclusion. When a pronoun is used to identify an unnamed person or entity, it must always follow the path of the antecedent, if there is an antecedent. Smith had a little difficulty with this process, and he even recognized the difficulty. I am referring to his comment starting at verse 36.

“The only difficulty in applying it to a new power lies in the definite article the; for, it is urged, the expression ‘the king’ would identify this as one last spoken of. If it could be properly translated a king, there would be no difficulty; and it is said that some of the best Biblical critics give it this rendering, Mede, Wintle, Boothroyd, and others translating the passage, ‘A certain king shall do according to his will,’ thus clearly introducing a new power upon the stage of action.” [Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation - 1897, p. 293]

Smith identified the power as France rather than the Papacy because of his interpretation of the power not regarding any gods. When I took a look at the word, I found that "regard" does not mean that the power in question was atheist necessarily. Within the context, I think the concept of not regarding any gods has more of an implication that the power didn't respect God as in Papal defiance of the requirements of God. I don't think the word "regard" is not so narrowly defined as Smith applied it.

I also disagree with Smith's application of France fulfilling the role of the king of the south in verse 40 where it says he shall "push" at him. Smith claimed that Egypt pushed against France in a "comparatively feeble resistance." I find that the historical records make it sound as though Egypt basically fell down at the advance of France and had no strength to resistance. Egypt was mown down. There was no push or advance, not even a strong resistance.

My point is, if Smith wrongly identified the power of verse 36, and an Adventist committee (1954) also determined that the power is to be identified as the Papacy, then perhaps we have gotten a little off course somewhere along the way.

I hope that if anyone disagrees with me that they will be kind. I don't share these things to be disagreeable, just thought I would throw this out for contemplation. :smile!!:
debj
Seventh-day Adventist
Seventh-day Adventist
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:47 am

Previous

Return to High Ranking Revelation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron