How to demolish Desmond Ford’s arguments on Daniel Chapter 8 in 30 Seconds

People need to stop being so childish about Biblical interpretation. There are hundreds of Christian denominations and literally tens of thousands of differences in all aspects of theology. The idea that there is only one legitimate way to interpret a text is incredibly naive. The most that can be said in many cases is that there is some probability for one main interpretation and some probability for other possible options. This is especially the case when it comes to symbolic prophetic passages such as those in Daniel and Revelation because there are now two layers of interpretation involved: first, the symbols have to be deciphered, and then they have to be interpreted as well. Creating space for multiple possibilities, therefore, cannot be logically avoided.

If someone were to survey a large selection of commentaries on chapters 2, 7 and 8 of Daniel, they would find that some interpret the fourth kingdom in 2 & 7 as Greece and some as Rome. Those that interpret it as Greece do so, among other reasons, because of the similarities between the descriptions of the ‘little horn’ in Daniel 8 (ex. 8:9) and the ‘little horn’ in Daniel 7 (ex. 7:8). In other words, they start by identifying the horn in Daniel 8 as Epiphanes and then, because of the similarities, they conclude it must be the same thing in Daniel 7 as well. Others insist that the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7 must be Rome and, because they do believe the little horn in Dan. 8 refers to Epiphanes, they conclude these horns must be different entities.

What this means, however, is that there is a third possibility that cannot logically be denied, mainly that if you start in Dan. 7 and conclude that the fourth beast is Rome and, you also recognize the similarities between the little horns in 7 and 8, then the little horn in 8 could be referring to Rome as well. It doesn’t matter if we conclude that one option is 70% likely, another 25% likely and, this last option only 5%. What matters is that the option is one of the legitimate options.

Adventist theologians have spent decades making the case that the Adventist position is actually the most probable one. But what people need to understand is that this work was done as a bonus. Our theology stands regardless, even if ours is only a minority option. And no sound minded person can deny this position as at least a minority option.

You may also like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.