What would have been beneficial to Ford and many others, I think, is to put more effort in finding answers to questions, answers that support what we believe rather than answers that tear it down.
For example, I recall Dr. Ford saying something about "within the veil" in Hebrews having to correspond to a particular phrase in the LXX, and thus it had to mean "Most Holy Place" in Hebrews. But when I tried to check that out, it appeared to me that the Greek of Hebrews 6:19 corresponded more closely to that of the LXX of Num. 3:26, which to me definitely is talking about within the first veil rather than within the second veil.
We tend to find what we are looking for, and if we aren't looking for something, we are unlikely to find what is really there.
Bob,
I wonder if you have studied Ford's manuscript "Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment." Do you really know what he claims? My previous discussions with you (I still have the 500 pages of e-mail we have exchanged) provide evidence that the basis of your SDA beliefs are not the Bible but the claimed writings of Ellen White in spite of ample evidence that Ellen White did not write the books published under her name. This is why, I assume, in one of your messages to me you came to state that Ellen's White's claimed writings are Jesus's direct words to the church.
There are just a few original manuscripts (handwritten documents) that are confirmed to be written by her, and most of them are short letters written in an atrocious language. Ellen White never used more than a poor second grader's English in those handwritten documents until her death. She could not have written, and she did not write what has been published under her name. Others have written those books (actually copied them from different Christian authors), and the evidence is incontrovertible. Ellen White is an SDA LEGEND, and one of the greatest ecclesiastical scams in the history of mankind.
The truth is that the SDA theology is utterly bankrupt and beyond recovery. There is no support in the Bible for the the claimed "year-day principle" (I wrote an article in Adventist Today showing that the "principle" or "equation" -as Shea names it - has not linguistic basis in the Bible). The SDA perspective on a split atonement and investigative judgment cannot be supported with Biblical texts, while the SDA interpretations of Daniel 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are pure fantasies.
In the past 20 years I have corresponded or talked personally with Desmond Ford (I met him a couple of times and discussed different topics related to his Manuscript.), Richard Davidson, Roy Gane, Jon Paulien, and some of the other "famous SDA theologians." My communication with those theologians has been very disappointing. I asked them questions about key SDA doctrines that could not be supported with the Bible, and I did not get any response to some of my messages, or the answers I received contained infantile responses to my serious questions. I wanted to publish a few articles in JATS and AUSS that argued against the SDA perspectives on different "unique contributions" to the Christian beliefs, but I was told that these journals did not publish anything that contradicted the traditional SDA views.
The SDA hermeneutics still belongs to the 19th century. Most of the SDA "exegesis" is based on etimological studies and morphological hair splitting, something that James Barr criticized brutally in his book "The Semantics of Biblical Languages." The SDA exegetes are less than amateurs. They are ignorant, brain-washed individuals who repeat at nauseam the lies that stand at the foundation of the "movement." A few of these "experts" used the word "linguistics" in their papers as evidence that they are using current linguistic tools to interpret the Bible, but the fact is that they have no idea what linguistics is. They have no idea that the words have meaning only in context, and that their dictionary definitions or senses matter little in Biblical interpretation.
Desmond Ford was right when he pointed to the serious theological problems that have plagued the SDA church from the beginning . Unfortunately, he could not see that even with the solutions he had proposed, most of the SDA basic doctrines could not be defended with the Bible. If Ellen White's books were not inspired and were not written (copied) by her but by other people, if the "year-day principle," has no basis in the Bible, because there is no lingustic support for it, if the split atonement and the investigative judgment cannot be documented with Biblical texts, and if the SDA interpretation of Daniel 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 is wrong, what is left of the SDA teaching? Nothing?
I have a question for you: To what "tent" or tabernacle "room" does Hebrews 9:6-10 make reference to? After you have given me your answer, I will show you how Roy Gane (in a personal communication) has twisted these texts to reach a conclusion convenient to the SDA doctrine of split atonement.
Eduard