Adventist view of PreAdvent Judgment in Dan 7 , part 1. Investigative Judgment

Here is a good explanation on it..

"When Did The 2300 Days Of Daniel 8:14 Begin And End? Fresh Evidence From Scripture, Chronology, And Karaite History​

This paper builds upon a longer study in my [forthcoming] book Song for the Sanctuary: A Graduate Textbook on the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, commissioned by the Biblical Research Institute.1 In various chapters of that larger study (particularly the chapter dealing with the biblical principles of interpreting apocalyptic prophecy, and the four chapters dealing with the exegesis and interpretation of Daniel 7-9), I provide the exegetical and hermeneutical foundation for major conclusions which will be assumed in this paper. These include the following, among others: (1) the validity of the historicist approach toward apocalyptic prophecy; (2) the validity of the year-day principle (i.e., that a historical year is represented by a prophetic day) in apocalyptic prophecies; (3) the identity of the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 as the papal system; (4) the 2300 day prophecy of Dan 8 refers to 2300 years and the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 refers to 490 years; (5) the relationship of the time prophecies in Daniel 8 and 9 so that the 2300 days of Dan 8:14 begin at the same time as the seventy-week prophecy of Dan 9:24-25 with the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem; (6) the “going forth” of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem took place in 457 B.C. and not 458 B.C.; and (7) the end of the 2300 days took place on the Day of Atonement in 1844.2

Building on these biblically-based conclusions, this paper seeks to determine if there can be more precision with regard to (1) the exact starting date of the 2300 year prophecy in 457 B.C., as well as (2) the exact ending date of the 2300 year prophecy in A.D. 1844.

Issue 1: The Exact Date for the Beginning of the 2300 Day Prophecy​

Based upon the evidence presented elsewhere by several Daniel scholars,3 we may conclude that the decree made by Artaxerxes in his seventh year and Ezra’s subsequent return to Jerusalem took place in the year 457 B.C., not 458 B.C., as many critics have claimed. But from when, precisely, in 457 B.C., is to be reckoned the “going forth [Heb. motsa’] of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”?

According to several recent SDA commentators on Daniel, the “going forth” of the decree referred to the time when Artaxerxes issued the decree (i.e., delivered it to Ezra), not when it went into effect.4 Thus the date for the “going forth” of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem came in the spring of 457 B.C. According to this view, Ezra began his journey from Babylon on the first day of the first month (Nisan) in the spring, and thus the decree went forth (to Ezra) sometime shortly before this date (see Ezra 8:9).

By contrast, other SDA commentators have understood the decree to have “gone forth” when it went into effect in Jerusalem. According to the SDABC, “The specifications of the decree were not carried out until after Ezra returned from Babylon, which was the late summer or early fall of 457 B.C.”5 In his book, The Commandment to Restore and to Build Jerusalem, J. N. Andrews states regarding the going into effect of the decree, “The first great act of Ezra, by which the commandment went forth, or was carried into execution, was, no doubt, to select and appoint magistrates and judges who should restore the law of God to its proper place as the civil law of Jerusalem, and enforce that law with adequate penalties. In all probability, this occurred in the great solemnity of the seventh month, then just far enough in the future to give Ezra time to acquaint himself with the people and to make the proper selection.”6 Andrews conjectures that it was on “the great solemnity of the seventh month” (presumably he means the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the month), but Andrews offers no specific textual evidence that it was indeed on this day.

In harmony with this earlier understanding, Ellen White writes that “The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, as completed by the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, went into effect in the autumn of 457 B.C.”7 Is there any way to determine from Scripture and other relevant sources the meaning of the phrase “going forth” of the commandment, and to determine more precisely when in 457 B.C. this occurred?

As noted above, it is clear from Ezra 7 that the decree itself was made by Artaxerxes sometime early in 457 B.C., before Ezra started on his journey to Jerusalem (see esp. v. 9). But is this the “going forth” (Heb. motsa’) of the word or decree? An examination of the meaning and usage of the Hebrew noun motsa’ elsewhere in the OT is helpful in providing clarity. The word motsa’ occurs some twenty-five times in the HB (not counting its usage as a proper name for a person). Its semantic range involves at least four related meanings: (1) “place of departure,” (2) “exit, way out,” (3) “pronouncement,” and (4) “going/coming forth, appearance.”8 We are particularly interested in the usages of the term with the meanings three and four, which parallel our passage in Dan 9:25.

With regard to the meaning of motsa’ as “pronouncement,” a survey of passages utilizing this term with this meaning, yields the conclusion that there is regularly an assumption that the pronouncement is not only made, but that it has gone into effect.9 Moreover, the usage of motsa’ in Dan 9:25 goes beyond the usages elsewhere in Scripture where the word motsa’ by itself denotes the pronouncement. In Dan 9:25, we have another word for the proclamation—“word” (dabar)—and the term motsa’ concerns the “going out” of the word. This is more in harmony with the fourth meaning of motsa’ in the HB, “going/coming forth.” Looking at examples of this usage elsewhere in the HB, we find that the word motsa’ usually focuses not on the initial “going forth” by itself, but on the effect of that going forth, i.e., the appearance to others.10

In light of the usage of motsa’ elsewhere in the HB, it is preferable to take the “going forth” of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem as referring to the putting into effect of Artaxerxes’ decree, and not to the time of its being initially written and/or proclaimed by the king. This conclusion is further substantiated by the fact that the text of Ezra does not give us the date in which Artaxerxes actually wrote/proclaimed the decree and gave it to Ezra: it could have been several months before Nisan 1 in 457 B.C. Clearly, the focus was not upon the time of the decree’s first proclamation, but upon its going forth in the sense of formally going into effect.

Already in 1845 S. S. Snow argued with more certainty that the exact date when the decree went into effect was on the Day of Atonement in 457 B.C., and he alluded to the nature of the sacrifices offered by Ezra and those who returned from Babylon in that year (Ezra 8:35,36) as a reason for his conclusion: “And this [the sacrifices offered by Ezra] must certainly have been on the tenth day of the seventh month, as that was the day of expiation, or atonement, and the offerings were not made, according to the Law, on any other day.”11 Snow found significance in the particular sacrifices offered as pointing to the Day of Atonement, but offered no analysis of these offerings to substantiate his claim that they were not made on any other day....

Following the brief hint provided by Snow, I would like to suggest that several clues in Ezra 7-10 may indicate more precisely when in the year 457 B.C this formal putting into effect of the decree took place.

1. The first and major stipulation of Artaxerxes’ decree was the offering of sacrifices. The very first stipulation, and in fact, the only specific activity commanded in the first part Artaxerxes’ decree of Ezra 7, besides the allowance for volunteer exiles to return to Jerusalem, is that the returnees are to use the money they are taking with them “to buy with this money bulls, rams, and lambs, with their grain offerings and their drink offerings, and offer them on the altar of the house of your God in Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:17).

2. The first activity of the returnees was the offering of the sacrifices. The first activity mentioned by Ezra as being carried out by the returning exiles upon their arrival in Jerusalem (after delivering the money to the priests for purchasing the animal sacrifices) was “to offer burnt offerings to the God of Israel: twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs; and twelve male goats as a sin offering” (Ezra 8:35). The animals mentioned as being sacrificed for the burnt offering are the same ones, in the same order, as in the decree of Ezra 7.

3. The offering of the sacrifices already constituted the “going forth” (putting into effect) of the decree. Since the offering of the sacrifices constituted a major portion of the decree of Artaxerxes, therefore the fulfillment of that offering would in a very real way constitute the putting into effect (at least the first part) of the decree, and thus would be a fulfillment of Dan 9:25 (“the going out [putting into effect] of the word/decree”). Daniel 9:25 stipulates that the starting-point of the decree is the time when the decree as a whole began to be put into effect, and not necessarily that it had to include the part dealing with the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem. But we will see below that it also probably involved this as well at the same time.

4. The offering of the sacrifices took place during a 4 ½ month period in the last half of 457 B.C. Though no date is given for the offering of these sacrifices “for all Israel,” it must have taken place sometime during the 4 ½ month period between Ab 4 and Khislev 20 in the year 457 B.C. Ezra arrived in Jerusalem from Babylon on the first day of the fifth month called Ab (Ezra 7:9), which was August 22, assuming the year 457 B.C. was an intercalated year according to the Jewish reckoning, as I have argued elsewhere.12 After a stay of three days, on the fourth day (August 25, 457 B.C. according to the intercalated calculation) the money was counted by the priests (Ezra 8:33-34), and then some time after this (the date is not given) sacrificial animals were purchased and the offerings were made in accordance with Artaxerxes’ decree (Ezra 8:35). Four and one half months after Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem, a proclamation was made for all Israel to gather on the twentieth day of the ninth month (January 6, 456 B.C. assuming the year was intercalated). So some time during this 4 ½ month period the sacrifices described in Ezra 8:35 were offered.

5. The sacrifices are to be equated with the calendrical sacrifices of Num 28-29. The list of offerings in Artaxerxes’ decree encompasses the same animals, and in the same order, as the lists of burnt offerings required of the congregation as a whole at the time of the monthly and yearly calendrical occasions, as detailed in Num 28-29: bulls, rams, lambs.13 (Since the daily and weekly [Sabbath] calendrical occasions did not require all of these sacrifices, they are eliminated from the discussion that follows.) The sacrifices of the returnees also included a goat as a sin/purification offering as in the monthly and yearly calendrical offerings of Num 28-29.

The number of sacrifices offered by the congregation of the returnees was generally at least twelve-fold (or once multiples of seven)14 of what was required in Num 28-29. The twelve-fold multiplication was no doubt to indicate, as explicitly stated in the text, that this was “for all Israel,” the whole twelve tribes, and not just Judah. Israel was once again to be recognized as a single united people.15

6. The sacrifices were offered during one of the calendrical occasions of the 4 ½ month period. Since the offerings made by the returning exiles were calendrical offerings, it is expected that the sacrifices were offered at the time of one of the calendrical occasions during the 4 ½ month period when those offerings were offered: a new moon, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, or Feast of Tabernacles. Ezra was “a skilled scribe in the law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6) and he “had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (v. 10), and therefore it is to be expected the offering of the calendrical offerings for all Israel, as directed by Ezra, would take place at the time when those calendrical offerings were to be offered. Ezra 3 makes clear that already during the return of Zerubbabel (the seventh month of 536 B.C.) the regular calendrical offering schedule had been restored in Jerusalem (vv. 2-6), although these may have been stopped because of opposition by the local enemies of the Jews by the time of Ezra’s arrival nearly eighty years later. Nothing is said about the offering of the people of Israel described in Ezra 8:35 being a special kind of offering (except for the multiples of twelve to indicate all twelve tribes), contrary to the special sacrifices offered at the dedication of the Temple in 515 B.C. (Ezra 6:15-17), so we can reasonably conclude that these were offered at one of the calendrical occasions during the 4 ½ month period described above. Is there any way to determine which of the calendrical occasions may constitute the best candidate for the time when the sacrifices described in Ezra 8:35 were offered?

7. The calendrical sacrifices of one occasion—the Day of Atonement, at the time of the Jubilee— best fit the pattern of the sacrifices offered in Ezra 8:35 and the general context of the passage.16 There is a clue in Ezra 8:35 that seems to provide a key in narrowing the possibilities for the specific festival venue. This concerns the number of sacrifices for each kind of animal that were offered and how this pattern fits the various calendrical occasions that took place during the period of 4 ½ months that form the parameters of our search. As noted above, the number of sacrifices offered by the congregation of returnees under Ezra’s guidance represented at least a multiple of twelve or seven from the original required number. But the numbers for one of these sacrifices seems particularly significant. . According to Num 28-29, all of the monthly-yearly calendrical occasions required a sacrifice of two bulls, except for the Feast of Trumpets (v. 2), Day of Atonement (v. 8), and the eighth day of Feast of Tabernacles (v. 36), which required only one. If it was the intent of the congregation of returnees to offer at least a multiple of twelve (or seven) of what was required, then they can be said to have done this only if the festival occasion was Trumpets, or Day of Atonement, or the last day of Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles). The requirement of one bull on these occasions was multiplied by twelve, and this is what the congregation offered. Thus this pattern of the twelve-fold multiplication in the number of sacrifices seems to eliminate the new moon festivals of the sixth, eighth, and ninth month, as well as the seven days of Tabernacles, and to point toward Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) or the eighth day of Tabernacles (Sukkot) as the best candidates for the background occasion for these sacrifices. Can we decide which of these is more likely?

The possibility of the background occasion being that of the last (eighth) day of Sukkot seems weakened by the fact that the first seven days of Sukkot required numerous sacrifices, in fact a number that exceeds all of the other festivals combined, and the omission of any mention of other elaborate sacrifices preceding this one makes it unlikely that the eighth day would be singled out from the rest. The possibility of Trumpets on the first day of the seventy month also seems weakened in that several of the events connected with Ezra’s journey and arrival at Jerusalem were mentioned as occurring on the first day of a month: the departure from Babylon on the first day of the first month (Ezra 7:9), the arrival at Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month (Ezra 7:9); and the completion of the examination of those taking multiple wives on the first day of the first month (Ezra 10:17). If these sacrifices had been offered on the first day of the seventh month, it seems likely that this would have also been dated. These are arguments from silence, or better, arguments from negative evidence. They are not decisive by themselves, but become more persuasive when viewed in light of positive evidence pointing toward the Day of Atonement as the strongest possibility for the time in which the sacrifices of Ezra were offered.

This evidence derives from an additional diagnostic tool in deciding the precise day in which the sacrifices were offered, which emphasizes offering sevenfold the ordinary calendrical number of burnt offering sacrifices with regard to the lambs. Instead of the usual seven lambs in the calendrical offerings of Num 28-29, those returning from Babylon offered seventy (7x10) lambs in addition to the seven prescribed (for a total of seventy-seven).17 This emphasis upon the multiples of seven may have an allusion to the Day of Atonement, during which Day the blood was applied in the sanctuary a total of 49 (7x7) times.

The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) also was the one festival of the year in which multiples of seven played a significant role every forty-nine years. On this day the year of Jubilee began every forty-nine (7x7) years (Lev 25:9). The Jubilee year was built upon the principle of multiples of seven: “And you shall count seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven times seven years; and the time of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to you forty-nine years. Then you shall cause the trumpet of the Jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month” (Lev 25:8-9). Inasmuch as the use of seventy weeks (7x7x10) in Dan 9:24-27 has been widely recognized even beyond Adventist circles as alluding to the Jubilee cycles,18 the reference to seventy (7x10) lambs (in addition to the seven already prescribed) may specifically allude to the Jubilee cycle which started at the time of the Day of Atonement. Further allusion to the Day of Atonement may be found in what immediately follows the record of offering of sacrifices at the end of Ezra 8. The language of Ezra 9 has many intertextual allusions to the Day of Atonement, with Ezra fasting (v. 5), and confessing the sins of his people (vv. 6-15).19

The Day of Atonement setting for the sacrifices, and in particular a Jubilee setting for this particular Day of Atonement, seems further supported by what has been demonstrated elsewhere by those who have researched the dating of OT sabbatical and jubilee years.20 According to this research, the fall of 457 B.C. marked the beginning of a Jubilee year. If this dating is correct, then Yom Kippur of 457 B.C. was not just any Day of Atonement; it was also the commencement of the Jubilee, which came only every 49 years!

According to Lev 25:10,13, “It shall be a Jubilee for you; and each of you shall return to his possession, and each of you shall return to his family. In this Year of Jubilee, each of you shall return to his possession.” (Note the use of the word “return” [Heb. shub] three times in this passage.) It seems very likely that Ezra and his fellow returning exiles were not just coming back at a time without significance. They were returning to their possession, and marking this return on the very day when God ordained that all those who had lost their possession should return to claim it! Ezra, expert in Torah, could not have been unaware of the approach of the Jubilee earlier in the year 457 B.C. while still in Babylon, and very likely he made King Artaxerxes aware of such timing, which resulted in the specific wording of the decree which referred to the sacrifices to be made at that Jubilee period.

8. The specific part of Artaxerxes’ decree enabling the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem also probably started going into effect on the Day of Atonement in 457 B.C. Immediately after describing the offering of the sacrifices by the returnees in the previous verse, Ezra states what happened next, probably at that same occasion: “And they delivered the king’s orders to the king’s satraps and the governors in the Region Beyond the River. So they gave support to the people and the house of God” (Ezra 8:36)...

Some commentators suggest that this delivery of the king’s orders to the satraps and governors had taken place at an earlier time, perhaps on Ezra’s journey from Babylon to Jerusalem, stopping at Aleppo or Damascus.21 However, recent text-linguistic studies have demonstrated that the Hebrew grammatical construction which begins this verse, the wayiqtol (Qal impf. + waw consecutive) form of the verb, implies continuation of the narrative, and does not allow for a flashback to an earlier event. If this Jubilee celebration was already in the purview of Ezra and King Artaxerxes as the decree was being issued, then it is not unlikely that the satrap of the province named “Beyond the River” (and perhaps the satrap of the province of Egypt, since the term “satraps” is plural in Ezra 8:36) either attended this celebration himself, or sent official representatives. The “giving” (Heb. natan) of the king’s decree to the satraps (or their representatives) and the local governors likely took place on this day of Jubilee celebration. (Note that the Hebrew word here is “give [natan]” and not “send [shalakh],” implying that the rulers or their representatives were at hand to receive the king’s orders and it did not need to be “sent” to them.) If so, then even the part of the king’s decree relevant to “restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem” began to be fulfilled on this day, the Day of Atonement (or after sundown of this day, if the handing over of the decree to the satraps was considered “work” [Heb. mel’akah] which was forbidden on the actual day from sunset to sunset itself, Lev 23:28-32).

The published dissertation by Brempong Owusu-Antwi has shown that the term “restore” (Heb. shub in the hiphil causative) used with regard to Jerusalem in Dan 9:25 means to restore governmental autonomy for the nation of Israel with the right to make judicial decisions, and, implicitly, therefore, rebuild the city.22 The use of the second term in Dan 9:25, to “rebuild” (Heb. banah) Jerusalem, refers to the physical reconstruction of Jerusalem. The second pair of terms in Dan 9:25 indicates that the returning exiles would restore and rebuild the rekhob and the kharuts.” Owusu-Antwi demonstrates that the rekhob “square” refers to the place in the city where the judges and magistrates met to make judicial decisions, and the word kharuts in this context means the judicial “decision-making” which takes place in the city square.23 Moving to the actual wording of Artaxerxes’ decree in Ezra 7, it is shown that the allowing for the appointment of “magistrates and judges” to “judge all the people who are in the region Beyond the River” (Ezra 7:38), precisely matches the decree mentioned in Dan 9:25, and was fulfilled when the decree was put into effect in the autumn of 457 B.C.24

The last part of Ezra 8:36 does start with a verbal form ( w+qatal, pf. + waw conjunctive) which often implies a summary which jumps forward to anticipate what will continue to happen in the future: “So they [the satraps and the governors] gave support to the people and the house of God.” This indicates that in the period of time that followed their receiving the decree brought by Ezra from Artaxerxes, the satraps and governors honored the edict of the king, and allowed the process of restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem implied in the king’s decree to go forward.

By the time we reach the ninth Jewish month of this year (end of December, beginning of January), the restoration of the autonomy of Israel’s political governance with the right to make legal decisions was well underway. All “the descendants of the captivity” gathered on the twentieth day at the “open square” (rekhob) of the house of God (Ezra 10:7-9, and for an extended period of time (lasting till the first day of the first month) a judicial procedure or decision-making took place regarding those who had taken pagan wives (vv. 10-17). By explicit reference to the rekhob “open square” (v. 9), where judicial decisions were made, and reference to the judicial decision-making in the remainder of the chapter, this passage makes clear allusion to what was predicted by the prophecy of Dan 9:25: “They shall restore and rebuild the rekhob [‘square’] and the kharuts [decision-making].”

In light of the above arguments, I suggest that the “going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” certainly went forth (i.e. began to go into effect) in the fall of 457 B.C., and to be more precise, probably began to go into effect on the tenth day of the seventh month of 457 B.C.,25 the start of the Jubilee, which that year (following the intercalation year calculation) fell on October 30....

Issue 2: The Exact Date for the Ending of the 2300 Day Prophecy​

In this second half of our study, we turn to the question: On what exact date did the 2300 day prophecy end and the antitypical Day of Atonement begin?” As pointed out earlier, and substantiated elsewhere, we have a firm answer regarding the year for the beginning of both the 70 weeks and the 2300 day prophecy: 457 B.C. Starting from this date (employing the year-day principle implicit in both Daniel 8 and 9 as demonstrated by many scholars), we may do the math to find the end of the 2300 day/year prophecy, and hence the start of the antitypical Day of Atonement. From 457 B.C., we may move forward 2300 years (remembering that there is no “zero” year moving from B.C. to A.D., which the Millerite Adventists at first failed to recognize) and come to A.D. 1844. In this year, according to the prophecy of Dan 8:14, the antitypical Day of Atonement was to begin in heaven, involving the cosmic Investigative Judgment of the professed people of God.

But can we be any more precise in giving the exact date in 1844 when the antitypical Day of Atonement started? I have found weighty evidence to conclude that the date for the commencement of the Investigative Judgment and the antitypical Day of Atonement took place on October 22, 1844. Here are some of the major lines of evidence that have led me to this conclusion:

Day of Atonement typology​

According to the typology of the Hebrew festivals (Lev 23), each festival began to be fulfilled right on time, not only as to the year predicted, but as to the time corresponding to the respective festival.26 So Christ died not only in the year 31 A.D., in the middle of the 70th week of the 70 week prophecy, but He also was crucified also at the right time of year, at Passover time, in fulfillment of the Passover typology. Similarly, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the waiting disciples at the time when the day of Pentecost “had fully come” (Acts 2:1), in fulfillment of the Pentecost typology. As with the spring festivals, so we can expect that the antitype of the fall festival, the Day of Atonement, would begin on the date for the Day of Atonement date in 1844.

In 1844, according to the rabbinic calendar the Day of Atonement fell on Sept 23. However, the Millerite Adventists, in the months before the fall of 1844, became convinced that the rabbinic calendar for 1844 did not represent the true date for Day of Atonement for that year, based upon the biblical way of calculating the festivals. Rather, they argued for Oct 22 as the correct date for Day of Atonement in 1844. Why did they come to this conclusion? Does their position have solid support? We need to understand the ancient Jewish calendar and the biblical principles for calculating the beginning of the new religious year, in order to assess the situation.

Rabbinic calculation vs. biblical reckoning of the intercalated “leap-months”​

The ancient Jewish calendar utilized a combination of lunar and solar calculations (a “lunisolar year”). The months were regulated by the sighting of the new moon each month, but twelve lunar months (of 29.53059 days each) is nearly eleven days shorter (10.8752 days to be more precise) than the solar year (which is 365.242 days). Hence it was necessary to add (intercalate) an extra month (which we will call a “leap-month”) about every three years (actually almost exactly seven times every nineteen years) to keep the lunar calendar in sync with the solar calendar.

The biblical way of determining when to add (intercalate) the “leap-month” was connected to the ripening of the Judean barley harvest. At Passover time, on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the 16th day of the first month Nisan), the priest was required to wave a wave sheaf of ripe barley (Lev 23:10-12; cf. Exod 13:4; 23:15; Deut 16:1, 9). Some two or three weeks earlier, the barley came into the stage of ripeness called “Abib” (Heb. ’abib, hence name for the first month, Abib, also called Nisan). In its “Abib” stage barley has three characteristics:

1. It is brittle enough to be destroyed by hail and has begun to lighten in color (it is not “dark”). [Exod 9:31-32.]
2. The seeds have produced enough dry material so it can be eaten parched. [Lev 2:14.]
3. It has developed enough so that it will be harvest-ready 2-3 weeks later. [Deut 16:9.]27

The Biblical calendar year begins with the first new moon after the barley has reached the “Abib” stage of ripeness, so it would be harvest-ready in time to wave the wave sheaf on Nisan 16. So toward the end of the twelfth month (Adar) of the previous year, the priest would go into the field to determine if the barley was in its “Abib” stage, and would thus be harvest-ready by the middle of the next month, and if not, he would proclaim a “second Adar” (or thirteenth “leap-month”) to be intercalated before the start of the new (religious) year in the month of Nisan. Thus in the biblical calendar system, the intercalation of “leap-months” came as a result of direct observation, not mathematical formulas.

The rabbinic method for intercalating of “leap-months,” which according to Jewish tradition was worked out by Rabbi Hillel (110 B.C-A.D 10), was pre-calculated and not based upon observation of the barley harvest. Probably while the Jews were in exile in Babylon, away from the opportunity to observe the Judean barley harvest, they became acquainted with the methods of intercalation used by the Babylonians and Persians. Based upon a fixed mathematical formula similar to the Babylonians, the rabbinic system added a “second Adar” (or “leap-month”) seven times in every nineteen years (years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19)28 before starting the new religious year (with the month of Nisan). This mathematical way of calculating which years to add the “leap-months” was fixed in practice at least by the fourth century A.D. and is still in use today among orthodox Jews. This system made it possible for those Jews who did not live in Palestine to calculate the yearly calendar.

The question that concerns us is the following: in the year 1844, when the rabbinic calendar specified Sept 23 as the Day of Atonement, was this specification accurate according to the biblical way of determining the start of the Jewish year, or should there have been an extra month added at the end of the previous year in order for the barley harvest to be ripe for the waving of the wave-sheaf? In other words, according to the biblical way of calculation, was Day of Atonement on Sep 23 or Oct 22 in A.D. 1844?29 Were there any eye-witnesses to the Judean barley harvest timing in 1844 that can help us answer this question? Yes. The Karaites, which brings us to our next point.

The Karaite Jews and the Day of Atonement in 1844​

The Karaite Jews are an ancient sect of Judaism, originating in the 9th cent. A.D. Unlike rabbinical (“orthodox”) Jews, the Karaites rejected as authoritative the so-called oral torah of the rabbis, and insisted on basing all their beliefs solely on Scripture (the Hebrew Bible). They, like Protestant Christians started to do centuries later, upheld the principle of sola Scriptura—the Bible and the Bible alone as the rule of faith and practice! The name “Karaite” literally means “People of the Scripture.” During the “Golden Age of Karaism” (A.D. 900-1100) the Karaites comprised about 40% of world Jewry. What is of special significance for our discussion is that Karaite Jews rejected the pre-calculated rabbinic formulas for determining which years in the 19-year cycle one should add the intercalated months; instead they based their calculation upon the biblical method of observing the ripening of the Judean barley harvest.30

However, over the centuries many Karaite communities, not having easy access to the data about the Judean barley harvest in Palestine, accepted the rabbinic method of calculation, until by the middle of the nineteenth century it seems that almost all Karaites had adopted the pre-calculated rabbinic method of mathematical calculations rather than visual sighting of the new moon crescent and the ripening of the barley harvest in Palestine.31

However, under what I believe to be the Providence of God, a remnant of Karaites remained faithful to the biblical way of calculating the calendar until the Millerite Adventists could learn the truth about this. In the years surrounding 1844, there was a little group of Karaite Jews in Jerusalem who still maintained the biblical way of calculating the festival calendar based upon the Judean barley harvest, even though most, if not all, other Karaite groups outside of Jerusalem had abandoned this method in favor of the orthodox fixed formula of intercalations.32 Even this group of Karaites in Jerusalem seems to have abandoned the method only a decade or so after 1844.33

So far (at the time of this writing) no actual barley-harvest records of the Jerusalem Karaites for the years surrounding 1844 have been discovered. However, travelers’ reports from about this time, such as the one by E.S. Calman, make clear that the Karaites in Jerusalem were keeping the festivals according to the biblical way of calculation which was “in general” one month later than the rabbinic calendar.34 The Millerite Adventists were led in particular to Calman’s report and often cited it in their literature as they discussed the Jewish calendar and the reasons to accept October 22 as true biblically-calculated Day of Atonement in 1844 and not September 23.35

The Millerites also quoted citations from reputable scholars who suggested that the rabbinic method of calculation— which tended to start the religious year in March rather than April and the civil year in September rather than October—was probably influenced by the Roman calendar which started in March, and their desire to be more in sync with common Roman practice, or alternatively, perhaps they were overruled by Roman authority.36

Modern Karaite Jews in the State of Israel have once again begun to calculate the beginning of the religious year by the biblical method, adding an extra twelfth month when necessary so the barley will be ripe in time to wave at Passover time, and recent calendars based upon this method often lead to celebrating the Day of Atonement in October (even the latter half of the month) rather than in September, almost identical to the situation which seems to have been present in 1843-1844.37

The season for the barley to be ripe​

Coupled with this argument from the practice of the Karaites, the Millerites combined an argument based upon the Palestinian climate and agricultural seasons. Reference was often made to Johann Buhle’s “Economical Calendar of Palestine,” based upon empirical “research of travelers of acknowledged authenticity,” which makes very clear that although the barley is often ripe in Jericho by the end of March, it is not ripe in Jerusalem or elsewhere in Palestine until some two weeks later. 38

Based upon this agricultural data of the seasonal climate in Palestine reasonably contemporary with the time of the Millerites, Millerite Adventists rightly concluded that the Jewish religious year needed to start with a new moon in April, not March, so that the barley could be ripe some two weeks later. It could not start with a new moon in March in 1844, as would be true if one accepted a Day of Atonement in September and not October that year. Thus according to climate considerations, Day of Atonement would need to come in October of 1844, Oct 22, to be precise.

A 500-year precedent for the beginning of the year in Babylonian chronology​

We refer to the charts of Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C—A. D. 75.39 I was intrigued to examine whether or not, throughout the entire period of the 70 weeks prophecy (457 B.C. to A.D. 34), the 19-year intercalation cycle as practiced by the ancient Babylonians and those powers who continued them, ever had a year begin as early as needed in order to have a September 23 Day of Atonement (10th day of the seventh month). As one checks the record of this period of nearly five hundred years, one can look in vain for even one time when the calendar even came close to starting at such an early date!40 The earliest attested date during this whole period of the seventy-seek prophecy for the tenth day of Tishri is Sept 30 (one day shy of being an October date), and this only occurred very rarely. Even though Babylon and later superpowers were not concerned about coordinating the calendar with the ripening of the barley harvest, as were the Jews, nonetheless the regular and consistent time for the start of the new year was later than needed to have a September 23 date for Day of Atonement. Such has implications for the dating of Day of Atonement in 1844. If the date is Sept 23, then such is out of sync with the dating during 19-year cycle of the time during the 70-week prophecy, the time during which the 2300 day prophecy began. Therefore, it would be out of sync with the time of the ending of the 2300 day prophecy as well. This leads to the next point....

Direct mathematical computation: William Shea​

In a penetrating study by William Shea, the author proposes that we can bypass the whole issue of the Karaite calendar, and determine the correct date of Day of Atonement in 1844 by direct mathematical computations connected with ancient calendrical practice.41 Shea reviews the presence of the 19-year cycle of the ancient Hebrew calendar, based upon “the fact that 235 lunar months have almost exactly the same number of days as 19 solar years.”42 Shea also points out that according to the tables of Parker and Dubberstein, for the years 457 B.C. and following there are basically three different positions for the Julian dates of Day of Atonement in the intercalary cycle: (A) late, (B) intermediate, and (C) early. Each of these positions are about eleven days apart, since, as we have pointed out earlier, the lunar year (about 354 days) is approximately eleven days shorter than the solar year (about 365 days), and thus the date for Day of Atonement, based upon the lunar calendar (10th day of the seventh month, Tishre), falls back by about eleven days every year, until the extra (intercalated) month is added to advance the calendar forward again to keep it in line with the solar calendar. So, looking at the time period surrounding the year 457 B.C., according to the Parker and Dubberstein tables, we find the following pattern:

• in 459 B.C. Tishri 1 was Oct 12 (the A or late position),
• in 458 B.C., it was Oct 2 (the B or intermediate position), and
• in 457 B.C. it was Sept 21 (the C or early position). Then came an intercalated month and so
• in 456 B.C. it was back to Oct 10 (the A or late position).

Since this pattern is consistent for each of the successive 19 year cycles, Shea suggests that we can simply divide the 2300 years of Dan 8:14 by 19, and see if the answer come out even. If so, then the date for Day of Atonement will be on the same position (early) as in 457 B.C. If our division comes out with one year left over, then the 1844 date will be the next position, i.e., the intermediate position; etc.

So Shea does the math: 2300 divided by 19 = 121, with one left over. Therefore, Shea concludes, we can go to the Parker and Dubberstein tables to see what position was Tishri 1 in 457 B.C. (late, intermediate, or early), and then move forward one position to have the correct position in 1844. Since, according to the Parker and Dubberstein tables Tishri 1 was in the early or C position in 457 B.C. (Sept 21), then it mathematically follows that Tishri 1 in A.D. 1844 should be one position further in the cycle, i.e., reverting to the late (A) position with the addition of an intercalated year (as in 456 B.C.). If Tishri 1 in 1844 is in the late position, then the late date of October 22 is the correct date for Day of Atonement that year.

Shea’s methodology seems solid, but I suggest that two additional factors need to be taken into account which Shea did not consider. First, Tishri 1 (and Day of Atonement) was most probably not in the early position in 457 B.C., as speculated (without textual documentation) by Parker and Dubberstein, and accepted by Shea, but because of the intercalated month in 457B.C. it was in the late (A) position, with Day of Atonement late in October that year. We have discussed this elsewhere and referred to it in the first part of this paper.

Secondly, Shea correctly recognizes that “235 lunar months have almost exactly the same number of days as 19 solar years” but he doesn’t take into account exactly how many days are accumulated over the period of 2300 years by that very slight slippage. I did the math! And the results were startling, and exciting! Over the period of 2300 years there was a slippage of about eleven days— the very number that is the equivalent of one year’s difference between the positions A, B, and C as described above.43 In other words, instead of there being one day left over after dividing 2300 by 19, this one day is offset by the eleven-day (or one position in the cycle) slippage of the nineteen year cycle over a period of 2300 years. The result is that 1844 has the same position (i.e. late or A position, as described above) in the intercalary cycle as 457 B.C.! If Day of Atonement was in the late (October) position in 457 B.C., then 2300 years later, in 1844, it was in exactly the same late position, i.e., Oct 22, and not Sept 23!

The rabbinic calendar “creep” over the centuries​

One crucial implication of the computations referred to in the previous point is that by the time of the Millerites’ preaching in the 1840’s, the rabbinic calendar, unchecked by calibrating it to the barley harvest, had been allowed to creep forward by nearly eleven days, so that the new year was frequently, almost regularly, occurring too early for the barley harvest to be ripe. Between the years 1800 and 1850, according to the rabbinic calendar the earliest date for Yom Kippur was Sept 14 (1842) and the latest date was Oct 14 (1815). These dates are averaging some ten or eleven days earlier than the dates for Yom Kippur during the period of the 70 week prophecy (457 B.C. to 34 A.D.).

It is no wonder that the eye-witness Calman could state (ca. 1840) that the Karaite (biblical) way of calculation for the festivals was “in general” one month later than the rabbinic calendar. It wasn’t just a matter of a choice of which year to add the extra month; the entire system of the rabbinic calendar was running 1/3 of a month ahead of the biblical method of calculation. To use William Shea’s reference to “positions” of the date for Day of Atonement, as mentioned in our previous point, the Karaite system in the 1840’s was still operating on the “A” “B” and “C” positions, but the rabbinic calculations had shifted to the “B” “C” and “D” positions, with the early (“B” position”) never being as early as the Karaite/biblical “A” position, and the late (“D” position) always being too late for the Karaite/biblical position calibrated with the barley harvest.

The disparity between the rabbinic and the Karaite calendars is apparent in looking at the rabbinic calendar 19-year cycle from the years 1827 (year 1 of the cycle) to 1845 (year 19 of the cycle). During this period at least nine times out of the nineteen (and perhaps eleven times) the rabbinic reckoning for the new year came too early to be acceptable in a Karaite calendar which correlated with the ripening of the barley.

For examples, in 1842 (year 16 of the 19 year rabbinic cycle) the new year (Nisan 1) came on Mar 12, an impossibly low year for any barley harvest correlation with Passover. In the next year 1843 (year 17 of the 19 year cycle) the rabbinic calendar added the second Adar, and still this (“late”)“A” position for Nisan 1 was only April 1. In the year 1844 (year 18 of the 19 year cycle) the rabbinic calendar did not add the second Adar, and Nisan 1 was March 21, a date too early for the barley to be ripe in Jerusalem so a ripe sheaf could be waved on Nisan 16. In the year 1845 (year 19 of the 19 year cycle), the rabbis added a second Adar, and Nisan 1 was April 8. Thus in the four years 1842-1845, according to the rabbinic calculation each of those years in which a second Adar was not added was too early for the barley harvest correlation with Passover!

F. C. Ewald’s testimony of calendar convergence in 1843​

According to the eyewitness account of F. C. Ewald, both Karaites and orthodox Jews in Jerusalem kept the festivals on the same day this year of 1843, and this convergence of dates is regarded as an unusual occurrence.44 This report is important in showing that in 1843-44 the Jerusalem Karaites were indeed still calculating the new year based upon the ripening of the barley harvest, contrary to modern claims even by contemporary Karaites.45 Ewald’s comment on this convergence probably also implies that although this early date was an intercalated year for the orthodox Jews, this was not an intercalated year for the Jerusalem Karaites (whose intercalations regularly yielded a new year much further into April).

The disparity between rabbinic and Jerusalem Karaite calendar continues, as in 1844 (year 18 of the rabbinic 19 year cycle) the rabbinic calendar did not add the second Adar, while, as we are arguing, the Karaites in Jerusalem did add this second Adar in order to correlate with the barley harvest. In this year, according the rabbinic calculation, Nisan 1 came on March 21, too early for the barley to be ripe by Nisan 16, and thus it was necessary for the Karaites to add the second Adar. In 1845 (year 19 of the rabbinic cycle) the rabbinic calendar added a 2nd Adar while, we argue, the Karaites in Jerusalem did not need to.

Thus the rabbinic and Jerusalem Karaite calendars were very divergent due to the nearly eleven-day slippage in the nineteen-year cycle from 2300 years earlier at the start of the 2300 day prophecy, and any convergence (such as reported by Ewald) in a given year only highlights the more-frequent, in fact, regular, differences. The evidence indicates that the chances are very great for 1844 being such a divergent year, in which the Jerusalem Karaites, following the agricultural cycle as directed in Scripture, added the 2nd Adar to “guard the Abib,”46 while the rabbinic calendar made no addition, even though the new year started too early for the barley to be ripe in time for Passover.....

Ezekiel’s typological Day of Atonement​

Shifting away from calculations related to intercalated months and nineteen-year cycles, I turn to a crucial typological correspondence that I cannot explain as mere co-incidence. In our discussion of the covenant lawsuit motif in my textbook on the sanctuary (ch. 17), I look at the typology of the final investigative judgment as set forth in the book of Ezekiel. I show how the entire book of Ezekiel was structured around the theme of Yom Kippur, with the opening section (chs. 1-11) dealing with the investigative judgment motif of Yom Kippur, the closing vision of the prophet (chs. 40-48) dealing with the “cleansing/restoration” of the sanctuary motif of Yom Kippur, and the center of the book highlighting the judgment of the “Fallen Cherub” (28:11-19, the antitype of Azazel in Lev 16).

What is particularly striking in this typology is the timing of the last vision, given “at the beginning of the year [rosh hashanah], on the tenth day of the month” (Eze 40:1), i.e., the tenth day of the seventh month, which is Day of Atonement. On what particular Day of Atonement does God choose to give Ezekiel this vision which pertains to the eschatological Day of Atonement? He chooses the year in which the computation of the exact date in our modern equivalent is nothing less than—October 22!47 In this most expansive OT type of the investigative judgment, God gives not only the major features and issues of the investigative judgment message (see discussion in my sanctuary textbook in ch. 17), but gives the vision on exactly same date of the year in which the anti-typical Day of Atonement would begin, October 22. I find it difficult to see this date as only coincidental. The details of the typology are perfect, even pointing to the right date for its fulfillment!

The typological-chronological precision of the 2300 years at their beginning and end​

This last piece of evidence is “icing on the cake.” It may not be a necessary feature of the typological fulfilment of the festivals that there is chronological precision and consistency. But if there is such precise consistency divinely built into such typological chronology, the following is worth noting. We have found earlier in this study that the weight of evidence points not only toward the fall of 457 B.C. as the start of the 2300 day and 70 week prophecies, but more precisely, toward the Day of Atonement as the probable exact date when the decree of Artaxerxes went into effect in that year. We also learned that since 457 B.C. was probably an intercalated (“leap-month”) year (or else Ezra would be beginning his return on a Sabbath), and that Day of Atonement (Tishri 10) took place that year in the last part of October (not September), Oct 30, 457 B.C., to be exact. If consistency and precision is involved in the fulfillment of the prophecy of Dan 8:14, then we could expect that the end of the 2300 day prophecy, like its beginning, would take place (1) on a Day of Atonement (2) in the last part of October, (3) in an intercalated (“leap-month”) year. Such is the case: in 1844, the Day of Atonement took place in late October of an intercalated (“leap-month”) year, just like 2300 years earlier. Only if one intercalates an extra month in the year 1844, bringing one to October 22 instead of Sept 23, does this precision and consistency become evident.

In light of the evidence presented above—including the evidence from the Karaite calendar and typology but especially the direct calculation based upon Shea’s methodology—I conclude with a high degree of probability (although without the barley-harvest records for the Jerusalem Karaites from 1844 it cannot yet be proven absolutely) that in the year 1844 Day of Atonement occurred on October 22, not September 23, and this date marks the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement predicted in Daniel 8:14.

In summary, the beginning and ending dates of the 2300 day prophecy of Dan 8:14 are solid and secure with regard to the year (457 B.C. and A.D.1844). We may also be more precise in regard to the exact dates—probably beginning on the Day of Atonement in 457 B.C. (October 30), and certainly ending on Day of Atonement in A.D. 1844, which that year, according to the biblical reckoning, almost certainly fell on October 22, not September 23.

AI breaks it down to a more manageable size...
In Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) theology, the 2,300 days mentioned in Daniel 8:14 represents 2,300 literal years based on the biblical "day-for-a-year" principle (Numbers 14:34, Ezekiel 4:6). It is the longest time prophecy in the Bible, culminating in the Investigative Judgment. [1, 2]

The Core Sequence of the Prophecy
The 2,300-year prophecy is deeply interconnected with the 70 weeks (490 years) prophecy in Daniel 9. Adventists break down the timeline as follows: [1, 2]

• Starting Point (457 BC): The prophecy begins with the decree by Persian King Artaxerxes I to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.
• The First 490 Years: The first 70 weeks (490 years) were "cut off" and specifically allotted to the Jewish nation. This period culminated in the anointing of Jesus as the Messiah (AD 27), His crucifixion (AD 31), and the formal spreading of the gospel to the Gentiles (AD 34).
• The Remaining 1,810 Years: Subtracting the 490 years from the total 2,300 leaves 1,810 years. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Ending Event: 1844
Because there is no "zero year" between BC and AD, the remaining 1,810 years reach forward from AD 34 to October 22, 1844. [1, 2]

• The Cleansing of the Sanctuary: Daniel 8:14 states that "...then the sanctuary shall be cleansed." Early Adventists originally misunderstood this to mean Christ would return to cleanse the earth with fire (the "Great Disappointment"). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• The Heavenly Reality: Adventists believe the "sanctuary" being cleansed is not on earth, but in heaven. In 1844, Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary to begin a final phase of His high-priestly ministry, known as the Investigative Judgment. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Investigative Judgment: This is a pre-advent judgment where the records of all who have professed faith in God are examined to determine who is genuinely entitled to salvation before Christ returns. [1, 2, 3, 4]

You can learn more about this timeline and the sanctuary doctrine on the Amazing Facts Study Guide

@reddogs

Thank you for posting the information. Though you managed to find an even more involved version than the norm, which may obscure a few of the basics for folks new to the idea. It is nonetheless helpful for for tying it to the theme of the jubilee cycle in Daniel 9.

@Maria Billingsley Please see the explanation of the time period above.

tall73 said:

@reddogs

Thank you for posting the information. Though you managed to find an even more involved version than the norm, which may obscure a few of the basics for folks new to the idea. It is nonetheless helpful for for tying it to the theme of the jubilee cycle in Daniel 9.

@Maria Billingsley Please see the explanation of the time period above.

Click to expand...

Glad I could help Tall. If I may a suggestion, we can keep this one for explanation, and post the discussion and notes from here in the main one we have for discussion and debate The Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent Judgement.

That way we can keep this one clear for explanation on the 2300 days, day year principle, the prophetic progression to October 22 1844, etc.. If thats ok with everyone...

reddogs said:

"When Did The 2300 Days Of Daniel 8:14 Begin And End? Fresh Evidence From Scripture, Chronology, And Karaite History

Click to expand...

I can’t believe we are now at the point of using Karaite history, the Karaites being a Jewish sect that appeared no earlier than the sixth century in reaction to Rabinnical excess, to criticize traditional Christians and the Roman Catholic Church. That is so far beyond the pale.

Do Karaites believe in Jesus Christ as the messiah? No. Do they believe in the Talmud? Also no, but they have their own peculiar beliefs and are a much more recent religion than Christianity or even Rabinnical Judaism. Among the more amusing Karaite beliefs is their rejection of the existence of the Devil - I wish I was making this up, but the fact of the matter is that they regard the Serpent as merely a cunning snake.

Yet you want us to regard Karaite theology as more reliable in eschatological analysis than Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox theology? This seems to me to defy credulity, since we are talking about a small branch of Judaism, one that happens to deny the exitence devil, which is rather important particularly to Adventist eschatology…. At least Roman Catholics acknowledge the existence of the devil as our adversary, in accordance with the New Testament which makes this fact undeniable (I would argue with the Old Testament its also undeniable and rabbinical Jews are correct to assert that a devil exists, but incorrect in most other respects, but the Karaites did not fix that problem, since the core problem with Judaism was denial of the Incarantion of God in the person of the Christ, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus, who is Emanuel, God with us, and the related denial of the Trinity, that is to say of the deity of the Holy Spirit and the Father (Jews regard God as “King of the Universe” but seldom call Him Father) and the coequality and coeternity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - one God, abiding in three distinct but indivisible persons in an eternal unity of perfect love.

The Liturgist said:

I can’t believe we are now at the point of using Karaite history, the Karaites being a Jewish sect that appeared no earlier than the sixth century in reaction to Rabinnical excess, to criticize traditional Christians and the Roman Catholic Church. That is so far beyond the pale.

Do Karaites believe in Jesus Christ as the messiah? No. Do they believe in the Talmud? Also no, but they have their own peculiar beliefs and are a much more recent religion than Christianity or even Rabinnical Judaism. Among the more amusing Karaite beliefs is their rejection of the existence of the Devil - I wish I was making this up, but the fact of the matter is that they regard the Serpent as merely a cunning snake.

Yet you want us to regard Karaite theology as more reliable in eschatological analysis than Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox theology? This seems to me to defy credulity, since we are talking about a small branch of Judaism, one that happens to deny the exitence devil, which is rather important particularly to Adventist eschatology…. At least Roman Catholics acknowledge the existence of the devil as our adversary, in accordance with the New Testament which makes this fact undeniable (I would argue with the Old Testament its also undeniable and rabbinical Jews are correct to assert that a devil exists, but incorrect in most other respects, but the Karaites did not fix that problem, since the core problem with Judaism was denial of the Incarantion of God in the person of the Christ, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus, who is Emanuel, God with us, and the related denial of the Trinity, that is to say of the deity of the Holy Spirit and the Father (Jews regard God as “King of the Universe” but seldom call Him Father) and the coequality and coeternity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - one God, abiding in three distinct but indivisible persons in an eternal unity of perfect love.

Click to expand...

If we can be considerate and keep this thread clear for the explanation and keep the discussion/debate in The Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent Judgement.

Thank you so much..

reddogs said:

If we can be considerate and keep this thread clear for the explanation and keep the discussion/debate in The Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent Judgement.

Thank you so much..

Click to expand...

My post is directly topical - I am asking why we are using Karaite sources to try to prove the Investigative Judgement, which is a doctrine the Karaites don’t believe, while at the same time rejecting Orthodox, Catholic and other Patristic sources.

I feel as though words are being put in the mouth of Karaite Jews in an attempt to prop up a doctrine that is entirely alien to them (since Karaites do not even believe in the devil, and are also a severely persecuted minority population).

Arguments that appeal to Karaite theology in relation to the Investigative Judgement are fallacious on multiple levels since Karaite theology denies the Incarnation of Christ, denies the existence of the devil, denies that the Messiah has come, denies the Nicene Creed and all other tenets of Christianity, even heterodox Christianity, and the essential truths as believed by Karaites are fundamentally different from those of any pre-tribulationist Christians including those who believe in the Investigative Judgement, therefore, citing them is an appeal to unqualified authority and is also an imposition upon their religion in the same way that if a Karaite quoted our Scriptures in an attempt to prove one of their doctrines it would be an imposition against our faith.

The issue is one of logic, and logical fallacies, and specifically the appeal to unqualified authority fallacy, which we have also seen vis a vis Josephus, another non-Christian Jew, albeit of the Pharisaical persuasion, whose views differ from the known beliefs of Sadducees and other contemporary Jews and from those of the Christians of that era.

It is extremely important to avoid logical fallacies when trying to make a theological point, because Christ is the Logos. Now, an argument that contains a fallacy is not inherently incorrect in its conclusions, but because its methodology is flawed it becomes impossible to reasonably assess the legitimacy of the argument, since the argument is by definition Alogoi (illogical or unreasonable) and this is why I’m objecting to the use of Karaite beliefs as a source in supporting the Investigative Judgement.

If Christ is the Logos then we must be logical in approaching theological issues.

The Liturgist said:

My post is directly topical - I am asking why we are using Karaite sources to try to prove the Investigative Judgement, which is a doctrine the Karaites don’t believe, while at the same time rejecting Orthodox, Catholic and other Patristic sources.

I feel as though words are being put in the mouth of Karaite Jews in an attempt to prop up a doctrine that is entirely alien to them (since Karaites do not even believe in the devil, and are also a severely persecuted minority population).

Arguments that appeal to Karaite theology in relation to the Investigative Judgement are fallacious on multiple levels since Karaite theology denies the Incarnation of Christ, denies the existence of the devil, denies that the Messiah has come, denies the Nicene Creed and all other tenets of Christianity, even heterodox Christianity, and the essential truths as believed by Karaites are fundamentally different from those of any pre-tribulationist Christians including those who believe in the Investigative Judgement, therefore, citing them is an appeal to unqualified authority and is also an imposition upon their religion in the same way that if a Karaite quoted our Scriptures in an attempt to prove one of their doctrines it would be an imposition against our faith.

The issue is one of logic, and logical fallacies, and specifically the appeal to unqualified authority fallacy, which we have also seen vis a vis Josephus, another non-Christian Jew, albeit of the Pharisaical persuasion, whose views differ from the known beliefs of Sadducees and other contemporary Jews and from those of the Christians of that era.

It is extremely important to avoid logical fallacies when trying to make a theological point, because Christ is the Logos. Now, an argument that contains a fallacy is not inherently incorrect in its conclusions, but because its methodology is flawed it becomes impossible to reasonably assess the legitimacy of the argument, since the argument is by definition Alogoi (illogical or unreasonable) and this is why I’m objecting to the use of Karaite beliefs as a source in supporting the Investigative Judgement.

If Christ is the Logos then we must be logical in approaching theological issues.

Click to expand...

As I said, lets keep this thread clear for the explanation and keep the discussion/debate and the questions in The Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent Judgement.