Day-for-a-year in prophecy question

[Windmill]

I don't get it, why do we have it, like what makes us believe it is so when almost all other denominations have renounced it, and how do we know when to apply it? For instance, we do not apply it to the 1000 years spoken about in revelation when we go to heaven even though that is a prophecy. Why not?

 

[freeindeed2]

I don't get it, why do we have it, like what makes us believe it is so when almost all other denominations have renounced it, and how do we know when to apply it? For instance, we do not apply it to the 1000 years spoken about in revelation when we go to heaven even though that is a prophecy. Why not?

Great question!!! In SDAism it's usually only applied when it's convenient for the desired result (i.e. the end date of 1844!).

 

[Adventist Dissident]

i am reading over the "daniel and revelation study committee " it is th SDA chruch offical response to the questions about our postion on prophetic interpetation. it is really good.

there is a number of reason why.
1. the method did not originate with the SDA it was well used in jewish psedupigraphial literature "the book of jubliees , the testement of Levi, 1 enoch 89-93 all contain references to it.
so to the Qumran literature, 11q melcheizedek, 4 q 384-390 Pseudo-Ezekie, 4 Q 180-181 the age of creation

post-quramn liteature includes Josephus , 4 ezra and the assumption of moses.
so this is not new with the SDA's

2. therer are 2 options in interpation literal or symbolic. is you take the 1260 literally the you are left with 3.5 leiteral years to be fulled. the same is with the 2300 days, if you take the 2300 day literal then you are left with a literal 6.5 years to fullfill the prophecy which cannot be the case becuse it spans empires, this favors a symbolic interpation. if you apply the 2300 days literally then there are only 2 places for possible interpation, at the persian-greece empire change or that the Greece-Rome empire change., both of which require you to deny the existance of one of the empires mentioned. the only one intepation that span the time frame without difficulty is the symbolic day for a year principle.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Then there is the 70 weeks = 490 days = 490 years prophecy which takes us to the time and ministry of Christ to the precise year that He began His ministry, to the precise year that He did on the Cross, and to the precise year that the nation of Israel sealed their rejection of Christ via the stoning of Stephen.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The seventy sevens actually never uses the term days, so it does not really apply to the whole year for a day debate.

 

[Cliff2]

Windmill

I would imagine there are far better qualified here tahn I to answer your question.

Anyway I will give it a shot.


It works and I guess that it as good as reason to believe it than any.

Take 457 BC to 1844 AD, no other interpretation works.

Then look at the 490 year prophecy, again it works.

History has shown just how accurate it is.

The one that really has me sold on it is the 1260 years/days

538 - 1798.

No other system comes near to showing us just what it is than the year day method.

So when looking at it take things as God would ahve us do it. Is it the logical way to go about it.

The creation week, is it going to be a whole year for God to create what he did on each day.

We know it did not.

Christ was not in the tomb for three literal years but days.

Commonsense is a good way to look at it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The seventy sevens actually never uses the term days, so it does not really apply to the whole year for a day debate.

I have to interject and object to this post. the 70 weeks does apply here and the day for a year does apply. Here are you options.

1. 70 weeks is leteral - if you take this as a literal then you are left with about 1.25 years to fulfill the prophecy from its commencemnt. The temple must be built, the walls repaired, the king comes, is cut off and then annointed. That takes longer the 1.25 years.

2. 70 weeks are symbolic and day for a year apply.- If this is the case then 490 years is enough time to fullfill the events.

unless you have another option, those are your choices. The most logical option is to invoke the day for a year principal.

 

[Sophia7]

I have to interject and object to this post. the 70 weeks does apply here and the day for a year does apply. Here are you options.

1. 70 weeks is leteral - if you take this as a literal then you are left with about 1.25 years to fulfill the prophecy from its commencemnt. The temple must be built, the walls repaired, the king comes, is cut off and then annointed. That takes longer the 1.25 years.

2. 70 weeks are symbolic and day for a year apply.- If this is the case then 490 years is enough time to fullfill the events.

unless you have another option, those are your choices. The most logical option is to invoke the day for a year principal.

There is another option: that the 70 weeks (or weeks of years) is an expression of 490 years using the jubilee cycle. You don't need the day-for-a-year principle to get 490 literal years out of Daniel 9:24.

 

[Sophia7]

Another thing about the day-for-a-year principle: the texts that Adventists use to support it are not even prophetic predictions of the future, as in Daniel. Numbers 14:34 was a judicial sentence for Israel's unbelief in refusing to enter Canaan after the spies explored the land, and Ezekiel 4:4-6 was representative of the years of Israel's and Judah's past sins. Applying these texts to prophetic passages in other parts of the Bible (which we don't do consistently but only when it suits our purposes) requires taking them completely out of context.

 

[Sophia7]

i am reading over the "daniel and revelation study committee " it is th SDA chruch offical response to the questions about our postion on prophetic interpetation. it is really good.

I haven't read Selected Studies (which includes two sections on the day-for-a-year principle) yet, but it's next on my reading list. It's possible that Shea uses better arguments than our evangelists or Amazing Facts studies.

I just finished Symposium on Daniel a couple of weeks ago. I was not impressed with it, though, because it's interminably boring , and at least three-fourths of the book is irrelevant to the problems that most people have with Adventist doctrine.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Another thing about the day-for-a-year principle: the texts that Adventists use to support it are not even prophetic predictions of the future, as in Daniel. Numbers 14:34 was a judicial sentence for Israel's unbelief in refusing to enter Canaan after the spies explored the land, and Ezekiel 4:4-6 was representative of the years of Israel's and Judah's past sins. Applying these texts to prophetic passages in other parts of the Bible (which we don't do consistently but only when it suits our purposes) requires taking them completely out of context.

i have to disagree here.the day years is applicable and the revelence of the judical or prophetic is small, that is a technicalaity that is not worth making. In fact 1 could make the claim that 490 is judical because it is iseral's last chance.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Yes, it was Israel's last chance as the chosen nation of people.

It was after these 490 years expired that there was a transition from Literal Israel to Spiritual Israel as God's chosen people, which since then includes both Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Sophia7]

i have to disagree here.the day years is applicable and the revelence of the judical or prophetic is small, that is a technicalaity that is not worth making. In fact 1 could make the claim that 490 is judical because it is iseral's last chance.

It's not a "technicality that is not worth making." It's a contextual issue that is important; you can't ignore context to make the Bible say what you want it to say. The 70 weeks are in a completely different setting and are not representative of specific time periods in the past relating to the sins of Israel, as the two "day-for-a-year" texts are. Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6 have a completely different purpose: they don't give Israel any last chances; instead, they spell out punishment for what's already done.

 

[djconklin]

>The 70 weeks are in a completely different setting and are not representative of specific time periods in the past relating to the sins of Israel,

The fact that the 70 weeks was not chosen at random is indicative of how they thought and worked with numbers/symbolism. There is no requirement that the 70 weeks refer back to a specific time frame of Israel's specific disobedience.

>Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6 have a completely different purpose: they don't give Israel any last chances; instead, they spell out punishment for what's already done.

Israel already had their chances; they didn't take the opportunity to obey the Lord.

 

[Sophia7]

The fact that the 70 weeks was not chosen at random is indicative of how they thought and worked with numbers/symbolism. There is no requirement that the 70 weeks refer back to a specific time frame of Israel's specific disobedience.

No, there is no requirement, but the fact that the 70-weeks prophecy doesn't refer back to a specific past time frame puts it in a different context. I don't see any contextual justification for applying the Numbers and Ezekiel texts to Daniel 9:24.

Israel already had their chances; they didn't take the opportunity to obey the Lord.

Yes, so the purpose of Daniel 9:24 is totally different from that of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6.

 

[djconklin]

The purpose and context is not that important; it shows the mind-set.

 

[freeindeed2]

No, there is no requirement, but the fact that the 70-weeks prophecy doesn't refer back to a specific past time frame puts it in a different context. I don't see any contextual justification for applying the Numbers and Ezekiel texts to Daniel 9:24.



Yes, so the purpose of Daniel 9:24 is totally different from that of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6.

I agree!

 

[Jon0388g]

There is evidence within Daniel that confirms the day-year principle of prophecy.

From chapters 10 onwards, the visions are explained plainly in non-symbolic language, in terms of the actual military conquests. Here we find the angel repeatedly emphasising periods of years:

"After some years....and he on his part will refrain from attacking the king of the North for some years.....and after an interval of some years..." Daniel 11:6, 8, 13

I do agree that the two verses in Ezekiel and Numbers are slightly contrived to base our whole theology on. The evidence within Daniel, and the accuracy of the prophecy itself, more than confirms the correct use of the technique.

Jon

 

[tall73]

While I have preached the 70 weeks a number of times myself, and certainly want to believe it, I have a problem in that we can't prove at least three of the major dates.

There is no date of Stephen's stoning.

There is no date regarding the restoring of the temple after 7 sevens, if that is even what is indicated (seems to be), and there is no definite date even of Jesus' crucifixion. The usual way of reckoning is to take the Baptismal date, which is pretty solid, and count the number of passovers mentioned. There is one feast we think is a passover.

In any case, estimates vary as to the length of Jesus' ministry. I think this date is at least somewhat verifiable ,but the other two are not.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I have to interject and object to this post. the 70 weeks does apply here and the day for a year does apply. Here are you options.

No it really does not work that way. Here is an article on my website on the subject which is pretty good.
http://newprotestants.com/YeardayArticle.htm

Why are the seventy weeks (literally seventy "sevens") correctly interpreted as seventy weeks of years, i.e. 70 times 7 years, or 490 years? It is because of the following three important ideas with which Daniel's audience would be very familiar.
The first idea is that the Babylonian captivity was a punishment (Jeremiah 25:4-11). The second is the concept of an original punishment being multiplied by seven ( Leviticus 26:14-39, especially verses 18, 21, 23-24, and 27-28). The third concept is that of weeks of years, i.e. years in groups of sevens (Leviticus 25:1-8). There is a fourth idea that is also important in correctly interpreting the seventy weeks. It is the idea that Daniel employs figurative language. Daniel 2:39, for example, uses hyperbole when it says that the third kingdom will rule all over the world. This has never been true of any historical empire. Daniel also uses numbers symbolically. Most Bible scholars feel that the number "seven" is used symbolically in Daniel 3:19; 4:16,23,25, 32, and quite likely in chapter 9 as well. So, while the first three ideas lead nearly all commentators to agree that seventy weeks of years is meant, idea number four tells us that we should not necessarily look for exactness in either the total number of years (490), or in the breakdown into groups of seven weeks (49 years), sixty-two weeks (434 years), and one week (7 years). These are not necessarily exact periods of time any more than the furnace was heated exactly seven times hotter than normal.