Day-for-a-year in prophecy question

[djconklin]

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.

Please name them and supply the sources.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If you have not learned of the symbolic nature of the number 7 then you should do some research, they have this thing now called the internet you can look up loads of things there.

 

[Jimlarmore]

If you have not learned of the symbolic nature of the number 7 then you should do some research, they have this thing now called the internet you can look up loads of things there.

Why be patronizing RC? The man asked a simple request of you. If you are going to make allegations then at least give him a link to click on.

In the cases you are referring to specifically Dan 3:19 , Dan 4:23. The latter is speaking of 7 times being 7 years. The ancient interpretations of the aramaic " iddan" which is "time" is said to mean a year. The original expositors to accept this was Josephus in Antiquities, Jerome, Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Jephet. The number 7 may indeed have symbolic meaning but it can also mean a literal amount of time. Here this applies to the 7 year period Nebuchadnezzar spent as an insane man.

To say the earlier verse was symbolic is making a supposition on your part but I think it's accurate to say they heated the furnace as hot as they could get it.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Why be patronizing RC? The man asked a simple request of you. If you are going to make allegations then at least give him a link to click on.

The article I quoted was not written by me so I don't have the lists of resources the author used. It would seem just as easy for DJ to do the research as for me, the issue is hardly even the subject being addressed.

 

[djconklin]

Just as I figured.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Just as I figured.

Thanks for sharing. I imagine most of what you think is "Just as I figured", though your method of admitting that you figured it is just as you figured and no one knows because you have not revealed what you figured, I fail to see why you bothered sharing it.

 

[OntheDL]

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?

I think this question was asked awhile ago...

A prophecy is given in the bible not to predict the future, but rather when it came to pass, it vindicates God.

Isaiah 48
3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.
4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;
5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.
6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.
7 They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.

So it addresses the 1000 year reign issue. It's an 'unspecified' period of time that has yet to happen.

The day for a year principle is not unique to SDAs. Many of the Reformation pioneers used this principle to interpretes the prophecies to identify the papacy.

And many rabbi's knew the messiah came and went during the last week of the 70 weeks. The book of Daniel is a cursed book by rabbinical teachings.

 

[tall73]

RCNP
The following things are true about this Numbers 14:34:
(1) "Days" means "days."
(2) "Day" means "day."
(3) "Years" means "years."(4) "Year" means "year."
(5) The words "days" and "day" are not even involved in the predictive prophecy part of the verse. What is explicitly predicted is not forty days, but forty years, of suffering in the wilderness. That's what is meant. And that's what it says – forty years.
(6) If you substituted "years" in place of "days" in this verse, all you would get is a lie. It would then say that the Israelites spied out the land forty years, which, of course, they didn't do.
(7) This is clearly not a case of one word being used to mean another. What is said equals what is meant. This is simply a case of correspondence: the number of years of suffering in the wilderness is going to correspond to the number of days the spies were observing Canaan.


That makes some sense.

The arguments on the 70 weeks though need to be stronger. I think Shea makes some good points on that one though I need to look more thoroughly at his usage argument on the terms.

I have been going through Shea's articles again on this point.

Here are the arguments I have typed something up on so far. I have not gotten to typing out my response to the later arguments, which I think are stronger. On a few areas he made some good points.

I am going through these in order, so some may be augmented by later arguments. I am not going to go back to edit in most cases, but will address things in the order they appear. I am not getting into the Hebrew as I am certainly not qualified. I will address it only as he spells it out and it is necessary to his argument.

- The futurist and preterist methods leave many centuries with no commentary by God on prophetic events.

A. There are other prophets besides Daniel and Revelation, and the Spirit is still available today. There is no rule that says that any given book, even an apocalyptic one must address every period in history. In fact, by their nature, they focus on the beginning and end, and the cosmic struggle which is prominent in both, and resolved at the end of time.

B. Ultimately we can’t base what God should do on what we expect. If the prophecies occur in windows of time related to particular events rather than long periods we cannot insist it be otherwise. We have to approach the text for whatever it says.

-Time prophecies often deal with times of adversity which eventually are resolved by God, bringing about good.

Seems accurate for the most part.

-literal prophecy speaks to conditions in time of the prophet. But apocalyptic prophecy deals with end of time cosmic struggles. Strangely those time periods mentioned in apocalyptic contexts tend to be shorter than those in literal ones. Yes apocalyptic works deal with kingdoms, and spans of time. It would seem logical to see these then as longer non-literal time periods.

I think this is a pretty strong argument. However, time prophecies could occur within a larger kingdom that apply literally to one event in that kingdom’s history. Some also see gaps, or see different kingdoms being referred to in Chap. 8 and 11 than in 7.

- Literal settings lend themselves to literal time, and symbolic settings to symbolic time.

This is a strong argument overall, especially as he notes that the figures carrying out the actions are symbolic in their own right. However, the principle is applied inconsistently. It seems we only apply symbolic time when it fits our scheme. The classic example of this is the 1,000 year reign which would be around 360k years if applied symbolically. This of course is not a critique of the argument itself but of the application.

- Unusual time units (which he strangely conflates with SYMBOLIC units).

Some of the units of time such as “evenings and mornings” are not the usual formulation for time periods. He notes (strangely) that it might be used because of the sanctuary setting of the chapter (which his critics would concur on). A more usual Adventist understanding is referring to the creation days. Similarly the time, times (dual) and half a time is a strange expression of time. 70 weeks would not normally be phrased that way, but as 490 years, etc. (it may simply be again a reference understood in relation to the jubilee cycle, etc. and therefore not necessarily symbolic, but used because of contextual inferences). The upshot is that they are not phrased as one would normally phrase them in a literal, normal context.

To be honest I don’t see this as a terribly strong argument. Unusual does not necessarily mean symbolic, it just means unusual. It may be that he shows examples from the genre in part two, in which case it would be a stronger argument. But at times there are contextual reasons to use these terms in this way as they have connotations that are familiar to the audience. Still, it is true that the numbers differ in noticeable ways from the normal literal usage.

- Daniel’s use of the term “days” in literal context shows variety of usage.


Daniel speaks of “days” when referencing a generic period of time. For instance in Daniel chapter one the Hebrew youths appear before the king “at the end of the days” when the period involved covered three years. Nebuchadnezzar is said to have recovered his sanity at the “end of the days” when the period was seven “times” or seven years as most understand the period in question. There is also a reference to the “days of Nebuchadnezzar” referring to the time of his reign. We also see the use in the prophetic portions (“in the days of those kings, etc.&#8221 Even God is referred to as “The Ancient of Days.” He also notes that the “exactor” of tribute was to collect for a “few days” and that he could not have collected much tribute in that time. But again, the usage is idiomatic, a short time. It is again not indicative of any definite year-day correlation.

This argument just doesn’t seem helpful to me. Not only does the term here apply to a generic time, in one case decades long, which doesn’t correspond directly to a day for year in any real sense, but it seems to go against his earlier argument! He notes that literal context suggests literal time, and symbolic context suggests symbolic time. But here he cites uses that are “symbolic” (idiomatic) in literal contexts.

What this does show is that the term “days” was flexible in Hebrew idiom (just as it is in English). Whether this is direct evidence of any day for year principle is questionable. He notes that none of the usages examined uses days in a literal sense. That is true. But then neither do they give definite indications of using them in the sense of day for year, which is what he is trying to show in the larger argument. It might be helpful in showing a progression in Hebrew understanding.

- Especially short time periods

He notes that certain time periods are so short that events described in them would be unlikely to be performed in literal time periods. He particularly references three examples:

1. The 70th week in the seventy week prophecy
2. The 10 days of tribulation in Revelation 2:10
3. The 3 and ½ days in which the two witnesses lie dead.

This argument appeals to me, but there are some hang-ups. For instance, there are a number of things to be accomplished in the last week. However, the actual interpretation you give to these makes a huge difference in the evaluation. If the week refers to a literal week of political dealings and betrayal it is theoretically possible for all of the events to happen, especially if you take the prince in question, the anointed one, to be someone other than Christ (a king, a high priest, prophet, etc.) A better argument would be the whole 70 weeks, especially the re-building. Still the 70 weeks one is fairly convincing. The other argument against it would be a jubilee interpretation of "weeks of years." He addresses this later.

The ten days of tribulation he notes would fit well with the persecution of Diocletian’s persecution, and that a literal 10 day persecution wouldn’t do much. But again this is based on interpretation and not the actual evidence. The passage occurs in the messages to the churches which seem slightly more literal than the rest. And if the actual local church is in mind then a 10 day persecution on the Christians in a particular town could be devastating. Still the correlation to Diocletian’s persecution is at least interesting.

The two witnesses argument doesn’t really make any sense to me. Is there some minimum time limit on remaining dead before being miraculously resurrected? He even notes that bodies remaining unburied for that time is not without precedent. In the end this argument really boils down to an earlier one—the witnesses are described in symbolic terms, (candlesticks, etc.) and therefore the time should be symbolic.

-Argument from the parallels of the trumpets and plagues.

This argument utilizes analysis by Strand of the structure of Revelation. He notes that there are obvious parallels between the trumpets and the plagues. The trumpets have data regarding duration, while the plagues don’t. They occur on opposite ends of a chiastic structure, with one in the historical section and the other in the eschatological section. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the trumpets deal with long periods of time and historic events, while the plagues deal with end time events.

First of all, as he acknowledges, one has to accept Strand’s structural approach which is one of many, even among Adventists. But again this also shows problems of application. Before it was asserted that symbolic contexts called for symbolic numbers and literal contexts for literal. But the latter portion of Revelation is no less symbolic in nature than the first, so why would we consider one to cover long periods and the other to be literal, other than that it again fits a pre-conceived scheme?


- The 70 weeks begin and end in different kingdom periods.

He notes that the prophecy starts with the decree to restore, in the Persian periods, and that the Messiah came in the Roman period, with the Greeks in between.

This of course all depends on taking the anointed one in the passage to be Jesus, which he says is the correct view, but that is one of the things he is hoping to show with this prophecy. Moreover, some see the 70 weeks of sevens as not even needing year-day interpretation because the way it is phrased implies that already. He addresses this later in detail.

The same is done with the 2300 days, assuming again the interpretation of Rome as the little horn power in chapter 8.

 

[tall73]

As to the arguments in Shea's second article, I dont' want to dismiss them, but even as he stated, they are not evidence per se of the principle, but show that it was early understood by some expositors. This at least gives some weight that some could take that view.

However, some of his examples, while clearly believing it to be 490 years, did not spell out the day =year equation. Therefore, one is left to wonder whether in fact they looked at it his way or as weeks of years. Since he must rule out the weeks of years interpretation for his view to be the only remaining option, these particular examples don't help.

Also, if we go just by who interpreted something one way we would be in trouble not only on this issue (a number of expositors saw Antiochus to be the fulfillment of some of these prophecies), but on others as well (very few people held our view of death for instance in early times).

The value of the Qumran and other Jewish sources then is that they saw some of these time periods at least as being longer times. Therefore it would not be totally foreign to the Hebrew mindset, which is important considering Shea's proposition that it was something that developed out of the flexibility in the terms "days" and "years" to start wtih.

 

[tall73]

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.

.

I understand the 70 weeks, etc. in applying the pragmatic tests (one of Shea's later proofs too), but I don't understand 1844.

What exactly happened that we know from common sense in 1844? The view of the judgment depends on the interpretation itself. There was no earthly evidence other than the movement which started because of the interpretation.

 

[tall73]

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

This is a pretty good argument. To flesh it out you need to post the direct parallels to the 2300 days, the 70 weeks, etc. in chapter 11.

Part of this depends on whether you take the 2300 days to be the whole vision or the parts specifically listed. Shea addresses that too, and when I get to that point I will put my arguments.

 

[tall73]

RCNP
The Year-Day Principle is supported only by Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Worldwide Church of God. Most textbooks in Biblical hermeneutics do not even mention the possibility of a Year-Day Principle.

While it may show that it is not taken seriously, if they don't even weigh the evidence of the principle then it is hard to say they have given it a fair evaluation.


[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

While it may show that it is not taken seriously, if they don't even weigh the evidence of the principle then it is hard to say they have given it a fair evaluation.

You can't really say they do not consider the year day principle because it is as much a part of Protestant christian tradition as it is part of SDA tradition. The difference is that it has been proven wrong every time it was used. The two exceptions to that are the SDA's who claim that something really did happen in 1844 but it was in heaven (or the newer version that it is not in heaven but the beginnings of what was to become the SDA church) and the Jehovah's Witnesses who say that the Lord really did return in 1917.

Everything else failed. We may say 538-1798 is a fulfillment of 1260 years but we have no reason to use 538 it was unremarkable it was merely arrived at by counting backward from the captivity of the pope. Why that captivity was so important and other captivities and murders of popes is less important I don't know and neither do those who use the year day principle.

So with such a failure record there is little reason for modern Biblical scholars to spend much time on the year day principle.

 

[Jimlarmore]

538 is the year the pope came back from Constantinople and took possession of the city of Rome. This was after the Ostrogoths were finally defeated and driven out. It was this year that Emperor Justinian crowned the pope on his throne in Rome and the pope's ecclesiastical reign began. Pope's were around many years before but this is the year they took over Rome so to speak and until 1260 years later they ruled. This can be established from the history of the papacy.

Here's some history from a web-site that is not adventists that confirms what I just said:

Pope
Number
Pope Name

(and dates of reign) Comments1

St. Peter (32-67)

Since the days of the Reformation, Protestantism taught the Beast of Revelation 13 and 17 was the political power of the Vatican or Papacy. Protestantism taught the women riding the beast with seven heads in Revelation 17 was the Mother church or Catholicism. Revelation 17 mentions three phases of the Beast or political power of the Papacy:
1. "Was" 2. "Is Not" 3. "Yet Is"
Note that though the Catholic Church claims Peter was the first pope, there is no historical proof that Peter was ever in Rome, let alone be their first pope.​

2St. Linus (67-76)
3St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4St. Clement I (88-97)
5St. Evaristus (97-105)
6St. Alexander I (105-115)
7St. Sixtus I (115-125)
-- also called Xystus I

8St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9St. Hyginus (136-140)
10St. Pius I (140-155)
11St. Anicetus (155-166)
12St. Soter (166-175)
13St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14St. Victor I (189-199)
15St. Zephyrinus (199-217)

16St. Callistus I (217-222)

Callistus I was the first pope to use the title Pontifex Maximus publicly. In a document issued during his papacy, he used the title Pontifex Maximus to refer to himself as the "Bishop of Bishops" while the Roman Emperor still used the term Pontifex Maximus. The Church was now starting use the title while taking on the role of combining church and state. This title passed down through all emperors from the time of Julius Caesar, who took it over from the Babylonian priests' descendants in 63 B.C. This made him head priest of the pagan Babylonian Religion while remaining head of the Christian Church in Rome. Almost everyone has heard the pope called Pontiff, which is a variation of the title Pontifex Maximus.​

17St. Urban I (222-230)
18St. Pontain (230-235)
19St. Anterus (235-236)
20St. Fabian (236-250)
21St. Cornelius (251-253)
22St. Lucius I (253-254)
23St. Stephen I (254-257)
24St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25St. Dionysius (260-268)
26St. Felix I (269-274)
27St. Eutychian (275-283)
28St. Caius (283-296)
-- also called Gaius
29St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32St. Miltiades (311-314)
33St. Sylvester I (314-335)
34St. Marcus (336)
35St. Julius I (337-352)
36Liberius (352-366)
37St. Damasus I (366-383)
38St. Siricius (384-399)
39St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40St. Innocent I (401-417)
41St. Zosimus (417-418)
42St. Boniface I (418-422)
43St. Celestine I (422-432)
44St. Sixtus III (432-440)
45St. Leo I (the Great) (440-461)
46St. Hilarius (461-468)
47St. Simplicius (468-483)
48St. Felix III (II) (483-492)
49St. Gelasius I (492-496)
50Anastasius II (496-498)
51St. Symmachus (498-514)
52St. Hormisdas (514-523)
53St. John I (523-526)
54St. Felix IV (III) (526-530)
55Boniface II (530-532)
56John II (533-535)
57St. Agapetus I (535-536)
-- also called Agapitus I
58St. Silverius (536-537)

59Vigilius (537-555)

The First Phase of the Papacy started in 538 A.D. when Justinian, to favor the pope, destroyed the influence of the Arians in Rome and was able to implement a decree which made the pope head bishop over all Christian bishops AND giving the pope power to prosecute heresy. This allowed the Catholic Church to combine with the nations for the purpose of persecution of the people of God. Three of the Arian tribes refused to acknowledge the authority of the pope (the other three didn't care and eventually converted to Catholicism).​

In 538 A.D. Justinian destroyed the influence of the Ostrogoths (Arians) in Rome. Justinian issued the decree that the Pope in Rome was the sole authority in scripture and had power over the people of God, which gave him power over the nations as well. Then 1260 years later Napoleon attempted to conquer Europe. Because he was running out of war money, Napoleon sent General Berthier into Rome and captured Pius VI, ending the Papacy's political rule in Europe. Napoleon decreed that the Roman Catholic Church was not to elect another pope. The world thought that was the end of the Papacy. Thus, the first phase of the Beast "was" from 538 A.D. to 1798 A.D.​

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

That is a cute restatement of history but it is not history. It is incorrect on several points. But this is what happens when people don't do the research Jim.

From my article on the Ten Horns:

Another discrepancy between history and the ten kingdom theorists is the date of the destruction of the Ostrogoths. The ten kingdom theorists place the demise of the Ostrogoths at 538 when Belisarius invaded Rome and after a year long siege he won the battle. Here is what Uriah Smith has written on the subject; The whole nation of the Ostrogoths had been assembled for the siege of Rome, but success did not attend their efforts. Their hosts melted away in frequent and bloody combats under the city walls, and the year and nine days during which the siege lasted, witnessed almost the entire destruction of the nation. In the month of March, 538, dangers beginning to threaten them from other quarters, they raised the siege, burned their tents and retired in tumult and confusion from the city, with numbers scarcely sufficient to preserve their existence as a nation or their identity as a people.
Thus the Gothic horn, the last of the tree, was plucked up before the little horn of Daniel 7. Nothing now stood in the way of the pope to prevent his exercising the power conferred upon him by Justinian five years before. The saints, times and laws were now in his hands, not in purpose only, but in fact. This must therefore be taken as the year when this abomination was placed, or set up, and as the point from which to date the beginning of the prophetic period of 1260 years of papal supremacy.51
By using the date of 538 the ten kingdom theorists can add the 1260 day/years (from Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev. 12:6,14; 13:5) to attain and ending date of 1798 when the pope was taken captive during the latter part of the French Revolution. However history does not indicate that the Ostrogoths were crushed in 538. It is true that from 534-553 the Ostrogoths were exhausted by the wars with the Byzantine Empire. The wars lasted for nearly twenty years. In 541 the Ostrogoths elected Totila who proved to be an effective leader. From 545-546 Totila besieged Rome occupying it in December 546. This siege nearly decimated the civilian population of Rome. Belisarios who had returned to Italy in 544 pressed the Ostrogoth army causing their withdrawal from Rome. However the Byzantine forces were inadequate to take further offensive actions against the Ostrogoths. Again in 550 Totila recaptured Rome and then invaded Sicily. This time Justinian appointed Narses to the Italian command, Narses insisted on a large army which was provided to him. Finally in 552 the Ostrogoths and the Byzantine armies met at Taginae in the Appenines where Narses won the victory. The Ostrogoth king Totia was killed, ending the organized Ostrogothic resistance. Although the Bzyanatines had to take the Ostrogothic cities one by one until the last city fell in 561. 52

http://newprotestants.com/HORNS4.HTM

Feel free to look at the footnotes as I document most everything with multiple sources.

The article does not go over Justinan in too much detail but the idea that the Byzantium Emperor was under the Popes authority is very laughable.

 

[tall73]

If they don't spend any time refuting it, or even mentioning it, it is hard to know whether they have considered it or not. That is my point.

For instance, I didn't see anything by Baldwin in her Tyndale commentary on the year-day principle, and yes, she holds to your view on the 70 weeks for largely the same reasons.

I might check some others.

There is supposed to be an historical review of interpretation in the International Critical Commentary, but I don't currently have access to that.

 

[tall73]

That is a cute restatement of history but it is not history. It is incorrect on several points. But this is what happens when people don't do the research Jim.

From my article on the Ten Horns:
http://newprotestants.com/HORNS4.HTM

Feel free to look at the footnotes as I document most everything with multiple sources.

The article does not go over Justinan in too much detail but the idea that the Byzantium Emperor was under the Popes authority is very laughable.

Hm, upon looking at the SDA Bible Commentary it seems they basically concede the point, but give a different interpretation:

Though this campaign lasted for twenty years before the imperial armies emerged completely victorious the decisive action occurred early in the campaign. The Ostrogoths, who had been driven from Rome, returned and laid siege to it in 537. The siege lasted for a full year, but in 538 Justinian landed another army in Italy, and in March the Ostrogoths abandoned the siege. It is true that re-entered the city for a very brief time in 540, but their stand was short lived. Their withdrawl from Rome in 538 marked the real end of Ostrogothic power, though not of the Ostrogoth nation.

Um...so essentially they admit the horn went on living for 20 years. How can re-entering the city not be a big deal?

As Prescott appeared to point out in his correspondence with EGW and her estate when the revision to the GC was done, there are some hard things to explain about our position.

I also wonder about the fact that the popes even before this time had quite a bit of power. The pope ex-communicated the quartodecimens for a time, though they were in Asia Minor, not in his area of authority. This was long before 538.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I spent some time studying ancient Roman history a few years back when I came to this truth. The bottom line is 538 can be counted as the time because it's the year the sitting pope took possession of the City of Rome. It was after this year that He really became an ecclesiastical power in the world and plans to build the vatican began and the papacy started to gain vast amounts of papal lands.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[djconklin]

Um...so essentially they admit the horn went on living for 20 years. How can re-entering the city not be a big deal?

The point is that their power was weakened to the point where they were not a major threat anymore. Think WW2: after the Germans lost at Stalingrad and then Kursk it was a foregone conclusion that they were going to lose the war. In the Pacific it was after the Mariana "Turkey Shoot" that they were doomed to lose. Their fate was sealed at Okinawa.

 

[freeindeed2]

Yeah. Forget seeking the truth. Whateve it takes to defend a preconceived belief. Defend established positions at all costs, even if it means sacrificing true investigation!