Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
NO Takers, yawn! I knew no one would take the challange. Just like I thought. They can't defend.
NO Takers, yawn! I knew no one would take the challange. Just like I thought. They can't defend.
thanks jim. why does he reject the day for a year?
did you see my issue post?
could you venture a guess?
A. The Year Day Principle: Number 14:34
The year day concept is not taught is Numbers 14: 34. In the phrase day for a year it is a day that represents a year. That is to say, it is the days that are symbolic. It is not days that are symbolic in this text but years. The forty days are the historical or literal period used in this text. This has significant ramifications since SDAs argue that it is the days that are symbolic here.
B.[FONT="] [/FONT]The Year-Day Principle: Ezekiel 4: 6
The historical or literal period used in this text are in years. The days in this text are symbolic but SDA historicists do not use the ratio outlined in this text to calculate their time periods. If they used the principle taught in this text, the time periods would be even shorter than if taken literally from the text.
C.[FONT="] [/FONT]The Year-Day Principle: Daniel 9: 24-27
Historically these texts were used to prove the validity of using the year-day principle, since it is seventy of weeks. Thus, 70 weeks can only compute to the necessary 490 years if each day is reckoned as a year. But this argument is found to be without foundation as the seventy weeks should be calculated without the use of the year day principle. The first millennium of Christian history interpreted the seventy weeks correctly without the use of the year-day principle. That this principle yielded the same results in calculations, only misled those who were unfamiliar with the correct method of calculating the period, who assumed the method they were using was the original and correct method. They show their ignorance of the proper method and its venerable history. In short, there is no evidence from Dn9 to support a year-day principle. Important primary evidence from Roman writer Marcus Varro shows that the concept of using a heptomad to represent a group of days or years without any year-day principle is extant, and shows that the concept was known in the times of the early Christians.
D.[FONT="] [/FONT]The use of times in Daniel for 3½ times
Historically, the early church taught and believed that the 1260 days, the 42 months and the 3½ times were a solar period of 3½ years. This was the case for a millennium. It was only after different methods of trying to rationalise the time periods to fit the outworking of history, that such principles as a century for a day or a year for a day started to be promulgated as a rubric to interpret time periods. But there is no need to deviate from what the early church believed. The period is to be correctly understood as 3½ solar years.
E.[FONT="] [/FONT]The time periods are converted one step too many.
To understand the final length of the symbolic periods of time given in the prophetic books in general and the book of Daniel in particular, they should be converted to normal nomenclature. When that is done, it should be left, since this represents the literal solar time involved. SDA historicists go one step too many and assume that normal nomenclature is also symbolic/figurative and needs to be converted again. This is unwarranted. The symbolic names for time include "evenings-mornings, times and weeks (of years). These are converted to the literal names day, year and seven years respectively. There is no more converting to be done.
A. In concluding this discussion regarding the validity of the year-day principle, it should be said firstly, that this principle has two fatal flaws: (a) it incorrectly calls a literal explanation, a figurative unit, and (b) it takes the desymbolisation of these units one step too far.
In regard to the first flaw, it is the 40 days sortie in Num 14:34 that determines the unit of years to be used for the banishment to the desert. The 40-days is the literal unit in this text. In Eze 4: 6 it is the years of rebellion that determines the unit of days to be used for the siege enactment by Ezekiel. These are the literal unit in this text.
If we say on the other hand however, that the literal period is the consequence of the first period, and the first period being used as a symbolic determinant, then in Num 14:34, it is the 40 years of banishment that is the literal period, and in Eze 4: 6, it is the days of the siege-enactment that are the literal period here. Therefore, regardless of whichever way you define figurative and literal here, you end up with different time units in either text being called literal. If you choose the first definition above, then your symbolic unit is days in Num 14: 34 and years in Eze 4: 6, but if you choose the second option, then your symbolic unit in Num 14: 34 is years and in Eze 4: 6, it is days. This means that one cannot argue that there is only the day for a year principle acting in both texts. The usage of the dictum day for a year is opposite in either text. And regardless of your definition of symbolic or literal, you still come out with opposite units of time.
In regard to the second flaw, the explanations of iddan, ereb-boqer and shabu`â have the literal explanation of year, day, and seven/week respectively. That is the end of the desymbolising step. These units are the literal lengths of these time units. This means that the following lengths of time apply to the prophetic periods: the 2300 ereb-bôqer are 2300 days; the 3 ½ iddan are 3 ½ years; and the 1290 and the 1335 days are 1290 and 1335 days. The 70 shabuîm are 490 years without the use of the year-day principle.
B. Another conclusion of this paper is that since SDA historicists cannot use Ezekiel 4:6 as their model for calculating prophetic periods, and they cannot use Numbers 14: 34 as their model since it is the years of their banishment that are symbolic, not the days of spying, they have no text to use as a model to support their method of calculation. The only basis they have for their year-day principle is the proof-text tradition of extracting the phrase a day for a year from these two texts without considering the context in which they are used, and just applying it however they will to the time periods they want to convert. As explicitly stated by the SDABC, it is the statement of scale they are interested in when they consider Numbers 14: 34 and Ezekiel 4:6, not the context.
C. Therefore, in weighing up the arguments presented above, I assert that the year-day principle invoked by SDA historicists is a dubious principle based firstly, on the antiquated proof-text method used in past centuries where the phrase is extracted from the context and quoted without regard to its original setting. Secondly, it is based on a collection of assumptions that are incorrect. Furthermore, the often touted rationale supporting the discovery of the true meaning of the 2,300 days by SDA historicists as being itself a fulfilment of prophecy is a circular argument, and without explicit support from scripture. Note Maxwell.
The fulfillment of the 1260 days as 1260 years confirmed the understanding of the 2300 days as 2300 years and this became a key to the further understanding of the sanctuary prophecy of Daniel 8: 14: For [or rather, until] two thousand
Yes I see the issue point and to a degree I agree with some of the things Ford brings up. The Bible does not come right out and say that a day represents a year in prophecy, however, it works very well and the application is undeniable thru out the Bible. I guess that is the main problem I have with his rejection of the day for a year principle. Some of the most outstanding of these prophecies are of course the 2300 days, the messianic prophecy or the 70 week prophecy, the prophecy of the little horns reign and the beast are indentical etc. i.e. the 1260 days is given in more than one form and 7 times in Daniel and Revelation. If you thow out the day for a year principle then none of these make sense for fulfillment and fall into a rediculous catagory.
Also, there are other major issues the SDA church and independently I have with his exegesis of scripture.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
I would encourage anyone interested in the idea of a year for a day to look at the 2300days.com site. This is the most extensive examination of the topic I have ever seen.
If after reading his section on the day year principle I would love to hear of anyone who could still hold to that view and what reason they could give.
Here is the conclusion he gives:
You don't need the day-for-a-year principle to get 490 years out of the 70 weeks; you can go by the jubilee cycle, which makes much more sense biblically. As far as the 2300 days/years, that works only for those who already believe that 1844 was a fulfillment of prophecy. The problem is that nothing happened in 1844 that we can point to as a fulfillment to anyone not already inclined to believe the SDA teaching.
Also, even if a person were to accept the day-for-a-year principle, there is the problem of when to date the beginning of the 2300 days/70 weeks (assuming for the moment that they start at the same time, which I don't actually agree with). The fall of 457 B.C. is a controversial date for the going forth of the decree of Artaxerxes (also assuming that is the correct decree, which is also controversial). Most historians think that it happened earlier than that, possibly even in late 458 B.C.
The fact is that scholars can prove with reasonable certainty only one date in the Adventist interpretation of the 70 weeks--the baptism of Jesus in A.D. 27. That isn't going to give non-Adventists and especially non-Christians much confidence in our prophetic scheme if we try to convince them of it.
These are only a few of the problems with the traditional Adventist view. Desmond Ford has raised many valid concerns, and many Adventist scholars and educators and pastors privately agree with him but can't speak openly for fear of losing their jobs. The administrators, however, continue to refuse to look at these issues honestly and objectively.
It merely means decreed, it in no way needs to mean cut off from somthing else.Except the wording of the 70 week specifically uses the word "cut off". Cut off of what? The only thing that the 70 week prophecy could be cut off of was the 2300 days.
In the current issue of Adventist Today (March-April 1998) on pages 6 and 9 Drs. Rodriguez, Davidson, and Gane inquire why Dale Ratzlaff seemed to ignore the arguments set forth in General Conference publications after Glacier View. Perhaps some light can be thrown on the situation.
The books mentioned sprang from the Daniel and Revelation committee established to reply to the questions I had raised on Dan. 8:14 and our Investigative Judgment teaching. One member of the committee whom I regard as one of the best scholars in the church said to me: "On this committee those who know most say least, and those who know least say most." I understood this because the situation was identical in the pre-Glacier View committee which was appointed by the church to meet with me for many hours. The meetings were recorded, but the G.C. will never make the transcripts public because of this feature. Another scholar in his college office waved his hands at the seven books and said to me, "Don?t read them! Simply awful!" Apparently he viewed them as a ?snow job?. I agree. I know of no Adventist scholar who would dare to write or say the arguments found therein to any group of non-Adventist scholars.
Let me illustrate. In volume three of the series, The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, the article by Gerhard Hasel admits that "the actual wording of the command of Artaxerxes I of 457 BC makes no explicit mention of any order to rebuild the city of Jerusalem." "?the validity of applying the 457 BC decree depends upon an uncertain interpretation of Ezra 4:7-23." (p.51) In the Ferch article "Commencement Date for the Seventy-Week Prophecy" (pp. 64-74) we find these apologies.
"Unfortunately, no explicit proclamation is known?.Interpreters, therefore, have been obliged to deduce?" (p. 65).
"Ezra 7 mentions a third decree, issued this time by the Persian king Artaxerxes?. Assuming that this king is Artaxerxes I.?" (p. 68).
Key words in the Ferch argument are ?presumably?, ?seem?, ?suggests?, and ?implied?. See pages 70 and 74. His whole case is guesswork about the dating of Ezra 4, whereas most modern scholars agree with the Jerome Biblical Commentary that confesses: "We must leave as an insoluble enigma the date of chapter 4" (p. 388).
This uncertainty makes the conclusions of Hasel and Ferch invalid and quite unacceptable to scholars not dedicated to propping up crumbling traditions. No outside press would dream of publishing the materials found in these seven volumes.
However, at least these books are consistent with the church paper. In the Adventist Review (Vol. 158, No. 31, "Special Issue on Bible Doctrines," 1981, pp. 26-27) we find the following language as it labors to support the Investigative Judgment: "it seems clear," "assuming," "suggests," "The Scriptures do not offer a detailed explanation of the work that was to begin in heaven in 1844," "it is reasonable to assume," "the term ?investigative judgment? is not found in the Bible."
To return to the D & R committee whose works are recommended to us, we are forced to wonder how the committee can be so certain of 1844 when they admit repeatedly that the starting date is uncertain.
Men involved in trying to preserve the Investigative Judgment must be lonely men. Most scholars in Adventism gave up the task long ago and thus they never write or preach about it.
The consensus statement of Glacier View (since buried by the church when read more closely) made the following admissions:
1. It is the little horn, and not the sins of the saints, which defiles the sanctuary.
2. The cleansing of Daniel 8:14 has to do with restoring the damage done not by the saints but by the little horn.
3. The meaning of the key verb in Daniel 8:14 is not basically "cleanse," but "justify, vindicate, and restore."
4. There is no obvious verbal link between Daniel 8 and Leviticus 16.
5. The year-day principle is not explicit in scripture.
6. Hebrews 9 does draw on the Day of Atonement to illustrate that which Christ did by his sacrifice.
7. "Within the veil" applies to the second veil, not the first, and points to access to the Most Holy Place immediately after the Cross.
8. Hebrews does not teach a two-apartment ministry (or two phases).
9. Christ, not the Father, is the great Judge in the final judgment.
10. We should not speak of our Lord?s heavenly ministry in terms of apartments.
11. The New Testament viewed the second advent as imminent in its day (and thus had no cognizance of 1844).
12. Sacrificial blood purifies rather than defiles.
One is forced to ask: "What would the three good doctors (named on p. 8 of AT) say to an unsophisticated believer who asked them for the New Testament verses on the Investigative Judgment?" Furthermore, what would be their answer if someone more learned referred to the Bible principle, seven times set forth, that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established," and applied it to 1844? There isn?t even one verse, one witness, that proves 1844. Both Testaments are silent. Neither years nor days are mentioned in Dan. 8:14, though days are mentioned elsewhere in the book. The Hebrew expression ?ereb boqer? (evening morning) is but a reference to the daily (tamid) service with its continual offering before sunset and after dawn.
The brethren quoted in AT insist that the purpose of the Investigative Judgment is to vindicate God. That is not our traditional interpretation, as anyone who reads GC 428, 280, 482, 485 can see. Drs. Heppenstall and Maxwell introduced the view these good men are claiming as original Adventism.
When Dr. Rodriguez claims that there is no reason for Adventism to exist if wrong on the IJ he is saying something that is appalling. If I considered him correct I would leave Adventism this very day. Is not our task to present "the everlasting gospel" of Rev. 14:6 mirrored in that physical rest every seventh day which testifies to our constant rest of conscience through faith in the finished work of Christ?
It?s time for the church to be honest, to come clean. How can anyone with intelligence read Hebrews nine and ten in modern translations (which ARE linguistically correct) and hold to the baggage we invented to mask our disappointment over 1844? It is not necessary for a church to be infallible for God to use it, but it is necessary to be honest.
I should confess that I too for years did my labored best to defend the IJ and only surrendered as continued study proved that the evidence contrary to the traditional view was overwhelming.
Desmond Ford
Auburn, CA
you guy are too far ahead slow down. there is a reason i put that last. it is to controversal, 1 @ a time,
Who is the little horn of daniel 8?
I've been taught Rome, any disagreements Jim?
I was looking for the chain of events that have to be assumed in order to come up with the IJ as we have it. I see Dale Ratzlaff has a list of 22 things put I can't find a copy of it. Several of the links in the chain are pretty clearly already broken.
either one if fine with me. papal it is.If by Rome you mean Papal Rome then no I have no disagreements.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
either one if fine with me. papal it is.
tell me does the trampling of the sanctuary is that done by papal rome?
I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation about the issues in daniel. if you don't want to discuss leave.Ice, what are you trying to do here?
Are you trying to indoctrinate us, get us to leave the SDA church, discourage us, antagonize us?
Just what is it that you are trying to do in here?
Thanks Sophia I will post that on my blog, it somehow gets indexed pretty well to search engines. So the next time someone won't have to spend the time to type it in.
OK Jim here is a questionIf by Rome you mean Papal Rome then no I have no disagreements.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
either one if fine with me. papal it is.
tell me does the trampling of the sanctuary is that done by papal rome?
now you are talking Jim. this question must be answered. This is the crux of the SDA theological probelm. as far as the destruction of the temple I think it is a valid starting point, but the ramification are staggering and scary if you use the day for a year as principle and for the IJ, The IJ is dependant upon the termination being at the end of the prophecy & a link to leviticus. If it is Rome and is refering to the temple destruction then and you use the day for a year then the IJ has not even begun and won't for another 330+ years.This is actually a very good question and it really deserves to be answered. As a matter of fact it's critical to our understanding of the IJ. From the study I have done it's arguebly more than just papal rome that is doing the trampling here. I think the trampling is also being done by the sins of the people over the years.
However, the fact that this little horn power waxed great in three directions removes the selucid king Antiochus Epiphanes from serious consideration. The way the Roman power put down and destroyed the truth of salvation and literally destroyed the temple in 70A.D. makes it the prime candidate for this power. Concerning the other aspects of these texts we need to remember the sanctuary service and what it's function was.
The sanctuary here on earth was a pattern of the real one in heaven and it was a place to receive forgiveness of sins which was "the daily" spoken of in Dan 8:12. This was essentially taken away by the practice of the confessional in up and coming Roman ceremonies. Anyway, this power waxed strong against the prince of the host ( Dan 8:11), which is Christ that took away the necessity of the daily, and then they destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. This is very argueably some of the trampling spoken of for sure. Let's look at the other possibility as well.
The sancturary in heaven has been defiled by sin/s that were committed by the spiritual children of Israel just as the earthly was by the literal children of Israel. To me at this point it really does not matter how they were transferred to the sanctuary/s but once a year they had to be atoned for/purged during Yom Kipper on the day of atonement for the earthly and at the end of time for the heavenly.
When Dan 8:14 speaks of the sanctuary being cleansed Daniel and all Jews were fully aware of what Gabriel was talking about. The question now is when would that particular cleansing happen? If we abandon the day for a year principle we have to take the literal by default. 2300 days is only 6.38 years in Jewish time. In Daniel's time that wouldn't even allow for the temple to be built again. It just does not make any sense to use a literal day accounting. Since Gabriel told Daniel that this vision was for many days Dan 8:26 and the book was to be sealed for the time of the end Dan 12:9 we can be assured it was not literal but a day for a year. Also , the day for a year works out too well in the messianic prophecy.
So to answer your question after all of this, the trampling being done was not only the little horn or Rome but the sanctity of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself by the sins of the people.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?