The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[phkrause]

God does work out things in mysterious ways does he not Lysimachus. We have an awesome God.

[Lysimachus]

God does work out things in mysterious ways does he not Lysimachus. We have an awesome God.

[Lysimachus]

With the last of the three major Arian powers subdued judicially in A.D. 538 when they were forced to relinquish Rome, the capitol of the world as we have just witnessed, the oppressive union of church and state had successfully put down all major opposition and had outlawed religious liberty throughout all of Christendom. By this act, the church officially ushered in the horrors of the dark ages. This has been the best kept secret of the dark ages. Another well-kept secret has been that this event then opened the way for the enforcement of a universal Sunday law throughout all of Christendom in A.D. 538. That proved to be the catalyst or the MARK of her ecclesiastical authority which signaled that the Pontifical government of force, or more accurately stated, the government of Satan, was then fully underway and, thereby, commenced the 1260 prophetic period in A.D. 538. You cannot have a Sunday law without first denying religious liberty and this is the real issue behind the Sunday law. Previously divorced from Christ, no longer widowed, but married to the state, the Catholic Church was “given” a specified time to “practice and prosper” for 1260 long years. What a witness to the universe of the “new order” of Satan’s rule. This union of church and state continued as such with the state enforcing the dogmas of the church until the deadly wound was administered to the papacy (Revelation 13:10) in 1798. Although there were low and high moments in the career of the papacy, never once for 1260 years did she relinquish the position she held by granting or acknowledging the principle of religious liberty until she was forced to do so for the first time in 1798. That was the year the Catholic Church became a widow because the state divorced itself from the woman (the church) and no longer enforced the dogmas of the church, thus rendering the counterfeit church incapable of persecution. The fulfillment of that prophetic event will be illustrated fully in my A.D. 1798 1843 Source Book.

[12tribes]

The siege of Rome began in 537. The Gothic army which surrounded the city cut aqueducts among other things. Food was scarce for both those inside the city and those outside. To draw the Goths away from Rome, an army was sent to the Gothic capital and took it. The Goths retreated. "Thus the siege of Rome, which had lasted for a year and nine days, came to an end about the middle of March, A.D. 538." J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, p. 194.

[cheddar]

You guys have got to be kidding us!

Only a Jesuit could say something like this.

Honestly!

sky

Here we go! Any attempt to see Daniel and Revelation in the last days and you get labeled a Jesuit!

The word prophecy means to foretell the future not the past.

Adventists are so sad and pathetic with their tired historical interpretations that can only be proven with a history book and not the Bible itself!

There are 7 seven time periods in Dan. and Rev. that are 1260 days long. Have you ever read thru all seven? They're not all talking about the same thing, yet all seven get placed in the same made up medieval time slot.

Who cares what happened in the middle ages - I sure don’t. I want to know what’s going to happen in the last days.

Why do you think the Great Controversy is so popular, because it tells us things that will happen in the future! Uh oh, I said the bad f-word – the Jesuits are going to control my mind and make me worship Mary. LOL

[teresaq]

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

That is why, to me, the interpretation of prophecy should stay the same. The scriptures seem to indicate the same as I read them.

Rev 9:12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.

'course you could say that text is for the future... but it seems to me the 7 churches clearly define a sequential pattern starting from Jesus and ending at the 2nd coming.

As I see it, it would make sense that each generation knew something was coming and that a historic interpretation was the intention of God to inspire each one to hide themselves in Jesus during that trial they were to go through.

There was a time when most all the churches believed in, and taught the horrors of the 1260 days, the middle ages, a church controlling people' minds and consciences. It was a safe guard against this nation reverting back to those religious persecutions that were happening in this country til some time after we became a nation.

I have watched it disappear from the churches, as well as the lessons derived from it til we have almost come full circle.

Very few teach it anymore. Probably none teach the lessons to be learned.

...

Who cares what happened in the middle ages - I sure don’t. I want to know what’s going to happen in the last days.

...

[Lysimachus]

Here we go! Any attempt to see Daniel and Revelation in the last days and you get labeled a Jesuit!

The word prophecy means to foretell the future not the past.

Adventists are so sad and pathetic with their tired historical interpretations that can only be proven with a history book and not the Bible itself!

There are 7 seven time periods in Dan. and Rev. that are 1260 days long. Have you ever read thru all seven? They're not all talking about the same thing, yet all seven get placed in the same made up medieval time slot.

Who cares what happened in the middle ages - I sure don’t. I want to know what’s going to happen in the last days.

Why do you think the Great Controversy is so popular, because it tells us things that will happen in the future! Uh oh, I said the bad f-word – the Jesuits are going to control my mind and make me worship Mary. LOL

Okay now Cheddar, you don't have to be so dramatic yourself.

Of course the word prophecy means to foretell the future. But please remember that the Middle Ages were centuries away in the future from the time John wrote. In fact, they were about 500 years in the future from the time of John, and 1200 years in the future from the time of Daniel.

Studying the past and learning from the past is what helps us to prepare for the future.

Now may I ask you: Are you saying that ALL 7 time periods in Daniel and Revelation are ALL different time periods??

Please remember that just because the scriptural language employed around these time periods is different does not mean it is necessarily referring to a different time period. Rather, it is painting different perspectives from a different angles, depending on which perspective you are looking at the great controversy from. For example, in Revelation 12, you have the perspective of the Church, and how God preserved it in the wilderness (this finds fulfillment in the Waldenses, for examples). In Revelation 13, you are looking at the same time frame from the perspective of the Beast itself, in how it persecuted God's saints. God's saints were both protected and persecuted. Had it not been for the northern mountains in Italy, for example, God's saints would have been completely annihilated. But because God protected them, they were not completely wiped out and the flame kept burning. :)

[cheddar]

The seven churches of Revelation were definitely historical churches that were in existence during John's lifetime.

However, when reading thru them there are passages that are referring to events in the last days.

For example the church of Pergamos refers to 'where Satan's seat is' and 'where Satan dwelleth'. This never happened in John's lifetime and if we read later in Revelation the 5th plague is poured out on the 'seat of the beast'.

It would be easy to spiritualize this away and find some event in history to apply it to, but I always like to mention EGW's vision of Satan's appearing in the last days - maybe it will be more than just an appearing and he will command armies and set up a capital.

Ancient Babylon had a king - Babylon of Rev. 17 will have a king as well.

[Lysimachus]

We're not against repetitions of prophecies cheddar, if that is what you're thinking. But when there is too much of a leaning to shoving all the prophecies into the future and denying the historicist fulfillments, what you end up doing is cuddling up to the Futurists, and then making it so they will totally deny the fulfillment of the Papacy as the Beast Power of Revelation.

Whether the future tribulation will be exactly 1260/1290/1335 is of no import to us. It will last as long as it lasts. Who cares? All that matters is you're on the right side. It could last 7 years, coincidentally. It could last 1260 years coincidentally. The fact is, we don't know how long the future tribulation will last! All we know is that when it comes, it will be short, but catastrophic world-wide. And we better be on the right side.

[John317]

The siege of Rome began in 537. The Gothic army which surrounded the city cut aqueducts among other things. Food was scarce for both those inside the city and those outside. To draw the Goths away from Rome, an army was sent to the Gothic capital and took it. The Goths retreated. "Thus the siege of Rome, which had lasted for a year and nine days, came to an end about the middle of March, A.D. 538." J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, p. 194.

That's pretty clear.

The main point of the prophecy is not when the Ostrogoths disappeared from history but it's about the ability of the little-horn power to rule within the churches without serious opposition. That time would obviously be when the Ostrogoths were destroyed to the point where they could no longer compete with the papal power for leadership in the Western churches. It just so happens, however, that the Ostrogoths disappeared from history within a few decades of 538 AD.

Some people have talked as if they think that the correct date would need to be when the Ostrogoths ceased to exist, but that is not what the prophecy is focussed on. It is focussed on the influence and power of the little-horn, i.e., the papal system.

I find it incredible that people don't see the connection between 538 and 1798, the end of the 1,260 years, the very time when the papal system appeared to receive a mortal wound.

That would be like people not seeing the connection between Christ and the dates 437 BC to 34 AD, in the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9: 24-27. Not to see it seems to me to require a desire not to see it.

[jasd]

>>Thus the year-day principle to the 42 months of Revelation not only stands vindicated, it is simply the only method that works out mathematically.<<

How about the Biblical 360-day year?—wouldn’t the 42 months, the time, times, and half a time, and the 1260 days work with the 360-day yearly cycle of Genesis?

>>It has also been proven, unequivocally, and unapologetically, that the Jewish prophetic lunar reckoning of 360 was never used to govern the year, but only the seasons and festivals.<<

I hardly suppose that the 360-day year of Genesis can be said to have been limited to “seasons and festivals” – when we encounter it vis-à-vis the flood.

>>except the twenty-eight canon in 538 from the church synod at Orleans, that labor be suspended on "the Lord's day." with the threat of punishment.<<

>>...nature of enforcement and punishment associated with such a law.<<

Isn’t that like, shoehorning the issue?—I mean, Gd did the same throughout the OT; and Jesus Christ Himself said to do as it was commanded by those who sat in Moses’ seat... Would you make the argument that the Church was not equivalent to Moses’ seat?

>>Daniel 7:25 “And he shall speak [by legislation] great words against the most High....”<<

Curious... how do you justify the insertion into text of [by legislation]?

Speaking of ‘justifying’ – how is it that you have the 1260 day periods of Daniel representing years with the equivalent in Revelation – obviously meaning literal time?

>>I have a feeling that had it not been for that Bubonic plague, the Ostrogoths would have never been able to retake Italy.<<

But, in fact, they did – thereby proving false – at least the exactness of the various dates proffered.

[fccool]

Quote:

DECREE 5. A CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL decree prohibiting BOTH the observance of the Sabbath AND the enforcement of Sunday observance, defined by ECCLESASTICAL AUTHORITY and SUPPORTED BY THE POWER OF THE STATE, OR CIVIL POWER! (Third Synod of Orleans – 538 A.D.) -- also first decree COMPELLING the consciences of men against ALL manual labor on Sunday with the threat of punishment.

Simply not true. You can find it and read the language for yourself. The field work was forbidden. The punishment was a lot milder than you paint it to be.

Sabbath observance was not prohibited either. The language talks about certain Christians observing Sunday like Jews did... by not traveling, and avoiding even minor work like decorating a house and etc.

If you can find me the language of the Third Synod of Orleans that supports what you are saying... I'd be obliged to reconsider. But, I've read it, and it evaded me.

[Lysimachus]

>>Thus the year-day principle to the 42 months of Revelation not only stands vindicated, it is simply the only method that works out mathematically.<<

How about the Biblical 360-day year?—wouldn’t the 42 months, the time, times, and half a time, and the 1260 days work with the 360-day yearly cycle of Genesis?

[Lysimachus]

Simply not true. You can find it and read the language for yourself. The field work was forbidden. The punishment was a lot milder than you paint it to be.

[fccool]

Let's remember what the important point is here: PRIMACY of the bishop of Rome. The fact of history is that the bishop of Rome's PRIMACY as "corrector of hereticks over the churches" can be dated from 538 AD.

What happened in 538 A.D. was that the Ostrogoths were driven out of Rome and the bishop of Rome was able to govern without serious resistence to his authority.

The issues are generally a shifting sand here. As you can see there are two perspectives being shown on this thread:

1) That Sabbath was changed to Sunday on that year

2) That Bishop of Rome relinquished his seat in Rome and was given primacy as :corrector of heretics".

#1 is simply not true. 3rd Synod of Orleans was a Synod of 13 Bishops. It was not a Universally applied to all Christendom. It was local, unlike other Sunday enforcement laws. You can certainly argue Sunday enforcement, but III Orleans was simply not a good case for it.

#2 I would LOVE to see the language of that famous decree as a direct quote that supports what you are saying. So, if you can do me this huge favor and show me the direct language from Justinian decree of 538 that would demonstrate and support your statement, I would love to have it as a resource.

[BobRyan]

First of all - many thanks to Marcos Lysimicus for posting all this great material on the 538 date! Well done!

Secondly - Justinian's decree of 538

Quote:

“Justinian, pious, fortunate, renowned, triumphant, emperor, consul, etc., to John, the most holy archbishop of our city of Rome, and patriarch.

“Rendering honour to the apostolic chair and to your holiness, as has been always, and is, our wish, and honouring your blessedness as a father, we have hastened to bring to the knowledge of your holiness all matters relating to the state of the churches; it having been at all times our great desire to preserve the unity of your apostolic chair, and the constitution of the holy churches of God, which has obtained hitherto, and still obtains.

“Therefore we have made no delay in subjecting and uniting to your holiness all the priests of the whole East.....We cannot suffer that anything which relates to the state of the church, however manifest and unquestionable, should be moved without the knowledge of your holiness, who is the Head of all the Holy Churches; for in all things, as we have already declared, we are anxious to increase the honour and authority of your apostolic chair.” – Croly, pp. 114, 115.

http://www.presenttruth.info/newsletters/PresentTruth/1999/pt_f_jun99.htm

[fccool]

Quote:

Go back and read it on post 5. The accurate translation I gave does not portray it to be mild at all. I must disagree with you on this.

As compared to inquisition periods of torture and burning, banishment was the punishment for this one... meaning being exiled from the city.

Quote:

It was automatically implicated, but it is also evident in Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis that Sabbath keeping (Judaizing) was prohibited. Even later Pope Gregory I categorically revealed their lawful disdain against "Jewish Sabbath keeping", and he called the Waldenses who kept the Sabbath as "preachers of Antichrist".

There's no solid evidence that Waldanses kept the Sabbath. Whatever they were preaching that he did not like, it was not the Sabbath. Here's from Bacchiocchi

"I spent several hours searching for an answer in the two scholarly volumes Storia dei Valdesi--(History of the Waldenses), authored by Amedeo Molnar and Augusto Hugon. These two books were published in 1974 by the Claudiana, which is the official Italian Waldensian publishing house. They are regarded as the most comprehensive history of the Waldenses. To my regret I found no allusion whatsoever to Sabbathkeeping among the Waldenses."

Quote:

It usually evades people who really don't desire certain evidences to be too convincing. I've seen this time and time again with all who have a bias, which we all have a little of.

Sure, but in doing so, you likewise accuse yourself of the very same thing . I'm not distrustful of "this scholar said this" for no reason. I'm distrustful because I find many of them state things to prove their point, where I find little to no support in historical context of what transpired.

Things we can agree on:

1) Vijilius was given back Rome in 538.

2) The Roman empire did make great strides of taking back the Italy from nomadic tribes in mid 6th century.

3) The persecution of Jews and Christians CONTINUED during that time (it was by no means an inception of it, and by no means it was more strict than under Constantine)

4) Sabbath was outlawed for Sunday during Council of Laodicea in 4th century. I think that's fairly well-know fact in Adventist world.

The issue is not whether papacy or roman empire full of it's ruthless emperor's were collective of antichrists. They were. The issue here is whether it fits in the prophetic timeline as the antichrist of the last days.

I believe that the facts are stretched very hard to make it seem so.

[fccool]

I'm well familiar with this one, Bob. Hence were I'd like to see the language containing the "corrector of the heretics". Perhaps John was quoting something else at this point, but I won't make it a bigger deal than it should be and paint the bigger picture.

[Lysimachus]

The issues are generally a shifting sand here. As you can see there are two perspectives being shown on this thread:

1) That Sabbath was changed to Sunday on that year

2) That Bishop of Rome relinquished his seat in Rome and was given primacy as :corrector of heretics".

#1 is simply not true. 3rd Synod of Orleans was a Synod of 13 Bishops. It was not a Universally applied to all Christendom. It was local, unlike other Sunday enforcement laws. You can certainly argue Sunday enforcement, but III Orleans was simply not a good case for it.

[teresaq]

Actually, Cheddar, I have been seeing that knowing history does not necessarily prevent its repeat.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

That is why, to me, the interpretation of prophecy should stay the same. The scriptures seem to indicate the same as I read them.

Rev 9:12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.

'course you could say that text is for the future... but it seems to me the 7 churches clearly define a sequential pattern starting from Jesus and ending at the 2nd coming.

As I see it, it would make sense that each generation knew something was coming and that a historic interpretation was the intention of God to inspire each one to hide themselves in Jesus during that trial they were to go through.

There was a time when most all the churches believed in, and taught the horrors of the 1260 days, the middle ages, a church controlling people' minds and consciences. It was a safe guard against this nation reverting back to those religious persecutions that were happening in this country til some time after we became a nation.

I have watched it disappear from the churches, as well as the lessons derived from it til we have almost come full circle.

Very few teach it anymore. Probably none teach the lessons to be learned.

Originally Posted By: cheddar

...

Who cares what happened in the middle ages - I sure don’t. I want to know what’s going to happen in the last days.

...

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

Go back and read it on post 5. The accurate translation I gave does not portray it to be mild at all. I must disagree with you on this.

As compared to inquisition periods of torture and burning, banishment was the punishment for this one... meaning being exiled from the city.

[Lysimachus]

Quote to me one single Sunday Law prior to 538 A.D. that enforced Sunday observance in conjunction with the threat of punishment to the common people. Not just to bishops or priests.

If you cannot find an original source giving this satisfactory information needed, the Sunday Law in the Third Council of Orleans stands vindicated.

Also, Justinian's Code had already gave universal authority to the Canons. So whether implemented locally or not, it held universal codification based on previous authentication by the State.

[jasd]

>>After the flood, the earth was shifted on its axes.<<

I’ve seen that posited; however, how has it been established?—though a 360-day yearly calendar was in use at the time – a subsequent 365-day yearly calendar proves nothing unequivocally - either way.

>>If one were to now continue relying on the outdated rotation of the earth, then a day would no longer be from evening to morning, and neither would it jibe fully with the moon.<<

Try again, I’m not following...

>>Besides, the Jewish Sabbatical cycles were according to Solar Years. A true Jewish year is 365 days. The Luni portion was just to govern the festivals, but the calendar was continuously updated to keep up with the sun.<<

I find it difficult to imagine that you’ve the OT calendar; whereas, the best Jewish minds could only approximate it with the Hillelian calendar.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>It has also been proven, unequivocally, and unapologetically, that the Jewish prophetic lunar reckoning of 360 was never used to govern the year, but only the seasons and festivals.<<

Quote:jasd

I hardly suppose that the 360-day year of Genesis can be said to have been limited to “seasons and festivals” – when we encounter it vis-à-vis the flood.

>>But the 360 was outdated, but this outdated method was used by the Jews to govern the festivals.<<

Text(s) please...

>>But a true full Jewish year is 365 days long. Horn and Wood establish this with certainty.<<

It seems rather – that the Jews availed themselves of interstices.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>except the twenty-eight canon in 538 from the church synod at Orleans, that labor be suspended on "the Lord's day." with the threat of punishment.<<

>>...nature of enforcement and punishment associated with such a law.<<

Quote:jasd

Isn’t that like, shoehorning the issue?—I mean, Gd did the same throughout the OT; and Jesus Christ Himself said to do as it was commanded by those who sat in Moses’ seat... Would you make the argument that the Church was not equivalent to Moses’ seat?

>>I'm totally lost. Sorry, not sure what you're getting at.<<

It is meant exactly as it reads. Gd severely punished the COI for not keeping His Sabbaths – setting the example and precedent for that which would follow – or does not Gd believe in examples and precedents? Moreover, re Moses’ seat – when it was lost to the Pharisees, where did it then effectively exist but in the church; that is, the body Jesus Christ. There was only the one church for all practical purposes for the best part of two millennia.

Is there a principle in 1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>Daniel 7:25 “And he shall speak [by legislation] great words against the most High....”<<

Quote:jasd

Curious... how do you justify the insertion into text of [by legislation]?

>>Revelation 13:12 uses similar language in "causing". Remember, the focus in Daniel 7:25 is "changing times and laws". One must employ legislation to "speak" in regards to changing God's laws.<<

Sorry, in checking Revelation 13:12 – even the sense ”by legislation” escapes me. As for “changing times and laws” – one cannot take the phrase to mean literally and only – Gd’s laws. That’s a rather narrow view...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Speaking of ‘justifying’ – how is it that you have the 1260 day periods of Daniel representing years with the equivalent in Revelation – obviously meaning literal time?

>>Someone help me? I'm not sure what you mean. No offense, but I have a harder time understanding your posts more than anyone.<<

No offense taken. Sometimes, when we’ve been inculcated in a thing to an extreme extent – other viewpoints escape our comprehension. It is understandable. However, again,

it is as it reads...: Daniel was a book sealed. Full stop. Period. Not to be wrested – until the time when given events were to occur simultaneously; whereas, Revelation was an open book all along. Revelation superintends Daniel. All references to a period of 1260 can only be read in the book of Revelation as – literal time – no this for that – in other words, no manglement permitted. Ipso facto, those same time periods in the book of Daniel – must be taken to correlate, at least in function, as do those in Revelation. That is,

literal time. No fancy-schmanzy this for that manglement.

They are to be treated as End-time Events.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>I have a feeling that had it not been for that Bubonic plague, the Ostrogoths would have never been able to retake Italy.<<

Quote:jasd

But, in fact, they did – thereby proving false – at least the exactness of the various dates proffered.

>>The legal sanction was already in force. It had already gone into effect. The Ostrogoths were not able to hold Italy for very long. Why? Because they had already received a huge blow in 538 A.D. So it was the beginning of the end for the Ostrogoths.<<

So, what you’re saying is, “The fact that the Pope was taken in AD 1798 by Berthier – was but a temporary thing – and therefore, dismissable in the larger scale of expositive facts.”

>>Needless to say, I do not think I need to repeat all that I have written what I believe makes 538 A.D. stand out. And I'm sure you've already learned that it is not the uprooting of the Ostrogoths.<<

Weren’t the Ostrogoths and the Emperor enemy combatants? If so, then it matters that an ‘authorization’ granted a Bishop could not be implemented at a date certain. It is singularly significant.

Anyway, what were the Lombards?—chopped liver?

[fccool]

I think I'll start with the #1 issue that underlines all of the prophetic timelines, and yet it's seldomly dissected or questioned.

DAY FOR A YEAR PRINCIPLE.

What are reasons that Adventists believe that prophetic day equals one year?

1) Numbers 14:34 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years….after the number of the days in which you searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year.

2) Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

A couple of observations. First and foremost, the immediate context of both deals with consequences and allotment of certain degree of punishment. So, each year is assigned as a punishment for 1 day of disobedience or rebellion.

Could God be teaching certain principle through this, I certainly think it's a possibility. Can we take this possibility and claim it to be the only possible and certain "truth" based on deducing of our own that it can't possibly refer to anything else? I would beg to differ.

Now, generally the support is given in form of a logic deductions:

a) All of the three periods - time, time and half of times - 42 months - and 1260 days refer to the same period of time.

That literal meaning would not be long enough for anything to transpire for anyone, given certain prophetic constraints.

c) Therefore it must be years, and not days.

Let me point something very important here by simply showing you some texts:

Genesis 15:13: "And He said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years."

Genesis 41:29,30: "Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: and there shall arise after them seven years of famine."

Isaiah 38:5: "Behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years."

Jeremiah 25:11,12: "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations."

I could go on and on. The point is that I can't find (perhaps you can help me) no examples where days are to be years.

Let's move on:

70x7 of Daniel

Daniel 9:24: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city."

The problem with assuming that the discussion means "weeks" is the problem with interpretation of the word "week", which should be "seven" or "shabua". So, literally means 70x7s. The immediate context was revealed that years was discussed and not days. "Day" is not even mentioned.

"in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years."

It's clear that the original was years that Daniel understood from original prophecy...

Jeremiah 24:11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

So, when 70x7s was given to Daniel, he understood them as years, in context of Jeremiah's prophecy. It was simply 70x7s of something. And in context it was literal years, not symbolic ones.

Inconsistency

The problem with assuming the day-for-year principle is inconsistency in presentation. We have literal 1000 years in revelation. We don't separate them into days and turn those into years. Why? Because these are meant to be known as years. Likewise, if we are going to take down the days, and turn them into years, perhaps we can ask ourselves whether we are doing it to fit a certain dogma, or we are doing it because it reflects the truth.