We Thought Our Lord Should Come....

[miz3]

Then we are all agreed that the "year/day" Principle is not a Biblical Principle at all.

However, as ClubV12 states the Principle comes from those before Ellen White who used it to promote their now failed interpretations of Daniel and Revelation. In addition, Ellen White also believed in the failed "year/day" interpretations even after they were shown to be wrong. In fairness to Ellen White, just because she was a Prophet does not mean that she knows everything and thus could indeed be in error on Doctrine. I think this is the case with Ellen White on the "year/day" Principle and on the Sanctuary Doctrine as a whole. Being wrong on this does change the fact that she is still a true Prophet.

It is also clear that there are people like ClubV12 who cling helplessly to clearly shown failed doctrines of the past. ClubV12 has the perfect right to be wrong if he wants to be. We cannot force him to accept the Truth.

His admission that he has nothing is good enough for me. We can only hope that he someday learns the Truth and stops trying to be such a wisenhiemer!

[ClubV12]

"Then we are all agreed that the "year/day" Principle is not a Biblical Principle at all."

NO, we are NOT agreed!

It would be good for you to study some of the basic principles of "debate". I was very clear that "we" DO NOT AGREE on this issue, "WE" are at an impasse. You offer no convincing proof the DFAY principle is wrong, nor do you see my position as a proof. In addition, you reject Ellen White as a proof.

I could be as equally passionate about declaring you wrong, and hopeing that someday you will find the truth. But that is hardly a "debate". It drops to the level of an "argument". Lets stick to the facts, in a civilized manner and not suggest or announce what the "other guy" concludes on those facts. I am quite capabale of announcing my own conclusions.

"It is also clear that there are people like miz3 who cling helplessly to false theories and stories."

Such comments should not be part of a healthy debate, "trash talking" is what we called it at the race track. Let's race, the "trash talk" stops when the green flag drops.

[cheddar]

I was in a SDA bible study group in Virginia a long time ago and we loved to study prophecy. This was one of the charts we came up with about 10 yrs. ago.

[ClubV12]

I'll take "William Millers chart", for $2,300 dollars...

and the answer is, "1844"!

That is one complex chart you got there cheddar! The very last line (1,000 years) is correct, but I'm a little fuzzy on the rest of it.

[miz3]

ClubV12,

I meant we are agreed that you cannot demonstrate from Scripture the "year/day" Principle. You admitted as much. We did prove that the "year/day" Principle is not in the Bible in spite of the fact that the burden of proof is on you and not on us.

We also agree that you can prove your "year/day" Principle from Ellen White.

I would call that substantial agreement.

[Gustave]

Miller's time chart is impossible simply because it requires a 27 A.D. Passover / Gregorian Friday Death for Christ...

...27 A.D. Passover / Gregorian Friday being a mathematical necessity for SDA's to reach 22 October 1844.

[miz3]

Well ClubV12 what do have to say about Gustave's FACT?

[cheddar]

I'll take "William Millers chart", for $2,300 dollars...

and the answer is, "1844"!

That is one complex chart you got there cheddar! The very last line (1,000 years) is correct, but I'm a little fuzzy on the rest of it.

Last time I checked 1844 was nothing more than a 'great disappointment'.

[ClubV12]

miz3 says,

"I meant we are agreed that you cannot demonstrate from Scripture the "year/day" Principle. You admitted as much."

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Have I not been plain enough?

YOU have failed to disprove the year/day principle. I accept the PLAIN word of God on the this subject, a day for a year, as proven by the bible. You reject it and you reject Ellen Whites confirmation. We do not agree on this point in the slightest.

Moving on to Gustaves comment concerning the year Christ was crucified.

"Miller's time chart is impossible simply because it requires a 27 A.D. Passover / Gregorian Friday Death for Christ."

Millers time chart is correct, period.

This sums up the erroneus belief Gustave holds on the subject. It is not new by any means. The idea presented by this speculation goes far beyond when Christ died. It call's into question the beginning date as well, 457. Thus, the entire basis for the Seventh-day Adventist foundation is eradicated, including the Investigative Judgment.

This is ONE of perhaps hundreds of alternate views on interpreting the 2,300 year prophecy. And yet, we can't even agree on the simple issue of a day equals a year! Shall we take each alternate view on this subject and provide a rebuttal? And to what end? None will be convinced of their error no matter how eloguent the defense! In the end, you either accept the SDA position on this issue, or you leave the church.

Questions, debate, concerns about this FUNDAMENTAL prophecy have plaqued the Seventh-day Adventist church since it was formed. About every 20 years yet another prominent SDA theologian has presented his view that conflicts with the SDA view. In most cases they have left the church. One of the more recent was the brilliant Desmond Ford. Who presented such a strong case for HIS theories on the matter about 150 SDA ministers left the faith along with him.

Rather than go into the MASSIVE details of each and every false theory that has been presented; Rather than re-hash Desmond Ford theories, or Gustave's theories and the hundreds of other theories, since the 1800's on this subject, let us simply reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist position.

As God sent his servant to warn the world of the coming flood, so he sent chosen messengers to make known the nearness of the day of final judgment. But as Noah’s contemporaries laughed to scorn the predictions of the solitary preacher of righteousness, so did many in Miller’s day treat his words of warning.

4SP 210.1

Time, means, and talents were employed in misrepresenting and maligning Adventists, in exciting prejudice against them, and holding them up to public contempt. Ministers occupied themselves in gathering up damaging reports, absurd and malicious fabrications, and dealing them out from the pulpit.

4SP 218-219

...and so it continues today in our modern time.

Gustave is standing on the shoulders of the false giants who came before him. There is nothing new presented here. For more information, detailed charts and learned men sustaining this false theory you need only one tool. "Google", then pull up a chair, it will take months to work out the details for each and every false theory presented! Desmond Ford's theories alone would occupy weeks!

OR, you can read ONE book and put the matter to rest, the Great Controversy, by Ellen White.

[skyblue888]

Amen! Way to go Club.

I have to admit, you are a "rookie" when it comes to adventism but what a fast learner you are! faster than anyone I have ever met in all the years I have been connected with adventism.

Keep it up.

May the Lord continue to teach you.

sky :)

[cheddar]

I had the DFAY principle shoved down my throat from the time I became an adventist and I believed in it for a long time. However, when you actually dig into the nuts and bolts and see how it applies to one verse and not the other and all the rules are made up it becomes painfully clear that it's not scriptural.

The DFAY principle is a man-made device that's put on top of the scriptures and completely changes the meaning. That's wrong, it's always been wrong and it will always be wrong.

The only thing propping it up is the seventy weeks. Once they're seen in the last days, it's crash and burn time. May the best truth win.

[ClubV12]

Daniel 8:14

"...evening and morning holy adjudicated." One possible interpetation from the original Hebrew.

What is "holy adjudicated"? In my opinion, I see the day of atonement, other may see it differently. How often did the atonement take place? Once a year. How many atonements does it take to get to the end of Daniels prophecy? 2,300.

Just another way of looking at, the end results are the same regardless of which method you use, day/year or atonements.

As far as "analyzing" the high number of theories surrounding the 2,300 day prophecy, we could start with cheddars chart and go over that in detail. Then we could move on the Dr. Rich's chart and analyze that for a few days. Then we could take up Gustave's issue's on the calendar and the counting method. We could explore Canwrights alternate views on the subject. We could in fact devote entire Web Sites to this endless parade of "wannabe's" contending for the prize of a correct interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

Or, we can simply trust the Lords messenger and be done with it. There will be no rest for those who refuse her counsel, they will be faced with the latest and greatest "new theory" tommorow and have to recalculate everything from scratch. Their foundation is built on the ever shifting sand.

[skyblue888]

Exact.

They are beating upon The Rock of Ages, the prophetic Word.

The day/year principle is unimpeachable.

sky

[ClubV12]

,,,reaches through the ropes and tags Sky.

Whew, it was getting lonely in here Sky, they had me on the ropes! :)

[skyblue888]

Could be worse. How about being burn at the stakes!

The day/year principle stands. If you can do away with it, you can do away with the sanctuary teaching and therefore with the Advent Movement.

sky

[skyblue888]

Miz and I both want to see evidence of the DFAY principle and have not received anything.

If the DFAY is a valid principle then lets apply it to creation week. God didn't create the world in six days it was really six years!

Thats the same logic people use to apply it to Dan. and Rev.

The creation days were literal days and not prophetic days. I don't think one needs to take Prophecy 101 to even understand that.

When you apply the DFAY principle to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 it works perfectly especially that the starting point for this prophecy has been established as being 457 B.C.

Jesus was "cut off" crucified in the middle of the last prophetic week. What more proof or clearer evidence could we want or possibly ask for?

It says that these 70 prophetic weeks were cut off from the 2,300 day prophecy.

The 70 week prophecy ended on A.D.34.

In 1844 Jesus passed from the Holy to the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary above to begin the antitypical day of atonement, exactly 1810 years after A.D.34. 1810 + 490 = 2,300

I don't know how anyone can even being to deny this principle of interpretation when the events predicted took place as prophesied.

sky

[Musicman1228]

"The 70 week prophecy ended on A.D.34."

Actually, the 490 years of Dan. 9:24 ended at the END of 33 AD (CE) (the day before the Spring Equinox of 34 AD).

In the transition between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars there was no zero year. There were two year 1; the last year of one cycle, and the first year of the next.

Therefore, the middle of the final week of years occurred in 30 AD. (27AD was the first year of the final week of years, the Sunday year.)

[skyblue888]

Jesus was crucified in the middle of the last prophetic week of the 70 week prophecy. Stephen was stoned in A.D.34 and that marked the end of the time allotted to the Jews. The 70 week prophecy ended then. So Jesus was anointed in the Jordan river in A.D.27 and died in A.D.31 at the age of 33.

sky

[BobRyan]

Looks like a "tag team" is shaping up, miz3/cheddar. I'd like to invite BobRyan, Gail, Sky, John317 or other biblical scholars to weigh in if they like. This could be fun! Shall we begin a new thread or continue on this one?

As you know miz3, I am working on a new theory that may indicate Daniel 8:14 in the original Hebrew could be interpreted as "2,300 atonements". Which would render the DFAY principle as an additional, but not the singular proof. I have not yet completed my research on that specific issue at this time, it's a work in progress.

Yes the day for a year principle is also mentioned by Ellen White and almost every christian denomination on the planet uses it for Dan 9's 70 weeks (490 years) to point to the first coming of Christ.

Can we be blamed for then "consistently using the device" in Dan 7, 8, 9 and 12?. No indeed. This Bible principle is so obvious all denominations "get the point".

It does not take a genius to see that between the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the baptism of Christ you have 483 years - not 483 days.

This is "the easy part". (69 weeks)

And very little "rocket science" is needed to then note that Christ dies about 3 years from AD 27 -- not 3 days from then. Again - glaringly obvious points hard to miss... for most.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

miz3 says,

"I meant we are agreed that you cannot demonstrate from Scripture the "year/day" Principle. You admitted as much."

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Have I not been plain enough?

YOU have failed to disprove the year/day principle. I accept the PLAIN word of God on the this subject, a day for a year, as proven by the bible. You reject it and you reject Ellen Whites confirmation. We do not agree on this point in the slightest.

Moving on to Gustaves comment concerning the year Christ was crucified.

"Miller's time chart is impossible simply because it requires a 27 A.D. Passover / Gregorian Friday Death for Christ."

Millers time chart is correct, period.

The 490 year timeline requires that some time between 27 AD (Christ's baptism not his death) and 34 AD - Christ is crucified. The term "in the midst of the week" does not designate "exact center".

The evidence points toward Christ having been baptized around the time of the Day of Atonement and having been crucified on Pasover midway through that 7 year period.

Tag - your turn in the ring!

in Christ,

Bob

[teresaq]

Igakusei,...However, no matter how you slice it the "year/day" Principle is not a valid Principle as far as the Bible is concerned. The Bible does not confirm it in any way shape or form.

...Clarity is clarity. Only the stubborn would argue against such clear demonstrated truth because it suits their preconceived notions. Included are the vain attempts to legitimize the 1844 date.

Hmmm, guess I'm "stubborn" then, lol.

No, the truth is, I choose to believe that God did indeed mean a day for year for prophecy, and you choose not to believe that.

Come that day we will find out for sure one way or the other. :)

[teresaq]

It seems to me that we can argue with those who choose not to believe, or, we could come up with ideas to get the message out to those who might believe.

Perhaps the op wasn't one of the best ideas, but do others have any ideas?

Quote:

Well the original topic got locked so I couldn't put this there... Or perhaps its better here...

Again, thanks to Bobryan who started this train of thought in me...

Why don't we take advantage of Mr. Camping's situation and beliefs without attacking, or making fun of him or his followers?

We could have the subject title put out boards outside our churches and give a history of our church, how we thought the Lord would come in 1844, while at the same time teaching about the 2300 days. We would also be sympathizing with those "fooled" without making fun of them and perhaps win some.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Looks like a "tag team" is shaping up, miz3/cheddar. I'd like to invite BobRyan, Gail, Sky, John317 or other biblical scholars to weigh in if they like. This could be fun! Shall we begin a new thread or continue on this one?

As you know miz3, I am working on a new theory that may indicate Daniel 8:14 in the original Hebrew could be interpreted as "2,300 atonements". Which would render the DFAY principle as an additional, but not the singular proof. I have not yet completed my research on that specific issue at this time, it's a work in progress.

Yes the day for a year principle is also mentioned by Ellen White and almost every christian denomination on the planet uses it for Dan 9's 70 weeks (490 years) to point to the first coming of Christ.

Can we be blamed for then "consistently using the device" in Dan 7, 8, 9 and 12?. No indeed. This Bible principle is so obvious all denominations "get the point".

It does not take a genius to see that between the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the baptism of Christ you have 483 years - not 483 days.

This is "the easy part". (69 weeks)

And very little "rocket science" is needed to then note that Christ dies about 3 years from AD 27 -- not 3 days from then. Again - glaringly obvious points hard to miss... for most.

in Christ,

Bob

Amen to that.

sky :)

[cheddar]

This is the problem with Laodicea, they are rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.

You can brush this topic under the rug and pretend like you have it all figured out but it's not going to go away.

The shaking that comes to the Adventist church is going to be over the 1888 message but it's also going to be over prophecy.

The Advent movement was a movement of prophecy so you can count on prophecy as being one of the things that shakes the church.

The Adventist church has built its prophetic foundation on the 'day for a lie' principle and Ellen White didn't say anything about it so she won't be able to hold your hand on this one.

Jesus is going to find out who really believes in his word and who doesn't.

[skyblue888]

The people may be in the Laodicean condition but the truths that were entrusted to us as a people remain, even if they were betrayed.

The day/year principle stands.

And there won't be another message to the people of God that will be based on time, prohetic or literal.

sky