| Author | Message | ||
| Jamundson Registered user Username: Jamundson Post Number: 16 Registered: 7-2007 |
This may be covering old ground, but I would like to take a stab at this. In the Investigative Judgment doctrine SDA's hold that the 2300 day (year) prophecy is the basis for the arrival at the year 1844. They contend that the day = year standard is applied in this case. I understand that the literal words in Daniel 8:14 are actually "evenings and mornings" I have read several threads confirming this error in SDA interpretation and agree that they are in error. My question is: I if we take the logic and interpretation that Adventist apply to Daniel 8:14, that these are years not days, then should they not apply the same logic and interpretation to the Genesis creation narrative of "evenings and mornings" equals 1 year. ergo creation equals 7 years I know that many believe in the literal instantaneous creation and many believe in a long earth time line. That is not what I'm concerned with. I am trying illustrate the absurdity of the SDA logic on the IJ issue. I'm I correct here or do I have it wrong Jay | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 489 Registered: 5-2007 |
You're on the right track Jay. Actually the mistake in the Adventist interpretation of Dan 8:14 is the mistaken idea that days meant years in that verse. In the orginial Hebrew it is ereb-boquer which means "evenings-mornings" and CANNOT mean years. It means what it means and points to the Maccabean Revolt when Antiochus Ephiphanes was overthrown by Judah Maccabees and his followers and the Sanctuary was cleansed of the filth the Selucid Greeks had polluted it with and restored. And you hit the nail right on the head. SDAs are dyed-in-the-wool Young Earthers(I was nearly disfellowshiped for vocalising my old earth creationist beliefs) and so IF they think days mean years than it's not a literal 6 day creation like they believe. Just another instance where Adventists counterdict the Bible and themselves. D'oh! | ||
| Jamundson Registered user Username: Jamundson Post Number: 17 Registered: 7-2007 |
Reb, What is the start date and ending date for the 2300 day prophecy? What is the start date specifically tied to? Jay | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 490 Registered: 5-2007 |
Off the top of my head I'm not sure but I know it defintetly ends at the time of the Maccabean Revolt. It does NOT start at the date the SDAs claim it does. | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 132 Registered: 8-2005 |
I found this interesting. (wish I could remember where I found it) The Septuaguint or Greek translation sets reconsecration at 2,300 mornings and evenings while the Latin or Vulgate translation sets reconsecration at 2,200. Per verse 54 of the First Book of Maccabees, Chapter 1, Antiochus IV erected a dreadful desecration upon the Jerusalem temple altar on day 15 of the month of Chislev in 168 BC, and, per verse 18 of the Second Book of Maccabees, Chapter 1, the Jews celebrated reconsecration on day 25 of the month of Chislev in 165 BC. As historically recorded in the Maccabean account, there were approximately 1,100 days, or 2,200 mornings and evenings, between desecration and reconsecration. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4071 Registered: 3-2004  |
The start date as I remember it was with Constantine in 300 something and ended in 1844. Some one else can confirm or change that because it has been a long time since I looked into this. Diana | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 10 Registered: 7-2007 |
No, Diana, in Adventist Wonderworld, the math is 457 BC + 2300 years = AD 1844. Ellen White compounds this nonsense by stating that it was in the autumn of 457 BC that Artaxerxes I issued a decree to have Jerusalem rebuilt or restored. Unfortunately for Adventist theories, the decree found in Ezra 7 couldn't possibly have been issued or gone into effect in the autumn of 457 BC for the simple reason that, in agreement with the stipulations of the decree, Ezra left Babylon at the very beginning of the spring in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (not later than March 457 BC if Artaxerxes I), and he arrived in Jerusalem early in the fifth month, which is two months earlier than the start of autumn. Therefore, we can be quite certain that Artaxerxes' decree was issued no later than early March 457 BC, and possibly up to one year before that. In addition, you can read Ezra 7 as many times as you like, in whatever language you wish, and you won't find anything regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Actually, the very notion is impossible. Do you remember Haggai and his first message to the people? Haggai lived in the early days of the reign of Artaxerxes' grandfather, Darius I Hystaspes. Well, Haggai complained that the rebuilding of the temple was languishing while the inhabitants of Jerusalem were living in panelled houses! Well, the point is, a significant number of panelled houses would account for one rebuilt city! This happened half a century before Ezra! True, Artaxerxes did have something to do with the rebuilding of Jerusalem, for he authorised Nehemiah to have the city wall rebuilt, but that happened in 444 BC, not 457 BC. The above critique is entirely objective, and no 'orthodox' SDA will ever be able to assail it. Naturally, this attack on the validity of 457 BC casts very dark shadows on the purportedly accurate fulfilment of the messianic interpretation of the 70 weeks, which is not an Adventist interpretation in itself. Perhaps some well-meaning Christians would rather keep on believing in some form of messianic application for the 70 weeks because they feel such a notion somehow strengthens their prophetic position. The truth is, however, that this interpretation, first thought of by Tertullian in the third century, has brought about more chaos than truth. After all, if William Miller hadn't misunderstood so many things about the Bible, including Daniel 9, there wouldn't have been an SDA Church! All the dates given by the SDA Church for the 70 weeks (457 BC, 408 BC, AD 27, AD 31 and AD 34) are either false on non-events. As for the true intepretation of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, it is probably a round figure of skipped holocausts (probably not counting the double Sabbath holocaust and other regular burnt offerings celebrated in Jewish festivals, such as the Passover, Tabernacles, etc.). The actual time elapsed from the first offering of a sow in the temple of Jerusalem by the order of Antiochus IV to the cleansing of the sanctuary by the Maccabees was 1,094 days, although the rightful sacrifices themselves must have been abolished for a few weeks before the first sow was offered. Quite certainly, all the traits mentioned by Daniel as signalling the evil deeds of the little horn, or the evil King of the North in ch. 11, are known to have been distinctive of Antiochus, including the banning of the observance of the Sabbath! For some reason, even though one would think it would be in their own interest, Adventists never mention these incontestable facts. Can you imagine why? Eduardo | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6456 Registered: 12-2003  |
I've looked up Miller's 15 proofs in Cultic Doctrine, and I'm having trouble determining the supposed start date. I remember there being some confusion about it, whether it began with Ezra's return to rebuild the wall, or Nehemiah's a few year later. Proof number 8 of Miller's seems to establish the beginning of the time period, in at least one formula, at 677BC, the date Manasseh and the first wave of captives was taken from Judah into Babylon. I know that on the prophetic chart, there is a date assigned for this. It is somewhere in the 4th or 5th century BC, but I can't remember the date officially used on the chart. Colleen | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 11 Registered: 7-2007 |
Actually, Colleen, Miller's first hunch was something like this: 1. We know the 70 weeks end at the cross, i.e., AD 33. 2. So, they must have begun 490 years before: 33 - 490 = -457. 3. Now, -457 is the same as 457 BC. In reality, all of the above suppositions were false. Nobody 'knew' the 70 weeks ended or were even connected with the cross. They just imagined they were. Secondly, it is not entirely clear that the 70 weeks should equal 490 consecutive, contiguous years. Thirdly, the astronomial year -457 is NOT the same as the historical year 457 BC. The historical equivalent of -457 is 458 BC! I think Miller's first candidate for the decree was Artaxerxes' grant to Nehemiah. Only later, when he learnt that Nehemiah left too late for his purposes, did he finally pick on Ezra. He also moved the crucifixion to the middle of the last week. Ellen White fixed on the autumn of 457 BC because she wanted a start in the autumn, just like her dreamed-of Yom Kippur. You can read her references in http://www.ellenwhite.org/457bc.htm I haven't read Cultic Doctrine, but I think it may well be similar to a paper I wrote a few years ago. For those of you who can read Spanish, have a look at http://www.geocities.com/alfil2_1999/profeticasdewilliammiller1.pdf. Even if you don't read Spanish, the first appendix therein contains Miller's fifteen 'proofs' in English. Quite an example of how NOT to study the Bible. Eduardo (Message edited by EMR on August 02, 2007) | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4072 Registered: 3-2004 |
Like I said, I did not remember the dates. And you know what, that is fine with me. It is not true anyway. Thanks for the dates, EMR. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6459 Registered: 12-2003 |
Eduardo, Thank you! No wonder 459, 457, etc. hovered in the back of my mind. I remember always being distinctly confused in school when this subject was discussed. I really did try to understand, and I memorized the timeline at some point. But how it all fit together always eluded me. When I was in college I remember the anticipation with which I signed up for a summer course in Daniel and the Revelation from Gordon Balharrie, then the dean of the theology dept. I clearly remember thinking, "Now I'll finally figure this out!" A few days into the class my hopes were dashed; Dr. Balharrie was no more able to make those timelines and doctrines make sense than were any of my previous teachers. I'm not sure we even finished the material for the course that term. It was a great disappointment to me, and I remember feeling resigned that this whole "subject" would never make sense to me. Actually, I guess I was right—although I had no idea then that it didn't make sense to me because—it didn't make sense! Colleen |
