1844 and the Future of Adventism


10/28/18 - #6

Or reimagine it…

(George Davidovich) #144

Wow, your reply is quite slick, I’ll give you that much, but it is wrong. Wrong because all you are doing is attempting to flip the argument o its head without providing any substance.

Your rejection of the day-year principle does break the systematic calculation of Bible prophecy, so your explanation, which is not new, has to be considered as an outlier and ultimately wrong as well. The Angel Gabriel in the 70-week prophecy did not use the word years but “WEEK” rather. The word ‘shabuwa’ is used 19 times in the Hebrew Scriptures always referring to a literal week of seven days. So I this case the use of “70 weeks of years” is just another construct that allows “not-Preterists” to explain themselves, but ironically, this cultural “common way of Jewish thinking” relies on the day-year principle God ntroduced back in Genesis.

I had not expected this statement in your reply but I will refrain from making assumptions: do you believe that the 70-week prophecy points to the Messiah Jesus or not?

Here is an interesting excerpt from W H Johns on a related analysis of Desmond Ford that applies to this conversation:

G. The Abolishment of the Year-Day Principle Necessitates a Change in the Usual Interpretation of the 70 Weeks’ Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.[9]


  • If these are viewed in the usual way as literal weeks, then this time prophecy cannot be pointing to Christ without the aid of the year-day principle.
  • It is obvious that this prophecy does indeed point to Christ, since it mentions Him as the Messiah (literally, "the anointed one") and mentions His atoning sacrifice that puts an end to all sin.
  • Therefore, a novel interpretation must be derived for Daniel 9:24, which suggests that the word "seven" and not the word "week" is meant. Also, the word "years" should be added to the original meaning, so that it is now translated as "seventy sevens of years," or in other words 490 years. With this novel translation, the year-day principle is not needed in Daniel 9:24-27, and the KJV translation of "seventy weeks" is considered outmoded.

Comment : Dr. Ford recognizes that the word "years" is nowhere to be found in the original Hebrew of Daniel 9:24.

(André Reis) #145

Incorrect. The word is “sevened” which works for 7 days or 7 years. There’s cases in Jewish literature of the use of “shabua” for 7 years where no day-year is implied. I may post it later.

The 490 years total 70 sabbatical year cycles or 10 jubilees. It’s connected in context in Dan 9 with the 10 sabbatical years of the Babylonian exile:

Daniel 9:1–2 (NRSV): In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

Jer 25:11: This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

2 Chronicles 36:21: to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

As there’s no year-day principle in Jeremiah’s captivity prophecy there’s no year-day principle in Dan 9.

(Darrel Lindensmith) #146

Thank you for your comments. You know, I have been looking for the reference for the above. Would you have a source for this; thanks

(Steve Mga) #147

Andre –
Enjoying your “lectures” on Dan 8, 9 and other Scriptures.

(George Davidovich) #148

Here you go - unfortunately for the first reference you have to buy the book

A Sage said: “May the curse of heaven fall upon those who calculate the date of the advent of the Messiah, and thus create political and social unrest among the people.” Sanhedrin, 97b
Louis Newman and Samuel Spitz, The Talmudic anthology: tales and teachings of the rabbis (Behrman House, 1945): 277. ISBN 0874413036, 9780874413038

Rabbi Nachmani is quoted here by Avram Jehoshua

(André Reis) #149

Where does it say Daniel 9?

(George Davidovich) #150

this was already provided
Avram Yehoshua
A most amazing thing occurs in the ninth chapter of Daniel: we’re told when Messiah would come. But instead of explaining it to us, our Rabbis curse anyone wanting to find it out: ‘Rabbi Samuel b. Nachmani said in the name (of) Rabbi Jonathan: ‘Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end. ’ (1) Some of our Rabbis, in a further attempt to keep us from Daniel, even state that Daniel was wrong. Alfred Edersheim, a Talmudic scholar who would come to know Messiah said, ‘later Rabbinism, which, naturally enough, could not find its way through the Messianic prophecies of the book, declared that even Daniel was mistaken’ (2) (emphasis added).
“If Dan 9:24-27’s hamasiach is Jesus then the period of 490 years commencing from 538 BC is not exact”
The most important question to you Andre still stands unanswered. Do you believe that the 70-week prophecy unmistakably points to Jesus or some other Jewish “messiah”?
I am answering this with my phone so excuse any typos

(Harry Elliott) #151

[quote=“gdavidovic, post:150, topic:17143”]
‘Rabbi Samuel b. Nachmani said in the name (of) Rabbi Jonathan: ‘Blasted be …


One: Does it really matter what squabbling rabbis said?

Two: A messiah by definition is a human who has been anointed. Right? So Jesus was not a messiah before His incarnation and could not be the one Gabriel referred to as Messiah the Prince (Christian tradition notwithstanding). Right?

Three: It’s not necessary to know what all the answers are to know what some of the answers are not.. Right?

(George Tichy) #152

This will never end. Adventists MUST force some extraneous interpretation into the issue, otherwise they cannot justify their dependence on Dan 8:14 as the reason for their (our) existence as a special, remnant Church.

Keeping the 1844 fairy tale is a MUST, it is untouchable! It doesn’t matter if it is based on one single and very obscure verse in the OT! It cannot be tossed (not even TOSCed… :roll_eyes:… lol)


Addressing questions and clearing up misconceptions about time related prophecy should certainly not be taboo. At its heart is the whole idea of Present Truth, that as our understanding becomes more clear our foundation be updated and built upon. Even in the time of EGW she admitted that she was not the infallible source of interpretation and when pressed to do so she pointed people back to the Bible. The level of understanding of her time grew out of exercising Present Truth as a principle of being willing to extend understanding and not be saddled with misconceptions on this and other topics.

If we see as a church that the Present Truth principle is thought to no longer be needed or no longer desired, or suppressed as a practice we indeed have a problem and have lost our way entirely.


This feels as though you wanted to disqualify yourself from the discussion, brother. If prophecy would not interest you, how could anyone take your arguments on prophecy seriously?

It also seems to suggest that God wasted a lot of time inspiring the prophets and we waste a lot of time studying a tremendous amount of Biblical text qualifying as prophecy.

I can understand your frustration, however, on realizing the cacophony about prophetic interpretation. In my eyes there is only one way to find understanding. The prophet Daniel wrote it down himself about the prophecies in his book: “None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” (Daniel 12:10)

King Solomon explains: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” (Prov 9:10) So when we lack wisdom in order to understand the prophecies of Daniel, it might be a lack of this special type of fear. To remedy this, the Apostle James recommends: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.” (James 1:5,6)


Indeed your quote it is completely accurate Kai. Based on the reading and context you wrote then it is true that anyone who doesn’t understand the prophecies is wicked, doesn’t fear the Lord (enough), and lacks wisdom.

This then logically would result in people like yourself (assuming of course you don’t understand the prophecies of Daniel), George or anyone else who doesn’t understand the prophecies in the book of Daniel is in fact wicked.

I am not sure how your application of this is either logical or helpful to the discussion?

I don’t recall any commentary, theologian, or the SDA pioneers coming to this conclusion before in the context you are relaying.


In an age of political correctness, we don’t like to be called wicked or lacking wisdom :wink: Yet realizing one’s own condition is the first step to receive more blessings.

Daniel actually showed us how to pray for this wisdom. He confessed in chapter nine the sins of his people as though they were his own. He identified with them. Only then the angel came to enlighten him more about what he saw in vision and did not understand.

You ask how this could be a help in the discussion? I would say, it prevents a spirit of fighting and ridiculing each other. And if we believe that God can provide wisdom, He will do so.

Sometimes our growing in wisdom will seem a bit contradictory. But God has His way of bringing us to unity in understanding where it is necessary. Anyway, this will keep us humble.


I am very confused…you ignored everything I observed from your previous statement and asked you to confirm if I understood correctly.

You just used some Bible verses to say that anyone who doesn’t understand the prophecies of Daniel is wicked, doesn’t fear the Lord (enough), and lacks wisdom.

Please return to that before jumping to another topic please. Could you please respond to the comments I made and address that.

(George Tichy) #158

Hey, leave me out. I DO understand those prophecies. I understand that they are complicated and obscure. I also understand that NOBODY actually understands them. There are those who pretend to understand them, but there are no two people who agree on them 100% in all details. Which means that everyone, but me, is wicked… :innocent: :innocent:

(George Davidovich) #159

quote=“David1, post:153, topic:17143”]
At its heart is the whole idea of Present Truth,
I agree with you, but we should be careful to discern what present truth is; one thing I am certain it is not, is confusion. Light in general and specifically on prophecy was repressed for 1260 years thanks to Origen and Justin, just to name a couple, until it finally dawned during the Reformation. Did the Reformers discovered everything? I would say not, there is new light which this church was given that not many others preach, Sabbath and IJ as main examples, and it is embattled.
Is there more light to be received? we must remain open to the possibility, but not to deceit. You can trace most prophetic flavors of the month to the original culprits Ribera and Alcazar, direct emanations from Babylon.

(Thomas J Zwemer) #160

No one has even alluded toHebew thought on Dan 8:14. I think they have a Holy day to celebrate the restoration. do they refer back to Daniel?


I have a simple question to Andre Reis @areis74: what is the relationship between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the one in Daniel 8?

(George Davidovich) #162

I had already addressed this little translation detail in my previous reference from W H Johns, which you chose to ignore, but just to ensure others don’t inadvertently miss it, you can search any of your bibles and the ONLY translation that uses this form, and ONLY on this verse , is the NIV. Do you call this objective or maybe a little “subjective exegesis” on your part? So literally, you are proposing an entire new prophetic interpretation paradigm based on this single word.

The NIV translation incidentally, and not by chance, is a translation by Jesuit priest Carlo Martini and a Catholic committee. Is anyone here seeing the picture yet? This is the power that has the most to lose from the Historicist interpretation of prophecy!