I don’t think the problem was the use of a specific Bible translation or a specific and unique link, solely to Leviticus 16, there is more context being included as you can see in this statement below (emphasis mine):
"Use of Sadaq in Daniel 8:14. The niphal use of the root sadaq in Daniel 8:14 is unique in the Old Testament. Though the basic meaning of the root sadaq is “to be right,” “to justify,” “to restore,” the semantic range of this root includes the meaning “to cleanse.” This is evident from (1) the use of sadaq with taher(“to cleanse,” “to purify”; e.g., in Job 4:17) in synonymous parallelism and zakah (“to cleanse,” “to purify”; e.g., in Job 15:14), (2) the translation of sadaq in several versions, and (3) the hithpael use of the root sadaq (the hithpael, like the niphal, is passive or reflexive) in Genesis 44:16”.
The final analysis of this very narrow but deep factor was that Ford did not give “enough due weight” to the meaning “to cleanse” in the context of Daniel 8:9-14.
On Point number 2, which is really so much more critical in weighting the pros and cons of Ford’s position is what you stated as: [quote=“frank_merendino, post:61, topic:15900”]
the 2300 days itself relies largely on importing the year for a day calculation from essentially two or three other unrelated places in the OT. This is then laid on this text as the key to unlock a two millennia long time period and fulfillment.
Historicism, the “disputed numerology”, as you called it, is not applied randomly or at will as mentioned but rather systematically. The day as a symbol for a year is only applied to prophecy that has symbols (e.g. Animals, horns, Etc.), it goes back to at least 200 AD where some Jewish sages recognized it even before Christians I believe, and In contrast Desmond Ford’s “Apotelesmatic Principle” can hardly be called, mainstream, or widely accepted except maybe by Sir Francis Bacon (a.k.a. Shakespeare et al…), let alone a method of prophetic interpretation. It proposes that anything is possible, meaning prophetic events can be non-events, repeated at will, they can happen in the future, in the past, Etc., with no external or methodical controls to justify a specific position.
Although I am not in favor of Dr. Ford’s theology I believe he is an honorary Christian and I hope to see him in Heaven someday.