Prophecy’s Living Dynamic

The Bible would not be the Bible without the element of predictive prophecy. Its influence in our lives, apart from this unique element, would be considerably altered. Diminish it or remove it and you end up with a wholly different book, a faith alien to the one we’ve been given. But how so? Why is this particular element so vital to the whole? I would like to suggest three specific reasons: it tells us we are going somewhere; it gives specificity to the purposes of God at each juncture of that journey; and it draws us in to participation in those purposes.

The Movement of History

Philosophers of history have long recognized the uniqueness of the biblical outlook. Not cyclical or merely developmental, (as if each culture were a kind of plant growing and developing in its own right and apart from a larger structure), the Bible presents us with an overwhelming sense of linear movement. We are going somewhere. This conviction permeates the whole and supplies the essential foundation for both hope and meaning.

It is my own conviction, though somewhat speculative, that God is always going somewhere; that even apart from the sin problem, He is going somewhere and that once it is resolved the expansiveness of the divine purposes will be progressively opened up to us in ways we can hardly fathom. But, in the light of the sin problem, this conviction of movement is absolutely vital. Indeed, the gospel promise itself cannot even be stated without bringing in the sense of linearity, of movement in historical time, of the future tense and all it implies. “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” Seed speaks of progeny and progeny points to some time in the future. And because the promise is given in respect to the future, and yet not without recognition of present needs, the future can be full of hope, even when present experience is painful and hard and evil seems to triumph.

But the hope provided in this one promise, though substantial and containing a forward-looking element, lacks a concrete specificity in regard to time. And hope, without such specificity is difficult to maintain. I liken the human experience to that of a ship on a boundless sea. It is one thing to know you are going somewhere. But this fact alone cannot sustain. I may be moving, but if the ocean is boundless and there are no markers, even movement in the end loses its value. Lamech intones, at the naming of his son, Noah, “This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.” You sense here the difficulty. You sense the longing for a rest that goes beyond mere physical cessation. You sense the problem of generations passing without seeming change and the abiding presence of the curse.

But then you also note, in this word of Lamech’s, a delimiting marker. The ocean is no longer boundless. “This one will give us rest.” Something significant that moves us towards the final harbor will happen in our lifetime. This is Lamech’s prophetic assertion. His prophecy is part and parcel of Enoch’s before him, who, in the naming of his son, Methuselah, gave a harbinger of the coming flood judgement. The point here is that early in the scripture record we begin to see markers, indications by which movement and progress might be measured, specific events in specific time frames. God knew that these were essential for the maintaining of gospel hope.

This measuring of time, however, did not begin and end with Enoch and his progeny. It continues with Abraham and the time frame laid down for the captivity and subsequent deliverance of his descendants, (Gen. 15:13–16 and Ex. 12:40). It is picked up again by Jeremiah in the seventy-year delineation of exile in Babylon, (Jer. 25:11–12; 2 Chron. 36:21; Dan. 9:1–2), and then, in the work of Daniel, it reaches its soaring climax, laying down a grid of time that carries us clear through to the “time of the end.” These time-specific markers keep linearity alive: the sense of movement; the sense of a destination; the sense that our salvation is closer now than when we first believed (Rom. 13:11).

Specificity to the Purposes of God

The prophetic framework that we have been describing is not just a series of markers, not vacuous, not void of content and meaning, as if the continuum of time had been merely divided at intervals. On the contrary, every point of time singled out by a prophet is inextricably linked with a purposive act of God. Some movement is initiated, some action taken, in respect to the redemption of mankind and the resolution of the sin problem.

This can, perhaps, be most clearly seen in the vision portion of Daniel 9. The time element of seventy weeks of years is established in verse 24 and then, immediately, in respect to that time framework, a list of purposive actions is set forth: “to finish transgression, to make an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.” This link between a time element and purposive action is very clear in this passage, but not just in this passage. In every instance where a time element is prophetically given, there is an accompanying action. God does not lay down markers in jest.

Furthermore, those events, aims, or purposes so marked are never lower-level initiatives, peripheral to the primary task of redemption and judgement. Rather, divine actions, so marked, are at the very heart of God’s movement on behalf of mankind, vital to the attainment of His ends, and vital to all who hope to partake in His redemption.

Human Participation in the Purposes of God

The question remains, why has God moved in this way? Why has He marked out time and revealed His purposes relative to those marked times? We have already argued that one reason is to sustain courage and hope. But there is another reason, perhaps even more vital, and it is seen most clearly in the experience of Daniel himself as recorded in the ninth chapter of his book.

The narrative in the first part of this chapter is important because it portrays for us a pattern of response to a specific time prophecy that I believe is paradigmatic. At the head of the chapter we are told that “Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed to Jeremiah.” It is evident that he is dealing with a time prophecy. But notice his response. He reflects and calculates until perceptive insight is gained as to the purposes of God for his day, for that day, that juncture in time in which he found himself, and then he begins to pray. “So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.”

It is essential for us to see that Daniel understood that a particular moment in the unfolding of God’s purposes had been reached. He grasped that a time prophecy was near to fulfillment, a prophecy of Israelite return from exile, even though nothing in his purview gave evidence of such a possibility. Nonetheless, he does not merely shrug his shoulders and say, “Oh, well. I guess God will do what God will do, with me or without me. I have other important matters to tend to.” No, he engages with God, he partners with God, through prayer. He reaches out with the whole of His being for the accomplishment of what had been predicted by Jeremiah, knowing as he did that those things promised were crucial for the fulfillment of God’s purposes and the ultimate salvation of humankind.

This was a partnership with God in prayer and it was signally answered. It was in response to this prayer that Gabriel came and laid out in even more detail the purposes of God in respect to the Israelite return and the rebuilding of the city and the sanctuary. Daniel’s action was a first step, but it was absolutely vital to the work of those who came after him: Ezra and Nehemiah and those who worked with them. Daniel’s was a partnership in prayer and prophecy, theirs a partnership of action. But both prayer and action were engaged in by reason of a time-specific prophecy. And it was this prophecy that determined the direction and the focus of their efforts.


The purposes of God are unified within the context of history, but they are not uniform. There are particular times and places where He especially moves to accomplish particular ends. And these are marked out within the great framework of prophecy that has been given us.

Furthermore, when God gives a specific time prophecy it is meant to galvanize His people into specific commitments and actions as the time of its fulfillment comes upon them. This is the essence of Adventism, rooted as it is in the longest time prophecy of scripture. To the extent that we denigrate or deny this pattern, to that same extent we imperil ourselves, and in the sight of heaven, render ourselves irrelevant.

Several applications are in order:

  1. When living in the context of prophetic fulfillment, heaven sets the priorities for ministry, not earth. The patterns of ministry belong to heaven as well. We are at no more liberty to turn our back on heaven’s stated interests than Noah would have been to deny the prophecy of Enoch and the confirming word of his own father; at no more liberty than Jesus himself to reject the mission outlined for Him in the words of Daniel 9, or to substitute another plan in its place.
  2. Adventism has not always escaped the temptation to reduce the great passages that gave birth to this movement to a mere proof texting prod to join our denomination. Set answers are given to a standard set of questions and the whole becomes little more than a prop set off to the side, a litmus test of Adventist identity, but far too often a superficial test. Daniel’s response to the time-specific expression of God’s purpose for his day was deep repentance, earnest prayer, and vigorous engagement. Our response to Daniel 8 and Revelation 14 should be no less earnest. Yes, the ideas in these passages can be expressed in simple terms, but they are not simplistic. They plumb the depths of the spiritual issues which God has judged to be most pertinent to our day. Engagement here should produce a profound maturity and a broad and penetrating witness. When it does not, something is amiss.
  3. Triumphalism has no place in Adventism, but neither does embarrassment. How easy it is for us to swing from crowing that we are the one true church, to being embarrassed and insecure about our lack of acceptance in the broader Christian family. I don’t find any crowing in the prayer of Daniel 9, but neither do I find embarrassment at the truths that Israel had been given, in spite of the fact they had failed to honor them in their lives.

Rob Wilcox, MDiv, is a former missionary to Albania and now pastors the Porterville and Lindsay SDA Churches in Central California.

Photo by Jorgen Hendriksen on Unsplash.

We invite you to join our community through conversation by commenting below. We ask that you engage in courteous and respectful discourse. You can view our full commenting policy by clicking here.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Although the article only alludes to Daniel 8:13-14, this prophecy is foundational for our Seventh Day Adventist movement therefore it is important to consider if there is more fitting interpretation of this prophecy, more fitting for this present time, present truth.

There are two identifiers of the subject in Daniel 8:13-14, one is the word “taw-meed” H8548, the other is the word “ko’-desh”H6944, both words identify the same subject.

From Strong’s for “taw-meed” we have: “continuance (as indefinite extension); perpetual”, and for “ko’-desh”: “hallowed (thing), holiness,”.

These two words can not be applied to daily sacrifice in the Sanctuary, because daily sacrifice and Sanctuary are not perpetual, do not have “indefinite extension”, only Shabbat is perpetual, of infinite extension.

Golgotha was the final sacrifice once and for all, New Jerusalem will not have a Temple/Sanctuary, only Jesus the Messiah and His Shabbat have infinite extension, are perpetual.
Using the same method as in Dan ch 5 to decipher the writing on the wall we can interpret Dan 8:13-14 this way: “2300 evenings and mornings and perpetual holy Shabbat will be restored to the Sanctuary the Christian Church” this interpretation is derived from the Hebrew root word for "ko’-desh found in Genesis 2:3.
Facts on the ground after the disappointment in 1844 also confirm this interpretation.
Earthly fulfillment of this prophecy is raising up of the Seventh Day Adventist movement, our primary mission is to restore the Biblical Decalogue in the multi-denominational Christian Church.

Regarding Day of Atonement typology, the words in Lev 16:5 are “two hairy”, that is two “saw-eer” H8163, first use of this word is in Gen 27:11 for Esau, Jacob becomes the second “saw-eer” in order to receive the blessing from Isaac, and then becomes “saw-eer azazel” when escaping to Laban. Primary typology for Lev 16:5 is Esau, Jacob, the ram is Isaac, secondary typology is Christians, Jews, Jesus.
Day of Atonement is triune sacrifice, on Golgotha we have three crosses, Jesus and two sinners, one representing Christians and the other representing the Jewish nation. Ellen White in her “Unusual Statement on the scapegoat” confirms this.

The problem with these forward reaching prophesies is that they don’t look forward far enough. God’s purpose has always been the same as it culminates at the cross. “The kingdom of God is within you.” We have that REST now. “There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God”. That rest, typified by the earthly Sabbath, needs to be internalized - which the Jews of Jesus’ days had not done.

These prophesies are not a progression of individual invents any more. They have reach their goals (fulfilled) with Jesus.


Two tried and true principles:

When predictive prophecy fails…reinterpret.

When one needs a predictive prophecy…twist something out of its context to give the appearance of fulfillment.


As a Seventh-Day Adventist, I struggled with the church’s interpretation of the 2300 days prophecy of Daniel 8 specifically with the beginning period of 2300 days/years and the associated investigative judgement doctrine. Daniel 8:13-14 talks about 3 things that concerns Daniel

  • The Rebellion of God’s people that causes the desolation
  • Vision concerning the daily sacrifices (morning and evening sacrifice was stopped by the evil king)
  • Surrender of the sanctuary and the persecution of God’s people, the true Israelites.

In response to Daniel’s “how long” query, the Angel of God says “ It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings (most of the version says evening and mornings); then the sanctuary will be restored ”. The angel of God repeats the duration in verse 26. “ The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true,* but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future .”*

In Vs 15-27 God gives us and Daniel the interpretation of the vision. The Angel says to Daniel that the events in versus 13 and 14 happens during the reign of an evil king who comes after Medo-Persian empire, after Greek empire (336-323 BC.), after or during the latter part of the 4 kings of the divided Greece. So 2300 days/years prophecy’s starting period cannot be 457BC but sometime after 300 BC. Thus 457BC+2300 = 1844AD cannot be proven from the angel’s interpretation.

The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 happened during Darius reign is about the rebuilding of the temple that started during (457BC). The 2300 days vision of Chapter 8 happened during Belshazzar’s reign, during Babylonian empire.

1 Like

Interpretation of Dan 8:13-14 is as follows: How long shall be the vision concerning the perpetual Shabbat, and transgression of desolation the false Decalogue, that makes the holy Shabbat, and the Christian congregation to be trodden underfoot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the holy Shabbat be restored.
Change in the Decalogue causes transgression of desolation in the Christian Church.
Sanctuary is the Christian Church, and cleansing of the Sanctuary is restoration of the true Decalogue in its rightful place as the Law of the Christian Church.

1 Like

but if the earthly sanctuary model holds, and there’s no reason to believe it doesn’t, the desolation or pollution or defilement in the christian church caused by the papacy’s change of the saturday sabbath to sunday would also defile the sanctuary in heaven…that is, in the same way that whatever defiled the camp of ancient israel ended up defiling the earthly sanctuary, whatever defiles the christian church defiles the heavenly sanctuary…it seems, then, that the record of the defilement of the christian church by the papacy, kept in the heavenly sanctuary, has defiled the heavenly sanctuary itself…

we could then say that in addition to cleansing the church on earth, christ’s ministry in the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary, begun in 1844, also involves cleansing the heavenly sanctuary of the record of the abomination brought into the christian church by the papacy, in addition to whatever record has been created of how this abomination has individually stained whoever is shown to be covered by christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and perfect life on earth…

i think gabriel’s words to daniel really do mean that the physical structure of the sanctuary in heaven is scheduled to experience the beginning of the cleansing process at the end of the 2300-year prophecy, even if it also means that those whom christ is working with will become progressively purified to levels not seen since apostolic times…

of course none of this is something that daniel could reasonably be expected to have understood…but this is neither here nor there…this 2300-yr prophecy is obviously meant for people living thousands of yrs after daniel’s time…

“…Decalogue…as the Law of the Christian churchIs that who He was talking to?

And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt**, out of the house of bondage.(Ex 20:1,2)

Nope. The Lord did a lot of good things for the Christian Church, but He never had occasion to bring us out of Egyptian slavery. And I’m pretty sure the Bible never called the Decalogue a law. It was a covenant.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.(Ex 34:27,28)


Function of the Sanctuary and its sacrificial system is redemption, Jesus accomplished redemption on Golgotha, when Jesus died for our sins on the cross the earthly Sanctuary ceased to serve its function, it was decommissioned. i will not comment on what happened to the heavenly Sanctuary, in the Letter to the Hebrews there is mention of the sacrifice of Jesus cleansing the heavenly things.
As Adventist i’m concerned that our theology is relevant now, with what i can share with other denominations and with the Jews? it is not possible to enter into meaningful dialogue with either on the basis of our present theology.
i’m not advocating rejection of the truth given to our pioneers, they all had relevant truth for their time, their understanding is no longer relevant, it was never meant to be the final understanding, in fact it is an obstacle now, and needs to be enlarged not rejected. The Covenant in the Ten Commandments, and symbolism of the Day of Atonement, are about reconciliation, the Day of Atonement is the Day of Reconciliation, mystery of the Gospel is reconciliation between members of Abraham’s family, reconciliation between the Father and his two sons, and between the brothers.
There is restlessness in the Adventist camp, some say let us sit here in the desert, others want to move on but where to go?, the direction given to us in 1844 is towards the promised land of Biblical culture, and reconciliation with our brothers in the Messiah.

again, and using the earthly sanctuary model, we can see that jesus on the cross was the great sacrifice for sin, which enabled and ushered in the rest of the plan of redemption, including the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, or IJ…in the OT sanctuary model, the slaying of the sacrifice during the HP ministry of the high priest was never the endpoint…instead it was the means through which sin transferred from the sinner to the sanctuary where it was ultimately dealt with during the MHP ministry of the high priest…

we either have an OT sanctuary and priesthood model that is an “example and shadow of heavenly things”, Heb 8:5, or we don’t…

and if when you dialogue with other denominations and jews you simply tell them what they assume, and want to hear, how are you contributing to their knowledge…why not just simply be one of them…

Reason to dialogue is that we have one God, one Father, we are His children, do you think a parent is happy if the family is dysfunctional, they need us we need them, without each other we are not flourishing. We are different to each other, that is good, differences are stimulating, and should be preserved, but imagine if we liked each other, and appreciated each others unique worship, the Good Shepherd has two flocks, and there will be one fold and one Shepherd. John 10:16

liking others and agreeing with them are separate propositions, and there’s no need to merge the two…there’s no reason differences need to divide, despite what the politics of the day indicates…we can maintain our signature doctrine of the sanctuary, confirmed and consolidated through supernatural vision, while affirming and respecting the unique contributions of others…

i think we do ourselves and others a disservice when we minimize our own potential contribution to the point of obliteration because we’re afraid of what others may think…this course really underestimates the capacity for respect and tolerance that many other denominations routinely exhibit…

some yrs ago, on the john ankerberg show, william johnsson, long-standing editor of the review, was in a discussion with a walter martin about, among other things, the role of egw in our church (and yes, all of our distinctive doctrines eventually distill into a consideration of egw)…i believe johnsson missed an opportunity to explain the preeminent position the gift of prophecy puts us in: he seemed to be attempting to minimize what makes us unique, and in fact exceptional and great…i don’t think this approach buys us friends…if anything it awakens the suspicion that we’re hiding something…

Have you read EGW “Unusual statement on the scapegoat”?
As the above article argues understanding of prophecy is dynamic, static theology eventually becomes an obstacle in the church, world moves on, church is static, church becomes irrelevant to the next generation

yes, i have, and i don’t believe egw wrote that statement…alternatively, it may have been doctored up by one of her assistants without her input or knowledge…both before, but especially after this statement, egw points to satan as the scapegoat at the end of IJ…

i don’t think the above article is arguing that we need to throw out our sanctuary doctrine…personally, i think it makes a lot of sense if the earthly sanctuary is taken as a model…in fact i don’t see what other conclusion is possible…

God called the Millerite Adventist movement because there was a need in the wider Christian Church, our name Seventh Day Adventist speaks of this need, “Adventist” proclaims imminent return of Jesus, and “Seventh Day” proclaims the restoration the true Ten Commandments.

Daniel 8:13-14 confirms the validity of our name, verse 13 has a question, “How long shall the vision of Perpetual, and of the Transgression of Desolation that tramples underfoot the Holy, and the Congregation.” ? In verse 14 we have the answer: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days then shall the Holy be restored .”

Based on this prophecy William Miller proclaimed imminent return of Jesus, in spring of 1844 the Millerite message was nearing the end of its effectiveness, and was revived with the Day of Atonement message.

22 October 1844 passed, Jesus did not return, these who continued to believe needed to make sense of what happened, as nothing appeared to happen here on earth.

Inspired by the vision in the cornfield Hiriam Edson, and O.R.L. Crosier began to study Letter to the Hebrews, from there they inferred that Edsons vision showed Jesus in the heavenly Sanctuary fulfilling the Day of Atonement ministry typified in Leviticus 16:5.

Mr Crosier developed this further, suggesting that the antitype for the scapegoat was the evil one.

At the same time a small congregation of Millerite Adventists accepted the Sabbath message from Rachel Oaks, this group shared their new understanding with Ellen White and the other Adventists.

Initial expectation was that Jesus will emerge from the Holy of Hollies in the heavenly Sanctuary and return to earth, and that the door to salvation was shut, as in parable of the ten maidens.

With passage of time explanation was required to explain why Jesus continues to be in the Holy of Hollies, the reason given is Investigative Judgement.

Seventh Day Adventism has to be Biblical, we can not hold beliefs because of tradition, from its beginnings we are a movement guided by the Holy Spirit in Truth.

Our pioneers had their present truth, we must likewise have our present truth, their present truth is no longer effective. Biblical Truth remains, we grow because of the truth of Sabbath, clean foods, and because we proclaim the second Advent of Jesus, all else can be re examined without harm, and with benefit to our denomination.

Daniel 8:13-14 can be interpreted to read: “Perpetual holy Shabbat will be restored to the Law of the Sanctuary, the Christian Church”, why? Because the subject in v13 and 14 called Perpetual and Holy is in need of restoration due to transgression of desolation.

Changing the Ten Commandments is the transgression that causes desolation in the Christian Church. The Church requires reformation, it is the New Testament Sanctuary that requires cleansing.
Edsons vision in the cornfield was about Sabbath, compare to Mathew ch 12.
Ellen White confirms this, in her vision of the Ten Commandments and the forth underlined.

who says their present truth is no longer effective…

Present truth of our pioneers is no longer effective for many reasons, such as; no one can understand reasons for a multistage Day of Atonement sacrifice, stage one 2000 years ago, second stage about 170 years ago, and the final stage we don’t know when.
Their present truth is not on our baptismal curriculum.
Adventists can not engage in dialogue with the mainstream Christian Denominations on the basis of their present truth.
Present truth our pioneers requires belief in the word of extra Biblical human authority for the fulfillment of Daniel 8:13-14. Bible prophecy always has objectively verifiable earthly fulfillment.

1 Like

Sorry, but that’s exactly what the Jews were talking about.

In Dan 7, and again in Dan 8, the last horn to develop was identified by the fact that it wasn’t yet fully grown. (They we’re still “little” compared to the mature horns in the cluster.)

9… out of one of them came forth a little horn…by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, …
12…How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice…
14…Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

There we have it. The last horn, the “little” one on the goat, was able to interrupt the daily sacrifice for 2300 evenings and mornings, which took 1150 days. .
WHAT OUR PIONEERS MISSED, AND WE IGNORE, was that the 2300 evenings and mornings was the prophesied DELAY until THE DAILY SACRIFICE WAS RESUMED.


We’ve messed up by trying to drag the RCC into a prophecy that doesn’t involve them.


but a multi-stage explanation is what the earthly sanctuary model points to…without it, we’re left to try to understand why jesus hasn’t returned after 2,000 yrs, when he said he’d return soon…

but baptism isn’t about present truth, and doctrinal awareness, is it…

i don’t find this to be an important objection…there are many points of overlap between adventism and other christian denomination…i’ve had no problems talking to non-adventist christians about some of the distinctive things we believe, and being listened to respectfully…i think it depends on how it’s done…

i’ve heard plenty of people say just the opposite…but even if our sanctuary doctrine does depend on egw, why is this a problem…there are plenty of things in NT present truth that depend on the visions of the apostles…this particular objection was why paul had such a hard time with the jews, all of whom were insisting that their bible should be the final authority in matters of doctrine…

OT jews, with their dependence on their bible, were caught in a time warp when present truth had shifted seismically to a NT focus…today’s christians, with their dependence on their bible, are caught in a time warp because present truth has shifted seismically to a focus on what jesus is doing in heaven, completely out of our sight…

we can say that none of it’s happening because we can’t see it, but it’s also the case that if it were happening, we wouldn’t see it…we would be dependent on knowing that it was happening purely on the basis of prophetic testimony, such as what we have in egw…we wouldn’t expected previous editions of present truth to be our main source of authority any more than apostolic christians could have used the OT as their main source of authority…

not if the prophecy is about things happening outside of earth…you seem to want daniel 8:13-14 to be about earth…but maybe it’s about the extra-earthly cosmic involvement that is required to manage the sin problem on earth…

what you are suggesting for the playing field for present truth is at variance with what we’ve seen in the past…that is, the playing field for the present truth of ancient israel was canaan; the playing field for the present truth of the apostles was earth; and the playing field for the present truth of egw and company was the universe…

can the playing field for modern present truth really retreat into a previous version, and be valid…

1 Like

We brag endlessly about keeping the true sabbath, but we don’t seem to have the time or the interest to really study what the Bible actually says about it. It does NOT say keep the 7th day of the calendar week holy. There was no calendar week in the OT until the Babylonians invented it to honor the seven sky-gods, the sun, moon and 5 visible planets ca. 700 BC. What it says is take a day’s rest as a as a sabbath gift from Yahweh anytime you have worked six days in a row. Those terrible Catholics do that. (But the Jews don’t.)

We accuse Protestants of keeping Sabbath when it isn’t Sabbath BECAUSE THE CATHOLICS DO! But we start sabbath when it isn’t Sabbath BECAUSE THE JEWS DO. Check it out. Read an interlinear Hebrew-English translation of Genesis 1.
I discovered this years ago, but it was only recently that I stumbled onto scholarly support.


They demonstrate that, “The evening and the morning were the first day” is NOT what the Bible says.

What it does say is:
God created the light that became the first day. (“And God called the light day.”)
Then it became evening. (Sundown).
Then it became morning. (Sunup).
That completed the FIRST DAY.
(The key information is that every day all creating was completed before sundown, not after sundown.)

Do we really prize truth over tradition?