Now we need to look at Mrs. White's enthusiastic endorsement of the 1843 & 50 charts and her comment that the figures are right and should not be altered, except at inspiration.

I purposely chose to respond to this last because i think Mrs. White's endorsement should not substitute proper study. As you will probably note, the charts were later were later reprinted without the 2520 being inserted. Suffice it to say she did not think it significant enough to raise her voice in protest.

Here is exactly what Mrs. White says:
"I saw that the truth should be made plain upon tables, that the earth and the fullness thereof is the Lord's, and that necessary means should not be spared to make it plain. I saw that the old chart was directed by the Lord, and that not a figure of it should be altered except by inspiration. I saw that the figures of the chart were as God would have them, and that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none should see it till His hand was removed..."

This statement was made regarding the 1843 chart and not the 1850 one as some people think (hence errenously using it to confirm that Mrs. White said the 1850 chart should not be altered except by Inspiration).

Observe the 1850 chart and you will realize that the 1335 and the 1290 are missing! If EGW was referring to all features of the initial chart being left intact, except for the correction of the dates from 1843 to 1844, why does this important chart drop the two periods 1335 and 1290? It seems that they were not included in the injunction to leave the chart intact.

By the way the 1850 chart was actually developed by James White and God directed that it be produced. Adventists had continued preaching using the 1843 chart as it was, but Mrs White says,

"God showed me the necessity of getting out a chart. I saw it was needed and that the truth made plain upon tables would affect much and would cause souls to come to the knowledge of the truth."--Letter 26, 1850, p. 1. (To Brother and Sister Loveland, November 1, 1850.) {5MR 202.4}

It is when this new chart was being drawn up that she explained that the old chart was not to be altered but a mistake had been in the figures- which is what was being addressed.

"I saw that the truth should be made plain upon tables, that the earth and the fullness thereof is the Lord's, and that necessary means should not be spared to make it plain. I saw that the old chart was directed by the Lord, and that not a figure of it should be altered except by inspiration. I saw that the figures of the chart were as God would have them, and that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none
should see it till His hand was removed." {SpM 1.3}

"On our return to Brother Nichol's, the Lord gave me a vision and showed me that the truth must be made plain upon tables, and it would cause many to decide for the truth by the third angel's message with the two former being made plain upon tables. I also saw it was as necessary for the paper to be published as for the messengers to go, for the messengers need a paper to carry with them containing present truth to put in the hands of those who hear and then the truth would not fade from the mind, and that the paper would go where the messengers could not go. Other things I saw, which will appear in the paper...." {5MR 203.1}

Why, then, did the messenger not protest at the exclusion of the other time periods? This could guide us in understanding exactly what she meant in the first quote above.

Apparently, she did not consider that the 1335 and the 1290 were part of the figures that should not be altered. She clarifies in GC and other sources quoted below that other Adventists who were setting different times for the fulfilment of the 2300 were wrong and should leave the dates just as God had set them, that they were as God wanted them but the failure of fulfilement as had initially been anticipated should not be taken as a
reason to adjust the figures.

"The world placed all time-proclamation on the same level and called it a delusion, fanaticism and heresy. Ever since 1844 I have borne my testimony that we were now in a period of time in which we are to take heed to ourselves lest our hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon us unawares. Our position has been one of waiting and watching, with no time-proclamation to
intervene between the close of the prophetic periods in 1844 and the time of our Lord's coming. We do not know the day nor the hour, or when the definite time is, and yet the prophetic reckoning shows us that Christ is at the door." {10MR 270.1}

"We have not cast away our confidence, neither have we a message dependent upon definite time, but we are waiting and watching unto prayer, looking for and loving the appearing of our Saviour, and doing all in our power for the preparation of our fellow men for that great event. We are not impatient. If the vision tarry, wait for it, for it will surely come, it will not tarry. Although disappointed, our faith has not failed, and we have not drawn back to perdition. The apparent tarrying is not so in reality, for at the appointed time our Lord will come, and we will, if faithful, exclaim, "Lo, this is our God; we have
waited for Him, and He will save us" (Isaiah 25:9)." {10MR 270.2}

I think it is an attempt to read into what Mrs White did not mean when we claim that the 1843 chart should not have been altered in any way saving for the change of the dates
from 43 to 44. And this we can safely deduce from the fact that the chart whose printing she was directed to oversee dropped important figures initially found in the 'old chart', and in her statement to clarify the reason for a new chart she included that statement taken today to mean that the initial chart was to be left just as it was.

A second argument for not taking a blanket assurance towards the correctness of every detail of the chart is in the ten toes of the 1843 chart. we know today that they pioneers were not very right as to the true identity of the ten kingdoms of the Roman
Empire, until this was clarified in the 1880's. Did Mrs. White endorse the chart? Yes. Was its production inspired of God? Yes. Did it contain an error? Yes. Did Mrs. White's endorsement later prevent this from being corrected? No.

How can this help us?

Just as other works that Mrs. White endorsed (such as Uriah Smith's Daniel and Revelation) there could have been errors in the Millerite chart. Mrs. White's endorsement is clarified when we understand the historical context of the message to be, not a
blanket confirmation as to the contents of the 1843 chart, but a seal to the correctness of the dates that had been used in the charts, and which were in dispute at that point in time.

For these reasons (and more especially on hias views on Rev 10, the 3rd Woe and 9/11) I do not trust his study methods.

Davis, thanks for the good research. Have you reviewed Jeff's more recent rebuttal to some of your arguements. Would you mind commenting on it is you have the time. Here's the link. http://the2520.com/PDFs/Jeff%202520.pdf.

Like you, I have to reject a lot of Jeff's conclusions, but I tend to think he has a valid point on the 2520.

Regarding your point that the 1290 and 1335 days don't appear in the 1850's chart and therefore not all figures from 1843 such as the 2520 are valid, you imply that the dropping of those figures invalidates them but is that the case? Many Adventist bible students would say the 1290 days did indeed start in 508 CE and end in 1798. Granted there is less clarity on the 1335 days which end in 1843 rather than 1844, but rightly on wrongly (wrongly in my view) conservative Adventists insist this part of the prophecy was in fact fullfilled in 1843. So dropping figues from the chart doesn't appear to bother most Adventists.

Today I put together a short compilation of obscure SOP statements on the prophetic periods and last day events that I'll post shortly on a different/new thread - Obscure Prophetic Statements by EGWhite. One of them refers to these two periods and implies a future fulfillment.

Blessings everyone,

I am new here and I just want to ask a question without reading but a small portion of the posts in this thread; Are we discussing whether or not Ellen White predicted 9/11?

I've noticed talk about the third woe being started by 9/11, and radical Islam, and I just want to know what this discussion is about.

For those who don't know,

James White wrote an article in the Review and Herald in 1864 showing there wasn't any prophetic period in Leviticus chapter 26. I would have to agree with James White.

As far as the charts are concerned, Ellen White clearly stated that "some of the figures" were wrong. Also, if you look up the words "precious dust" on the software, she gives a wonderful endorsement of William Miller being used by God even though he had rejected the third angels message and the Sabbath.