That's an interesting thought. Kind of an inverse parallelism.

Mark, it's obvious that not all time prophecies are a year for a day. Rosangela said there was a thread about determining when it's a symbolic day and when it's a literal day, but I can see there is no incentive for her to search for it assuming it showed there are times for each. How do you say one determines which determines which? More specifically, do you believe Daniel 12 (not the part of chapter 11), applies to the past, the future, or both?

Besides making reasonable sense, do you see there any other reason why Daniel 12 is literal days instead of symbolic days?

It seems to me that there are two distinct symbolic events in Ezek 4:1-8. There is a siege against Jerusalem (vss. 1-3 & 7, 8) with a bearing of the sins of Israel (390) and Judah (40) (vs. 4-6). These actually represented literal years of sins. As summarized here, (see in Section {5}), Israel’s 390 years extended from ca. 928 B.C. until the Restoration in 538 B.C. and Judah’s 40 years would be, as God judiciously planned, for the Ezekiel prophecied Judgement (Ezek 8-11) when a complete destruction of their religious community was effectuated. Ezekiel’s days of siege (4:7, 8) were not specified.




Where in the Bible is it said/implied/supported, as EGW claims, that “it was proposed by the people that spies be sent up to survey the country. The matter was presented before the Lord by Moses” (PP 387.1)??

It rather seems to me that it was God who outrightly ordered that a spying of the land take place (Num 13:1, 2ff). Either way I do see this as something “harmful” in itself, especially “positively”. As seen by the good reports of Joshua and Caleb, it could/should have been a faith confirming act. In fact, God probably, at the very least, permitted it so that the faith of the Israelites in Him could be concretely tested before He supernaturally acted for them, as before they did not have a knowledge of what they were going to face and have to trust God with. And, also, it was, in terms of wider witness, better for them to become faithless and fail before engaging in the fight, then while in the fight, as that would mean sure, and even utter, defeat in the hand of their enemies, as these enemies would make sure not to leave any Israelite alive (i.e., the woman and children who would have remained in the camp beyond the Jordan) who may later try again to dispossess them of their land.

So, also, it can be seen that God’s planned punishment of even utterly wiping out Israel for this hindering faithlessness was indeed just and quite fitting.

Good point NJK. I stand corrected. The spying was not the problem, it was the evil reports.

Re the duration of Ezekiel's acted prophecy, chapter 4, unless I've missed something obvious (like I did above), I don't see how you can say the days of the seige weren't specified.

kland, I'm still studying that issue. Miller's rules of interpretation are helpful. His Child's thoughts are reasonable in my view too. I think Daniel 12 applies primarily to the future.

Perhaps, upon closer reading/analysis, Ezek 4:8 does tie the “sieging” and “sin bearing” acts together, and this may be for the tangible reason that, just as a siege is to prevent a city from obtaining/procuring additional/new livelihood, possibly ending in its death if it was not properly prepared/stocked up, the time that Ezekiel was to bear the sins of both Israel (10 tribes) and Judah (2 tribes) was going to be a period where Jerusalem was also going to have to Spiritually “survive on its own” while its past and outstanding sins were being atoned for on a ‘day for a year’ basis. Ezek 4:9-17 seems to symbolically depict/indicate the results of this Spiritual “seige-like” hiatus.

This all seems to be the same things that occurs when sins are put away in God’s Sanctuary, as for a while, there no longer is an Intercessor. This also briefly occurred during Israel’s annual day of Atonement. So during that sin atoning time, as in the siege, people were to live/survive solely on/from the Spiritual and Physical “provisions” that they had made prior to this time.

Though I still don’t see explicit Biblical corroboration for EGW’s claim here, I could see along her lines, that it was the faithless actions of the People, as especially seen in chapters leading up to this, (namely Num 11; cf. 12), that may have led God to test their faith here, to see if it was really deserving of what He was about to do for them. And so He instructed that spies should be sent to make these testing facts known.

Notwithstanding, it also may then have been quite possible that this idea was “proposed” by these now quite faithless people and God indeed approved it through these instructions not to reassure the people as what the 10 faithless spies stated was in some ways the truth (it is just that they chose to focus on the negatives), but to test them as He normative does (Deut 8:2; 13:1-3; cf. Gen 22:12; Exod 15:25, 26; 16:4; 2 Chr 32:31)

Some resources for those who wish to study more about this subject:

The Time Prophecies in Dan. 12 – by Gerhard Pfandl
www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/.../The%20Time%20Prophecies%20in%20Dan%2012.pdf

The 1.290 and 1.335 Days of Daniel 12 – by Alberto R. Timm
http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/daniel12.htm

kland:
I couldn't find the thread where we discussed the figurative language used when the numbers are to be taken figuratively, but you will find some comments about it in this study:
biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/year-day%20principle.pdf.
One of the indicators is that the word "year(s)" is never used, although this would be the normal way someone would express himself.
I have a deadline to meet, so I'm not having much time, but I'll participate as time permits.

So would you agree that no date has been set as of yet?
But, was it said that when this "countdown" begins, does Christ come right at the end at a specific date, which hasn't yet been set?


By the way, I've have read Timm's arguments (if you could call them that) in the past. I'm sure you would find no fallacies with his logic. I do. And that's not just because I disagree with him. Dishonesty or incompetence is an opinion which comes to my mind. I find it interesting that his comments along with one other has been presented as prove all and end all - end of discussion. Who is this Timm guy besides being from the Biblical Research Institute? Why isn't this discussed in our churches and evangelistic series?

Something to consider is that it wasn't God's will for Israel to have a king. However, He helped them select one.

I think spying was a problem, a lack of faith, and it is similar to, who killed Saul. Seems like I came across the spying issue before and may try to find it.