Hence my repeated request to him to state his reasons in regards to those SOP quotes. Yet so far no answer to those questions. Is it (to be) “Classified”/a “State’s Secret”??! I would let Mark speak for himself here.



I have presently indeed looked at EGW’s statement “more carefully,” and as due, collectively, so as not to isolatively take one statement of hers to make her say/mean something that she never meant. The question is did you?? I.e, Properly/closely/“carefully”. It indeed seems even more clear to me that your view, and the ones claiming future time fulfillments are actually, even outrightly (i.e, without any plausible valid support), a “private” one(s). Just for the transparent record here are some, (i.e., those that do not solely speak of not setting a time for Christ’s return itself. (E.g, 10MR 272.1 (1891)).:



I don’t know if there is a record of what those “fanatics” were teaching, i.e, what time prophecies they were using to make their “close of probation” claims, but it seems intuitively/thematically logical to me that these were the Dan 12 time elements of the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days (Dan 12:1ff, 7b, 11, 12). As these times are variously restated in the prophecies of Revelation, particularly the 1260 days, then the future application of those times seems to also be inclusively covered by EGW. And as the Daniel 12 times are the ones most directly linked to a “close of probation” notion, if EGW was not speaking of those, but other times that this group was using, i.e., anytime in the book of Revelation, then it goes without saying that she did indeed condemn their use to figure out when probation will close.



I see that this ‘no intervening time’ statement (= 1844-1884ff-Second Coming) completely invalidates your: “indefinite time” and ‘not pointing to Jesus' coming times’ theories. Indeed she is clear that there are to be ‘no more “times reckoning” of any kind, and at all in/during the intervening time since after “the close of the prophetic periods in 1844”’. So it therefore seems to me that she was here pointedly addressing this type of argument that you are making.

Indeed this ‘no intervening time’ statement thus voids an/(your apparent) understanding that she meant in the rest of 10MR 270.1:

that “prophetic reckoning” involved ‘other shorter times’, as also seen her other statements below, Her“the” definite and singular reference here shows that she was “yet”/still referring to “the prophetic reckoning” of the 2300 days to make this ‘near the end’ statement.[/quote]



The range of time of “1842-1844" includes the time prophecy that found a fulfillment within it, namely the 1335 days, which I see as the time when probation could indeed have closed, a year before the 1844 possible end. (Candid circumstances ‘on the ground’ just didn’t make it be able to be the case. Indeed William Miller’s mistake should have led people to be fully ready by the initial mistaken date of/in 1843.). Only the 2300 days (‘the longest of those times’) ended in what was priorly believed to be the date for the Second Coming. This would be the only time that fits your theory criteria.

It seems to me that she indeed includes more than one time prophecy in this category of ‘“prophetic time which should precede the advent of our Lord”. Also her use of “precede” here implies to me any time which would not necessarily culminate in the very end such as the 1335 days.



Some today use time calculations to say when the Loud Cry, which occurs after the Sealing, would begin, however EGW here saw in 1892 that it had already begun, and as she believed since some time soon after 1844, without any prophetic time reckoning involved/contributing to this knowledge. Indeed, as she understood, those Final Events will only occur (or in her case begin to occur) when the work regard them begins to be done. In her case, this was begun to be done with the 1888 message/revival, however when things changed later on with the Church, God had to halt and postpone that possible fulfillement of the End/Second Coming. (Cf. DA 633.3; LDE 38.2)



In regards pointedly to the assumption in your theory, if “(prophetic) time” had been (i.e., 1850) and was to ever again be, a test since (Oct. 22) 1844, then it would mean that shorter times, than the only applicable 2300 day prophecy would have to be involved. So in this statement, EGW was included all other lesser time periods. Also surely she would not have a view that the 2300 days were to be literally fulfilled, i.e., in ca. 6 years 3 months and 20 days, and with another ‘sanctuary cleansing’ event. (Dan 8:14). Indeed, as time literal time reckoning for the 2300 since October 22, 1844 would only first have a ending fulfillment in ca. February 11, 1851, then she was evidently blanketly including all lesser time reckonings in/with this statement, which was actually God’s own statement, and thus the injunctively, God-Stipulated Hermeneutic Rule for post-1844 believers, as that entire vision of hers correctively was.



The same sequitur/straightforward logic as just above applies for this quote as EGW is manifestly not conversely saying nor implying that ‘there will only not be no “literal 2300-day (=6.3 years)” definite time in the message given of God since 1844.’

My foundational exegetical method/approach is to let the text naturally speak for itself, and derive straightforward theological understanding/implications from it. That is why I straightforwardly see that Jesus fully intended the full end by ca. A.D. 90 with “that generation” (cf. Psa 95:10 (LXX) same Greek word as in Matt 24:34; cf. Matt 23:36) alive then, and therefore, as this did not occur as He said under inspiration, I then theologically seek to find why not. Succinctly said, this fit perfectly in my Foreplanning View of God and the Future, (also discussed in this forum) where His “prophetic plans” still depend on the obedient cooperation of particularly His professed people to be timely and (literally) fully fulfilled. (That is how I also come to theologically understand Christ’s failed statement/“prophecy” in Matt 10:23.)

That is indeed the Theological story with/for God’s prophecies given to and for ancient Israel. Indeed in the episode of Num 14, it is seen that because of the “sudden and unforeseen” (cf. Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29) rebellion of ‘the generation of adults’ (Psa 95:10) that came out of Egypt, God could not fulfill His Word of Promise (= Prophecy) to them (Psa 95:11; Num 14:35). Indeed, as Paul understood, this was, and still is, an enduring Divine principle and condition for (anti-typical) fulfillment (Heb 3:7-4:3).

NJK, I do not believe Jesus intended for His words in Matthew 24 to mean He originally envisioned returning by 90 AD.

Nor do I believe His words in Mat 10:23 failed to be fulfilled. They are still fulfilling, and will continue fulfilling until the moment He says, "It is finished", at which point everyone will have made their final choice for or against the seal of God.

As I stated above, I, for substantive reasons, Biblically and Theologically believe otherwise. It is clear to me, in harmony with many other such instances in the Bible, that transpired conditioned caused a change in what had been planned and indeed could/should have (potentially) occurred. Indeed just like, as EGW saw, the Second Coming could/should have occurred in her time.

By the way, my 90 A.D. view was explained in some detail earlier in this thread Post #133055. More corroborating details can be found in this blog post in relation to the discussion on the Rev. 5 “Prophetic/History Continuance Crisis” of ca. 70 A.D. or later.

A couple more explicitly stated and commented statements of EGW on ‘the end of all/any prophetic time’:



As these 1335 days (Dan 12:12) ended in 1843, and not on October 22, 1844, it showed that in this 1850 statement, EGW did not have a view that such ‘other than the 2300-day time elements’ could/would be refulfilled. And it must be emphasized that she and other early Adventist Pioneers believed then that the end was (still) very near/imminent.



The “third angel’s message” here pointedly refers to the Final Conflict of the Mark of the Beast and not to the Second Coming itself. The notion of “cutting it short in righteousness speaks of (actually) the Shaking (Rom 9:28 (KJV) cf. Isa 10:20-23 and its ensuing ‘Time of Trouble’ (Matt 24:21, 22). Manifestly, indeed as seen today, people in EGW days were trying to set out/chart definite times for these events which are to occur prior to the Second Coming. EGW was clearly “shown” however that the preaching of the Seal of God vs. Mark of the Beast Conflict message (Rev 14:9-11) was to be complete free of any time reckonings. This indeed defeats most, if not all of the popular time reckonings seen today as those claimed eschatological, literal time, fulfillments (i.e., 45 days; 1260 days/42 months/3.5 years; 1290 days & 1335 days) all are said to have some kind of fulfillment for some event/development in/during this Final Conflict, especially its ‘Time of Trouble’.

My view is close to GC's on this. Ellen White specifies in several places the kinds of future preditions that are not allowed - the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the close of probation, the return of Christ. One category that she left out from those three that are off limits is specific periods of persecution. If the early church was warned of periods of persecution in advance more than once, it seems consistant that we would also be given similar warnings. One of those warnings that we need to understand according to Ellen White is in Daniel 12 IMO.

Mark, as the above EGW quotes show, EGW did not endorse the reapplying of the 1335 days (Dan 12:12). I would natrually, comprehensively understand that this also applies to the closely related 1290 days (Dan 12:11). EGW believe that both of these time elements/prophecies were already completed/fullfilled in 1843 and 1798 respectively. To me this is what she inclusively intended in her ‘longest of these prophecies’ statement.

The mention of the ‘time, times and half a time’ (Dan 12:7) seems to me, in context, to be a direct reference to the historical period of Catholic dominance ad persecutions 538-1798 (=Dan 7:25). It is only because the second coming did not occur in 1844 as it could and should have, that that prophesied Second Coming ending (Dan 12:1-3) did not immediately occur/transpire then.

Furthermore, Daniel was overhearing in this ca. 536 B.C. conversation one asking about the fulfillment of these prophecies. (Dan 12:6), To which another angel responded by restating the indicative historical time period of the 1260 days (Dan 12:7 = Dan 7:25). Daniel however did not understand these times (Dan 12:8-10 = vss. 3, 4).

So I exegetically see that the mention of the ‘1260 days’ in vs. 7 is only a reference to the historical period of persecution of Dan 7:25 and not another post 1798/1844 timed period for the persecutions that will occur, indeed when Dan 11:40-12:3 will then be fulfilled.

Do you have in mind the 1260, 1290, and 1335 time prophecies?

I'm not aware where EGW applied the 1335 days. Could you quote where she applied 1335 days to a time other than the future?

Could it be that the start point for the chapter 12 time lines are depending upon something different than the 1260 years of the past? Also, are there other time lines which don't have specific start dates but are conditional on behavior. I'm thinking of the "seven times" in the first part of Daniel.