The absolute and total abuse of "day for a year" principle by professed Bible believers (strong, meaning, this will come off as a little strong, but please bear with me)

This thread, is designed to get people, professed Bible believers, to think, and to reason from scripture (that is to submit one's mind/heart to the scripture), and not from their own a priori and conjecture. In other words, this thread is to get people, professed Bible believers, back to Jesus Christ, back to what the word of God actually says, and not to what men (mankind) think it says.

Seventh-day Adventists, in general, a long time ago, got stuck into an incorrect, that is to say unscriptural, mindset, that whenever a 'time' is mentioned in prophecy, a principle of '[symbolic/prophetic] day for [natural] year' is automatically applied in all places, irrespective of any context. This is quite foolish, on several levels.

As for instance, Seventh-day Adventists, in general, have applied the 'day for a year' principle in Daniel 7:25, 8:14,26, 9:24-27, 12:7,11,12; Revelation 2:10, 11:2-3, 12:6,14, 13:5, and rightly (that is to say contextually) so.

Yet, it was not because Seventh-day Adventists merely decided that action by majority vote of the populace of believers, or even a carry-over as a mere hand-me-down from the earlier Adventists and Millerites, etc.

God forbid, that we treat scripture (the very word of God), even prophecy, that way. It was because the word of God itself determined that it was proper to apply that principle in those given and specific places. God's word is clear about who "interprets" the word of God, and it isn't mankind, it's God. For instance, see Genesis 40:8; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Luke 24:45; Isaiah 8:20, 28:10,13; Daniel 2:25 (Daniel doesn't make up an interpretation, he got it from God, and simply passed it along as God gave it, Daniel 2:20-24), Daniel 2:27-30,36, etc.

So why this thread? Some might think, "We already know all that!" Oh, really? Then why is the 'day for a year' principle, being willy-nilly applied nearly everywhere in Daniel and Revelation, when the context excludes it's use in those specific places? You might say, "What do you mean?" I mean this:

Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28. for those '2,520' persons. Who told them to apply the 'day for a year' principle there?

Daniel 4:16,25,34, for those '2,520' persons. Who told them beyond what Daniel gave to Nebuchadnezzar by God (Daniel 4:24)?

Revelation 3:10, "the hour", for those persons that attempt to make this be a fortnight, 14-15 days.

Revelation 8:1, "about the space of half an hour", for those persons that attempt to make this to be roughly 7-8 days.

Revelation 9:5,6,10, "five months,", "those days", "five months", for those persons that attempt to make this to mean, 150 years (5 x 30), and that during the time of the Turks and Mahommedans (Islam), like Josiah Litch, William Miller, Uriah Smith and others like them, all whom have erred here (demonstrably so), in both time and identification of the 5-7th trumpets. The 5-7th trumpets have nothing to do with Muhammad, Islam, the Turks, Sultanies,Caliphates, or the Ottoman Empire (I will be fully demonstrating this later, from Scripture and the SoP/ToJ).

Revelation 9:15, "an hour", "and a day", "and a month", and a year", for those persons that attempt to make this mean, 391 years and 15 days in the period of the Ottoman Empire (again Islam), an then simply, arbitrarily, attach this to the end of their mistaken 150 years of Revelation 9:5,6,10, such as Josiah Litch, Uriah Smith and others, all whom have erred here (demonstrably so), in both time and identification of the 5-7th trumpets. The 5-7th trumpets have nothing to do with Muhammad, Islam, the Turks, Sultanies, Caliphates, or the Ottoman Empire (I will be fully demonstrating this later, from Scripture and the SoP/ToJ).

Revelation 17:12, "one hour", for those persons that attempt to make this be a fortnight, 14-15 days.

In none of the above places cited from scripture, is there any context given, or word from God, to apply the 'day for a year' principle in those areas, and yet the laziness (lack of actual Bible study) of most of professed Bible believers, like Seventh-day Adventists (even among 'present-truthers') in these areas is astounding. Any one who even begins to question the status quo here, is called heretic, is said to be leaving the true light, advancing false ideas without even testing what is shared, etc.

Please. Allow the time and effort. I can demonstrate (I have fullest confidence born of God) from scripture, SoP/ToJ and history itself, that those who hold to those ideas above are the ones that need to let go of things that are incorrect, and need to let go of the faulty baggage that they have been carrying for the past 170 years. They need to dump the opinion of Uriah Smith on the 5-7th trumpets, (he was wrong in quite a bit, though had certain things correct in other areas, and credit to that which is right is due, and his book was a great help to me when I first began studying Daniel and Revelaiton of scripture, and I recommend his book, though with caution, especially if it is the original one filled with Arian ideology), the erroneous theology of Josiah Litch, together with William Miller's mistakes in these specific places, and to cease from mis-reading, or misusing (accidental or purposeful) the single (should always be in the mouth of two or three witnesses) The Great Controversy 1888/1911 editions quotation, (specifically pages (1888) 334.4-334.5; (1911) 334.4-335.1) and SoP/ToJ in regards what is said about Uriah Smith's book, "Daniel and Revelation" (ie., MS 174, 1899, par. 9-12, etc). It's time to stop quoting them as gospel, time to stop making them say something they do not say, and turn back to the scripture itself, and then see what the SoP/ToJ says, for it cannot contradict scripture. Do not be angry, but instead say, "Show me from scripture (KJB)." I will, given the opportunity.

For instance, the 'day for a year' is not applied to the 1,000 years of Revelation 20:1-7. Why not? "Context", it will be said. Exactly. Then why so apply it everywhere else mentioned so freely, when no context was ever demonstrated to do so?

The Bible and the SoP/ToJ have been often misunderstood (read too quickly or casually), misused and/or abused, in other areas which are similar, such as "the Daily" of Daniel. It isn't "paganism", and this is demonstrable from the Bible and SoP/ToJ, and even pioneers in the simplest of ways, and yet many Seventh-day Adventists, simply cannot let that private 'interpretation' go (after the evidence is shown, I leave it with them to either continue in their misbelief, or to come to the fullness of the light now shining). Some think that Daniel 11:14 is about Rome, and that Daniel 11:21 continues with Antiochus Epiphanes IV Both ideas are also incorrect. Even when shown from scripture and the SoP/ToJ, some still cannot let go what they have believed all these years. Let us consider that error, no matter how hoary with age is never sanctified through time to become truth.

Pro_18:13? He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Pro_18:17? He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

1Th 5:19? Quench not the Spirit.?
1Th 5:20? Despise not prophesyings.?
1Th 5:21? Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.?

Isa 8:20? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.?

Act_17:11? These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 4. page 496.2 - "One saying of the Saviour must not be made to destroy another."

Gospel Workers, page 228.3 - "... We must not have a sensational religion, which has no root in truth. Solid instruction must be given to the people upon the reasons of our faith. They must be educated to a far greater extent than they have been in the doctrines of the Bible, and especially in the practical lessons that Jesus gave to his disciples. The believers must be impressed with their great need of Bible knowledge. There must be pains-taking effort to fasten in the minds of all, the solid arguments of the truth; for every one will be tested, and those who are rooted and grounded in the work of God will be unmoved by the heresies that [229] will arise on all sides; but if any neglect to obtain the necessary preparation, they will be swept away by errors that have the appearance of truth. At our camp-meetings, sermons should be delivered of such a character as will prepare the hearers to give a reason of the hope that is in them with meekness and fear. I have been shown that but a small number of the people in our churches know for themselves what constitutes the third angel's message. This fact should enable us to realize the need of Bible classes. At our camp-meetings especially, there should be daily classes for Bible study. Instruction should be given on the subjects of faith and Christian experience, and there should be seasons of earnest prayer. Then the influence of our camp-meetings would not be of so transitory a character, but would leave an abiding impression. ..."

Letter 6, December 30, 1886; par. 10-11 - "... Every position of truth taken by our people will bear the criticism of the greatest minds; the highest of the world?s great men will be brought in contact with truth, and therefore every position we take should be critically examined and tested by the Scriptures. Now we seem to be unnoticed, but this will not always be. Movements are at work to bring us to the front; and if our theories of truth can be picked to pieces by historians or the world?s greatest men, it will be done.

We must individually know for ourselves what is truth and be prepared to give a reason of the hope that we have with meekness and fear, not in a proud, boasting, self-sufficiency, but with the Spirit of Christ. We are nearing the time when we shall stand individually alone to answer for our belief. Religious errors are multiplying and entwining themselves with satanic power about the people. There is scarcely a doctrine of the Bible that has not been denied and, by men of high intellectual ability, shorn of its beauty and simplicity, from the infidel to the men claiming to be watchmen upon the walls of Zion. The sincere seeker for truth who, while he believes the Bible, practices its truth, making himself a prey. The world is full of books. If we had more genuine religion and less books, we should have a different class of society. These books teach false doctrines, just as false and crooked as the Bible is true, straightforward, and infallible. These books are Satan?s agents attracted by the outward and superficial adornment of error. The youth receive as truth that which the Bible denounces as falsehood, and they love and cling to every form of deception that is certain ruin to the soul. The beauty of the Bible is not seen until we bring it into the inner life. It is kept too much in the outer court. It is searching that reveals its hidden jewels. The Bible alone is our guide to heaven, and now is the time to urge it upon the attention of old and young as coming from God. It is His voice to us. It is the sure word of prophecy, profitable in all things. We must study it for ourselves, and know what saith the Scriptures. ..."

I am fully aware of all of the 'time setting' errors that the Bible and the SoP/ToJ warn of, and this is not the purpose of this thread to overthrow, circumvent, explain away, any of it. I am in full harmony and agreement with those things.

Therefore, let us test carefully what we believe, and why we believe what we believe, by the scripture (KJB), and see what the SoP/ToJ really says in all its places on any given subject.

Are you ready to test what you believe an why? I will begin with "the Daily" of Daniel as a test run. Let's see what is truth, from what is error, by the word of God, the SoP/ToJ and the pioneers own testimony, and then we can begin to test the real point of this thread in the matter of the 'day for a year' principle, among other things (5-7th Trumpets, Daniel 11:14,21, etc).

Taking exception to:
Re 17:12 "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.

Would you consider the 10 horns as "symbols"?

Please take a moment to hear my answer. I pray it answers you as you need:

In Revelation 17:3, is given the symbols of the vision:

Rev 17:3? So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.?

The phrase "carried me away in the spirit" tells us that it is in vision (see also Ezekiel 37:1; Revelation 1:10, 4:2, 21:10).

It is that the vision or dream comes first, given in symbols, while the latter portion of such chapters address the natural meaning of the symbols or their counterparts in reality.

Thus in Revelation 17:3, the "horns" are indeed symbols to explain something natural in the real world we live in. I address what those "horns" (symbols) are in reality, here (see also Revelation 17:12-17) - https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=194130

However, beginning in Revelation 17:7, we begin to receive the 'interpretation' (explanation), by the Angel, when he says, "... I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."

In other words, the Angel is now revealing the "mystery" (or secret) of the symbols given before hand, such as with the "ten horns" under consideration. This is the part of the structure (underlying bones) of the text, in which we transition from mere "symbol" in vss 1-6, to understanding what the "symbols" given previously mean in reality, or naturally. What this means is, that when we arrive at Revelation 17:12, we are no longer dealing with mere symbols, but instead dealing directly with the explanation of the previously given symbols, such as the "ten horns" of Revelation 17:3.

Let's Revelation 17:12 in the light of Revelation 17:7:

Revelation 17:7 says, "... I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."

Revelation 17:12 says, "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

So, again, in short, and in conclusion:

Revelation 17:3 = symbol of the "ten horns".

Revelation 17:7 = beginning of interpretation by the Angel, addressing the symbols given by explanation of what the symbols really mean in reality, or natural world. The Angel is about to tell us what the "ten horns" (previously given symbol) now actually mean in reality or naturally.

Revelation 17:12 = explanation of the "ten horns". Thus, Revelation 17:12's "one hour" is not symbolic. It cannot be. It would be in the wrong place structurally, and in the wrong place by definition by the Angel. The "one hour" (mian [h]oran) is simply 'a single time period' (however long that time period is, for instance, see Revelation 14:7, "the hour (o [h]ora) of his (God's) judgment is come"), which is already previously defined elsewhere in scripture. See the previous study linked on the 7 Heads and Ten Horns of Revelation 17.

So, as stated in the OP, I have hopefully shown by this reply that there is nowhere in Revelation 17, to apply the 'day for a year' principle to this "one hour" of Revelation 17:12. The structure itself precludes it. The words of the Angel preclude it. The previously given definition (see linked material) in Revelation, preclude it. The language, "are", "as", both coming after "sawest" (vision) precludes it.

So, to answer you simply, "Yes, the 'ten horns' are symbols (vs 3), but explained as to what they are in reality in vs 12, which continued from vs 7. This ties the "one hour" not to a symbol (vs 3), or itself being a symbol ("sawest", vs 17), but to the reality or natural, vss 12,17, "... are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast". Therefore, the principle of 'day for a year' cannot be applied here, without breaking the text, and structure of the text, and the language of the text. For more on the structure of Revelation (as a whole, see), https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=194125

It would be like trying to say that the "woman" (symbol, vs 1-6) is explained in vs 18, as "that great city" (which it is), and then apply the remaining part of the verse, "reigneth over the kings of the earth" are somehow 'symbol', rather than the reality or natural explanation as the first part is. I pray that this makes sense. (ps, I keep forgetting that this forum doesn't allow koine Greek characters. Pity that.) (pps., thank you for the question. Good study.)

Could you analyze similarly using an example that is symbolic time?

As, stated in the OP, I wanted to begin a test run, by sharing what "the Daily" is from scripture, and the SoP/ToJ (Spirit of Prophecy/Testimony of Jesus), and allow others to see how things, in both scripture, and the SoP/ToJ can be misread, misapplied, or misused and abused, especially in Seventh-day Adventist (even present-truther) circles, and how it may be corrected, with deep prayerful and careful study.

We need to be most careful when explaining what we believe from scripture (for it will all be severely tested and scrutinized by others non-Seventh-day Adventist, and especially by those who have left us), and as careful when sharing with others material in the SoP/ToJ (for it is written just like scripture is, with it's own parallels, explanations, etc).

I will give the link to the entire study of "the Daily" (with pictures) here - https://archive.org/download/the-daily-daily/The%20Daily%20Daily.pdf

This study is 229 pages, but do not be discouraged by that, as it is simply providing all the necessary details, and has a nice Table of Contents to easily find what is needful in addressing the question of what is "the Daily" of Daniel. If a person decides it is too long, I will briefly provide here an overview in 'short', and then the details of this may be seen in the study itself, and all will be referred to it.

Summary/Synopsis Begin:

There are generally two positions, within the Seventh-day Adventist circle, that are held.

[1] "the Daily" (of Daniel 8:11,12,13, 11:32, 12:11) is "paganism".

[2] "the Daily" (of Daniel 8:11,12,13, 11:32, 12:11) is "Jesus Christ and His ministration for/in the real Sanctuary".

Both positions have been held since the time of the studying 'pioneers' by various persons of renown in Seventh-day Adventist circles. There were several 'heated' exchanges on this subject, to which sister White eventually intervened to calm things down. She essentially stated (paraphrase, details in study) that the matter was of no immediate importance, but that the matter should be prayerfully studied by all, together, at a later more convenient time. The body of believers were being fractured in the early days by various up and rising theologies, and sister White sought to stay that fracture in this area, especially on prophecies dealing with time setting. Some of these renown persons attempted to utilize certain phrases within the SoP/ToJ (such as 'Early Writing, etc) to claim that sister White agreed outright with their position ("paganism"). She later wrote, that she had no such agreement on any position at the time. She advocated further study when convenient, and to get the answer from scripture, and not to utilize her writings (to that time) to decide the matter. Several attempts were made later to come together and work out from scripture a unified position (ie, what scripture actually taught) so that all petty division would cease. The studies eventually fell through, and failed in their goal of unifying the divided ones.

To this day, there is still an unnecessary division on this matter of "the Daily". This study, is to help heal as much as is possible, that unnecessary division. This study is not to force anyone to agree. No one is 'lost' if they disagree with the material or position taken, though I would question somewhat their rationality and/or evidence of why they disagree (I am always open for further evidence to be presented, and always consider it fully and in detail, though I think the core and bulk is herein given, but it is possible I might have overlooked something, somewhere, but I doubt it). It is merely to present the facts of the matter as clearly as possible. Some of the wording may not be perfect, or agreeable, and to that I apologize. Nothing was meant to hurt or injure anyone, and it was written a few years ago, and I have since become a little more adept at relating truth in a more acceptable way (at least I think so, hopefully others think so too).

The study itself shows from scripture (KJB) that "the Daily" is actually "Jesus Christ and His ministration for/in the real Sanctuary", or number 2. The study then goes on to show from the SoP/ToJ the same, as linked to the scriptures provided beforehand. The study then involves itself with the various pioneers who took differing positions, why they did so, and how the SoP/ToJ was utilized (correctly or incorrectly), by looking at the specific phrases that sister White used in connection with the phrase "the Daily" (also written as "the daily"). It shows how the varying pioneers statements are the answer to what sister White wrote in "Early Writings", along with a grammatical consideration that is overlooked by some (in other words, what the word "it" refers to in the context, not "the Daily" itself, but upon the word "sacrifice" as being supplied by the translation, and this is to what the pioneers were unified on before as demonstrated from the writings of the pioneers on both sides of the issue of "the Daily"). Even the phrase associated by William Miller, "taken out of the way" (from 2 Thessalonians 2:7), is considered, and shown to be erroneously connected to Daniel and its "the Daily", being "taken away", and this demonstrated by scripture in context, and also from very clear statements from the SoP/ToJ.

The study shows from type to antitype (typology) of the natural "daily", and how it explains the spiritual "daily". In other word (citing from the study in synopsis):

"... The earthly sanctuary services had ?the daily? ministration of the courtyard and of the holy place, typically. These involved animal sacrifices, tending the fires, washings, keeping the lamps lit, and fed with oil, the bread of the presence refreshed, and the incense ascending, ministering before the LORD, music, etc., as seen in section [06].

Jerusalem and the Temple, along with all of its ?daily? services ceased, being ?taken away? by natural Babylon, in the time of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, because Israel the peoples, had rejected God (Jeremiah 52:6-8,13-14; Lamentations 2:6-7).

The typical ?daily? services did not come back into practice until the time of the Medo-Persian empire! Read Ezra KJB. This was the type of the taking away of the ?daily?. Yet history was to repeat upon a much grander scale, in the spiritual. As Natural Babylon [type] took away the typical ?daily? of natural Jerusalem/Temple, it was Cyrus II [type of Christ Jesus], that came and took Natural Babylon out of the way [just like 2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJB, in type], just as Spiritual Babylon was to ?take away? the ?daily? of the Spiritual Jerusalem, and it would be Spiritual Babylon [Papacy, anti-type] that would be ?taken out of the way? by Christ Jesus [anti-typical Cyrus] at His Second Advent. The type and anti-type are perfectly matched.

God sets up the typical ?daily?, giving it to Moses and Aaron, for the typical sanctuary. This typical ?daily? continues, day by day, every evening and morning, until natural Babylon takes it away. The typical ?daily? remains taken away until the Sanctuary/Temple and its ministering services are rebuilt and restored in the Medo-Persian empire in the time of Ezra (see Isaiah 21:2,9; Jeremiah 25:11-12, 51:11-12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 1:12, 7:5).

Once the typical ?daily? services are restored in the time of Ezra, they would continue until the time of Jesus Christ in AD 27-31, in which ?... he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease ...? [Daniel 9:27 KJB], He being the anti-type of the sacrifices, the ?... Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.? [John 1:29 KJB]. At this point, the typical ?daily? transitions fully (AD 31, it had already begun with Jesus ministry in AD 27) into the anti-typical ?daily?.

Christ Jesus, the true priest and sacrifice, ascended to Heaven, and entered into the Holy Place of the True Sanctuary [Psalms 24:1-10; Hebrews 9:12; Revelation 1:10-20, 4:1-5 KJB] to begin the work of ministry of there. The faith of the people was directed into the Heavenly places, where Christ Jesus was doing an Heavenly work and ministry. This continued until spiritual Babylon, Papal Rome, interfered, seeking to supplant, and ?take away? faith in the Heavenly priest, Christ Jesus' work in Heaven, and its ministration, by presenting another [counterfeit] work [and gospel] here on earth [where the Dragon had been cast down to], by causing people to have faith in a corrupt, sinful and carnal earthly priestly system and its ministration [AD 508].

Thus history repeated, from type to anti-type, from the taking away of ?the daily? by natural Babylon, to the taking away of ?the daily? by spiritual Babylon, Papal Rome.

This is confirmed by the SoP/ToJ itself.

The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 4 (1894), Chapter III, The Roman Church, pages 58.1 ? 59.1 -

?... The accession of the Roman Church to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power increased, the darkness deepened. Faith was transferred from Christ, the true foundation, to the pope of Rome. Instead of trusting in the Son of God for forgiveness of sins and for eternal salvation, the people looked to the pope, and to the priests and prelates to whom he delegated authority. They were taught that the pope was their mediator, and that none could approach God except through him, and, further, that he stood in the place of God to them, and was therefore to be implicitly obeyed. A deviation from his requirements was sufficient cause for the severest punishment to be visited upon the bodies and souls of the offenders. Thus the minds of the people were turned away from God to fallible, erring, and cruel men, nay more, to the prince of darkness himself, who exercised his power through them. Sin was disguised in a garb of sanctity. When the Scriptures are suppressed, and man comes to regard himself as supreme, we need look only for fraud, deception, and debasing iniquity. With the elevation of human laws and traditions was manifest the corruption that ever results from setting aside the law of God. {4SP 58.1}

Those were days of peril for the church of Christ. The faithful standard-bearers were few indeed. Though the truth was not left without witnesses, yet at times it seemed that error and superstition
59
would wholly prevail, and true religion would be banished from the earth. The gospel was lost sight of, but the forms of religion were multiplied, and the people were burdened with rigorous exactions. {4SP 58.2}

They were taught not only to look to the pope as their mediator, but to trust to works of their own to atone for sin. Long pilgrimages, acts of penance, the worship of relics, the erection of churches, shrines, and altars, the payment of large sums to the church,--these and many similar acts were enjoined to appease the wrath of God or to secure his favor; as if God were like men, to be angered at trifles, or pacified by gifts or acts of penance! {4SP 59.1} ...?

The Great Controversy (1911), Chapter 3, An Era of Spiritual Darkness, pages 55.1 - 55.3 -

?... The accession of the Roman Church to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power increased, the darkness deepened. Faith was transferred from Christ, the true foundation, to the pope of Rome. Instead of trusting in the Son of God for forgiveness of sins and for eternal salvation, the people looked to the pope, and to the priests and prelates to whom he delegated authority. They were taught that the pope was their earthly mediator and that none could approach God except through him; and, further, that he stood in the place of God to them and was therefore to be implicitly obeyed. A deviation from his requirements was sufficient cause for the severest punishment to be visited upon the bodies and souls of the offenders. Thus the minds of the people were turned away from God to fallible, erring, and cruel men, nay, more, to the prince of darkness himself, who exercised his power through them. Sin was disguised in a garb of sanctity. When the Scriptures are suppressed, and man comes to regard himself as supreme, we need look only for fraud, deception, and debasing iniquity. With the elevation of human laws and traditions was manifest the corruption that ever results from setting aside the law of God. {GC 55.1}

Those were days of peril for the church of Christ. The faithful standard-bearers were few indeed. Though the truth was not left without witnesses, yet at times it seemed that error and superstition would wholly prevail, and true religion would be banished from the earth. The gospel was lost sight of, but the forms of religion were multiplied, and the people were burdened with rigorous exactions. {GC 55.2}

They were taught not only to look to the pope as their mediator, but to trust to works of their own to atone for sin. Long pilgrimages, acts of penance, the worship of relics, the
56
erection of churches, shrines, and altars, the payment of large sums to the church--these and many similar acts were enjoined to appease the wrath of God or to secure His favor; as if God were like men, to be angered at trifles, or pacified by gifts or acts of penance! {GC 55.3} ...?

See also:

[1] The Great Controversy (1888), Chapter III, The Apostasy, pages 55.1 - 56.1

[2] The Story of Redemption (1947), Chapter 45, The Mystery of Iniquity, The Dark Ages, pages 331.1 - 332.3 ..."

End of the Synopsis.

Thus, if there are any questions, please read the entire study, and then ask. Please. If a question is asked, before reading, I may just refer you to the section which answers the question instead, or I may quote from that which is already presented.

Add a few more false applications of the 'day for a year' principle, which I forgot, in Daniel:

Daniel 5:25-28, for those '2,520' persons (they attempt to break down the Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin into measurements (incorrectly I might add), and then apply the 'day for a year' principle to it). Who told them beyond what Daniel gave to Belshazzar by God (Daniel 5?)

The Sanctuary, specifically the 7 Branch Candlestick (number 7), for those '2,520' persons (they break the number 7, into 2,520), and then apply the 'day for a year' principle. Who told them to go beyond what God already revealed in the word about the Sanctuary and the 7 Branch Candlestick?

Hmm, I must be careful here in how I answer. Here's why. Not all 'symbolic time' requires the 'day for a year' principle either, as there is the:

[1] '1 day is 1000 years with the Lord',

[2] '1 Watch in the Night is 1,000 years', and there is also

[3] the Antitypical Feast time.

[4] and other, expressed in items (such as 'ears' and 'kine (cows) (where the ear and kine are symbolic of time, specifically 1 natural year each)', or 'baskets' (where the 3 baskets are 3 days, so the basket is symbolic of time, specifically 1 natural day each), as in Pharaoh's dreams, or the Baker and Butler's dreams in Genesis 40)

Thus, if you are speaking only about the 'day for a year principle' (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6, etc, see also Pastor/brother Stephen Bohr's material - https://archive.org/download/secret...r%20A%20Year%20In%20Bible%20Prophecy.pdf ) being applied, I would ask that you choose one specifically to analyze, rather than myself, so that I do not overlook anything you may be thinking of, if at all (if not, you may still choose so as to keep the consideration unbiased upon my part).

As for instance of the above examples (1-4), The time period given in Genesis 1-2 (of 7 days) is both natural (24 hr periods of time, making 1 week of 7 days) and symbolic time (7 days = 7,000 years (all of human history summed up and told in advance); 1 Corinthians 15:44-46; Isaiah 46:9-10; Matthew 13:35; John 14:29 (principle); 2 Peter 3:8 (in context); Psalms 84:10, 90:4, etc). You may see a representation of that here:

Image:

https://archive.org/download/awhn-bible-7000-years/AWHN%20-%20Bible%20-%207000%20Years.jpg

The full study here:

https://archive.org/download/the-re...%20And%20The%20Everlasting%20Gospel.pptx

You can also see historical citations here:

https://archive.org/download/7000-y...g-Gospel-Bible-Historical-Quotations.pdf

Why is the '1 day is 1000 years with the Lord' applied to Genesis 1-2 'days', in addition to the natural understanding of the word "day"? Context of scripture (already cited). Yet, nothing in the verses cited, or global context of scripture, would dictate that we ever apply the 'day for a year' principle for Genesis 1-2 (at least nothing I have personally seen yet, though I can think of one place/area of scripture which might (might) work, but I haven't thought it through completely yet).

This is why I must be careful in answering. Symbolic time is expressed in differing ways in scripture, and differing rules apply in various places as per context. As for instance, we would never apply the 'day for a year' principle to the symbolic time in the Feasts and/or Sabbaths of Leviticus 16 & 23, 25. Yet, the entire 7 months of those typical feasts, are symbolic of the greater reality, and the time in which they occur.

Therefore, again, if you desire to merely speak about the 'day for a year' principle and have a look at how it applies to a specific time prophecy in scripture, you choose, please, and we can then consider it in it's context together, and see that what I am saying/demonstrating about context in applying such a rule/principle is true, and we need to be careful about not just slapping that thing on all symbolic time or time prophecies whenever we 'feel' like it, or when it 'suits us', rather than letting scripture tell us when to apply it correctly.

Actually, I was referring to traditional prophecies where you were saying some are day for a year and others not day for a year.

There was another guy who was suggesting 2,520 years AND a day for a thousand years.

The verse in question, '1 day is 1000 years with the Lord', was not in context of defining symbolic prophecy.

In other words, I'm wishing to acertain if you are consistent in application?
I do not handle inconsistency well, plandemic included.

As stated, the consistency is determined by the context in each case.

[1] '1 day is 1000 years with the Lord',

[2] '1 Watch in the Night is 1,000 years', and there is also

[3] the Antitypical Feast time.

[4] and other, expressed in items (such as 'ears' and 'kine (cows) (where the ear and kine are symbolic of time, specifically 1 natural year each)', or 'baskets' (where the 3 baskets are 3 days, so the basket is symbolic of time, specifically 1 natural day each), as in Pharaoh's dreams, or the Baker and Butler's dreams in Genesis 40)

[5] 1 day for 1 year.

Each will depend on the immediate and global contexts. So, some prophecies are a day for a year (Daniel 7:25, 8:14,26, 9:24-27, 12:7,11,12; Revelation 2:10, 11:2-3, 12:6,14, 13:5) and others are not (ie. such as Revelation 3:10, 9:5,6,10,15, 17:12), but the context in each determines whether it is 'day for a year' (5) or one of the other factors (1-4). When a 'time' prophecy is not found to be 'day for a year' (5) in context it will fall (contextually) into one of the others 1-4.

I have no idea what "traditional prophecies" are (you would have to be specific, as I am not going to guess). Either a passage or text in scripture is prophecy or it is not. All the texts just cited (Daniel 7:25, 8:14,26, 9:24-27, 12:7,11,12; Revelation 2:10, 11:2-3, 12:6,14, 13:5 & Revelation 3:10, 9:5,6,10,15, 17:12) are prophecies. It is just that not all of them are explainable by day for a year principles, based upon context. Some of the other texts, like Leviticus 26 are conditional promises or terms from God (and have nothing to do with day for a year, or any of the other 1-4 principles), and Daniel 4, while a prophecy, was specifically for Nebuchadnezzar (just as David's three days, see - https://ia803206.us.archive.org/6/i...us%20-%20Consecutive%20-%207%20years.pdf etc). The explanation of the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5; Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin), while a prophecy, has nothing to do with any of the 1-5 principles. It is already explained in the text itself, what those words mean.

Just to be clear, the '2,520' is error, and it is error in all the places imaginative persons 'find' it, including the SoP/ToJ. As for instance, some think it is found in the Great Controversy (The Great Controversy 1888, by Ellen G. White; Page 351):

"... The experience of the disciples who preached the ?gospel of the kingdom? at the first advent of Christ, has its counterpart in the experience of those who proclaimed the message of his second advent. As the disciples went out preaching, ?The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand,? so Miller and his associates proclaimed that the longest and last prophetic period brought to view in the Bible was about to expire, that the Judgment was at hand, and the everlasting kingdom was to be ushered in. The preaching of the disciples in regard to time was based on the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. The message given by Miller and his associates announced the termination of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, of which the seventy weeks form a part. The preaching of each was based upon the fulfillment of a different portion of the same great prophetic period. ..."

They ('2520') persons say that the phrases "... the longest and last prophetic period ..." and "... the same great prophetic period ..." is the '2,520', of which the 70 weeks and 2,300 were but mere "portion(s)" of.

Yet, contextually, even structurally, that is error.

[A1]

?... [I] The experience of the disciples who ...?

?... [II] preached the ...?

?... [III] ?gospel of the kingdom? at ...?

?... [IV] the first advent of Christ ...?

?... has its counterpart in ...?

[B1]

?... [I] the experience of those who ...?

?... [II] proclaimed ...?

?... [III] the message of ...?

?... [IV] his second advent.?

[A2] ?As the disciples went out preaching ...?
[B2] ?The message given by ...?

[A3] ?... Miller and his associates...?
[B3] ?... Miller and his associates...?

[A4] ?... proclaimed...?
[B4] ?... announced ...?

[A5] ?... the ? prophetic period ...?
[B5] ?... of the... days ...?

[A6] ?... longest and last ...?
[B6] ?... 2300 ...?

[A7] ?... brought to view in the Bible ...?
[B7] ?... of Daniel 8:14, ...?

[A8] ?... was about to expire ...?
[B8] ?... termination ...?

[A9] ?... [I] ?The time is fulfilled, [II] the kingdom of God [III] is at hand,? ...?
[B9] ?... [I] that the Judgment [III] was at hand, and [II] the everlasting kingdom was to be ushered in. ...?

[A10] ?... The preaching of the disciples in regard to time was based on the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. ...?
[B10] ?... of which the seventy weeks form a part. ...?

Please take notice, especially of the last part, as it clearly links the two messages, etc., together.

[A11] ?... The preaching of each ...? [This ?each? refers to the ?portion? of the 2300 days in which the:

[I] Disciples preached a ?portion? of the ?2300? prophecy in their day [AD 27 - AD 34] which was the Last week [70th Week] of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9; and

[II] the Millerites and his associates preached in their day [AD 1798 unto AD 1843/44], the ?time of the end?, being the last ?portion[s]? of the ?2300? prophecy, namely in the 1260, 1290 and especially the 1335 ending which came to its end in AD 1843/44], since each:

[B11] ?... was based upon the fulfillment of a different portion of the same great prophetic period.? [2300 days, ?the longest and last?, Scripturally, Contextually, Historically and Chiastically]; Daniel 8:13-14 KJB and Daniel 9-12 KJB being intimately connected.

See the color version here - https://ia601403.us.archive.org/6/i...t%20And%20Last%2C%20Not%20The%202520.pdf

There is no '2520' in the text (and I can show the same for the other places which the advocates of the 2520 'find' it in scripture, for instance - https://ia601406.us.archive.org/30/...e%2C%20Mene%2C%20Tekel%2C%20Upharsin.pdf ). This is not a harsh statement, nor an accusatory statement, nor a condemnatory statement. It is simply a statement of what is clearly demonstrated.

The entire point I am making, is that those who place the 'day for a year' all over the place (as cited from the beginning, and especially, in Revelation 3:10, 9:5,6,10,15, 17:12) are the ones being inconsistent with the context of scripture, and the use of the principle itself (5), and the others known (1-4).

It actually is, since Peter was citing Psalms 84:10, 90:4 among others dealing from the time of Creation (Genesis) to the Consummation (Revelation; context of 2 Peter 3) with the texts in mind of Isaiah 46:9-10; Matthew 13:35, etc (of which I already provided). Just as I said, the Genesis account is dualistic, in that it speaks of both the natural and spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46). It is where Peter, etc., gets the phrase "the last days" (2 Peter 3:3) from.