You are not logged in.
The Year-Day Principle [YDP] is a hermeneutical time scale with a long historicist tradition applied by the SDA church in the interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. The SDA Encyclopedia defines the "principle" as follows: "according to the year-day principle, a symbolic day in prophecy stands for a literal year.”
Much has been written in support and defense of the YDP, and the almost general perspective in the SDA theological circles is that there is solid biblical and linguistic support for it. Intensive research I have done in the past year, though, seems to provide evidence that the YDP has no biblical basis and cannot be supported with lingustic evidence. I have have collected all the information and arguments against the YDP in a manuscript that has reached by now 180 pages. I have also summarized my research into 12 pages of text for those who don't want to bother to read the large document. The full document is in constant flux, and too large to post here, but I would like to acquaint you with my research by way of posting sections of the 12 page document on this thread. I would appreciate your comments on the YDP document and especially your criticisms.
Thanks,
Eduard
The Year-Day Principle Reexamined
Section # 1
The traditional interpretation of certain time prophecies in Daniel (chapters 7-12) and Revelation (chapters 9-13) has been done from the theological perspective of the three main hermeneutical schools, – preterist, futurist, and historicist. The difference between the three schools, claims Shea, is that while preterism “focuses upon the past,” that is, “on the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes” in Daniel and “especially on the reign of the emperor Nero”1 in Revelation, and futurism “places the major emphasis of these two books in the future,”2 historicism “sees these prophecies as being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them.”3 As historicists, the Seventh-day Adventists [SDA] have adopted both the historicist method and its computation tool for the time expressions in Daniel and Revelation – the Year-Day Principle [YDP] – that is, “the principle that a ‘prophetic day’ stands for a ‘year’ of actual calendrical time extending through the historical events in which they were fulfilled.”4 The YDP, though, is a theological assumption and not a linguistic rule or biblical principle, in spite of Shea’s claim that “the application of the year-day principle to the time periods in the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation has been established through reasonable interpretations of Scripture.”5
The purpose of this paper is to show that the YDP has no linguistic basis or Biblical support and cannot be used to interpret the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. It should be discarded and replaced with the linguistic method. This change in time hermeneutics will also require the reevaluation of the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation in order to align them with the linguistic approach to Biblical interpretation.
Offline
Section # 2
Labels and Parameters Problems
The problems with the YDP start at its multiple and inconsistent labels and restrictive definitions.6 There are quite a few, and rather dissimilar, labels for the YDP, depending on the SDA historicists who have proposed them. The “year-day principle”7 is called a “prophetic scale,”8 “apocalyptic rule,”9 “year-day tool,”10 “biblical hermeneutic,”11 “method of interpretation,”12 “year-day relationship,”13 “key to the historicist interpretation,”14 “year-day equation,”15 “biblical datum,”16 etc. These labels are not equivalent. While “tool,” “hermeneutic,” “method” and “relationship” are qualitative and rather vague, “scale,” “rule” and “equation” are quantitative, specific, indicate generalization, and suggest a linguistic event with high statistical average. The term “scale” requires special mention. The mathematical concept designates a calibrated proportion with universal application whose value remains constant at all times through all its applications. This numerical ratio is far from the SDA historicist “scale” which, as will be further shown in this document, is applied at random and as an exception.
The YPD application parameters, or how the principle should be applied and to which texts it should be applied, are also formulated in an imprecise manner. Here again, the multiple and diverse SDA historicist statements about the YDP’s application appear to propose an uneven and therefore inconsistent application range. Some of the most common SDA historicist claims about the YDP’s application parameters are: “the year-day principle which says that a day in apocalyptic time prophecies represents a year,”17 “the apocalyptic rule of a symbolic and prophetic day equaling a historical year (Ezekiel 4:6; Numbers 14:34),”18 “according to the year-day principle, a symbolic day in prophecy stands for a literal year,”19 “by the year-day principle, as illustrated in Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6, a day in symbolic prophecy stands for a literal year,”20 “calculating prophetic days into literal years,”21 “according to the two principal texts …Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6…a day is representative of a year and a year is representative of a day,”22 “historicists hold that in certain time prophecies, a ‘prophetic day’ represents an entire year of actual calendrical time,”23 and “Ezekiel, then, has the day-for-a-year principle, while Numbers has the year-for-a-day principle.” 24
These SDA historicist definitions suggest, then, that the YDP should be applied to: (1) “prophecy” (unspecified), (2) “certain time prophecies” (unspecified), (3) “symbolic prophecy,” and (4) “apocalyptic time prophecies.” Moon does not limit the YDP’s application to the apocalyptic prophecies, but states that the principle should be applied to “certain time prophecies [emphasis added],” which makes his YDP definition vague enough to be impractical because the reader has no clear idea what kind of prophecies (classical, symbolic, or apocalyptic) would require the YDP application.
Some theologians in the historicist tradition, such as Mede, were explicit in the extended use of the YDP. Barnes comments that “He [Mede] maintained that, ‘alike in Daniel, and for aught he knew, in all the other prophets, times of things prophesied, expressed by days, are to be understood of years [emphasis added].’”25 In other words, Mede claimed that the YDP should be applied without restrictions or qualifications to all prophetic passages in the Bible.
This extended YDP application to “all the other prophets,” that Mede seems to embrace does not appear so eccentric when one consider the applications some SDA theologians have proposed for the YDP in the Old Testament [OT]. The Glacier View scholars, for example, claim that Laban used the YDP “computation” formula when he made the marriage deal with Jacob.26 Shea also contends that the YDP has been applied to (1) certain historical narrative texts where the English “yearly” reads in Hebrew “from days to days” and other passages where the term “day” stands for “year,” (2) certain poetical passages where “day” and “year” are parallel, (3) some agricultural law texts which describe the weeks of years, (4) the Jubilee law texts where the Jubilee years are calculated, (5) Daniel 9:24-25, the passage in which historicists claim that prophetic weeks are used, and (6) some classical prophecy or symbolic action texts such as Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 – that have been described for a long time as the main biblical passages in the support and defense of the YDP.27
These texts reveal the major issue with the YDP’s definition – an incorrect sample generalization.28 The examination of Shea’s list of time expressions to which the YDP has been applied shows that almost all YDP support data comes from texts that belong to (1) historical narratives, (2) poetical texts, (3) agrarian laws, (4) jubilee laws, and (5) classical prophecies. No biblical text examples are proposed from apocalyptic prophecies due to the fact that “in the apocalyptic texts this [‘one day stands for one year’] is never stated, it is an underlying principle [emphasis added].”29 Data for the YDP generalization, then, is from texts that do not belong to symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies, and yet the YDP definition restricts the principle’s application to symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies! To limit the YDP application to symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies, then, means to ignore the sample data, and that makes the principle invalid.
The Glacier View scholars also interpret Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 to refer to two distinct principles of prophetic time calculation that should be applied to the prophetic passages in Daniel and Revelation: “Ezekiel, then, has the day-for-a-year principle, while Numbers has the year-for-a-day principle [emphasis added].”30 In Joreteg’s perspective, this ambiguous situation needs prompt clarification because it is impossible to decide when each principle should be applied and when not, and to which texts.31
Neufeld sees no textual evidence that Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 contain a “general statement” that would require a universal application to the time expressions in the Bible as “there is no indication in the prophecies themselves that any scale measure ought to be applied to the ‘days,’ ‘months,’ or ‘times,’” and “there is no general statement in these passages suggesting that a universal principle is set forth.”32 From his perspective, then, the YDP does not need to be defined because there is no Scriptural evidence that the “general statement” exists.
Offline
Eduard,
Many years ago, I used to live on the same street as Dr. Don Neufeld. I would see him walking every day. He was an honest SDA scholar. If he had lived, I think Glacier View may have turned out differently.
I note that Jesus failed to teach the YDP, which is the most telling point that needs to be made. In addition, the apostles seem to have a very differnt view of time.
Psa. 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
Or as a watch in the night.
2Pet. 3:8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, abeloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
I am enjoying your posts. Please continue.
Also, why not tell us something about yourself?
Tom Norris, for Adventist Reform
Offline
Dear Tom,
You are right, Jesus did not preach the YDP or interpret the OT prophecies with the historicist rule. No apostle event mentioned this time calculation. It should not be difficult to the SDA theologians to find out that this is nothing more than an assumption and to stop using it. But this would mean that a major doctrinal reform would have to take place in the church, and the SDA administrators would not like that. What is the solution, then ? Take each SDA dogma, examine it, and show that it is not biblical and needs to be discarded. Right?
You suggested that I should say something about myself. Here it is: I am a third generation Adventist, and first generation Romanian-American. I am married with two adult children, Emanuela, and Christian, and two grandchildren from Emanuela - Sean and Chloe.
I have an A.S. degree in Medical Technology from Romania (1972), a B.A. degree in Linguistics from the CUNY Graduate School (1998), and an M.A. in Lingustics from Indiana State (2004). I worked in the Medical field, and then I taught English and Lingustics as an adjunct at three colleges in Evansville, Indiana, where I live now.
I took an early retirement, and this gives me quite a lot of time to catch un on some old projects. The YDP document is one of them. What I am posting here is segments of an abridged version of the document. The full version is now about 180 pages long, with a full review of all the SDA apologetic documents for the YDP since the inception of the SDA church. My next project is to show how William Shea makes a great case for Antiochus VI Epiphanes in his article "Why Antiochus IV Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8."
Eduard
Here is section # 3 of the YDP document:
Historicist Support for the YDP
The SDA historicist support and defense for the YDP comes from six categories of texts: (1) historical narratives, (2) poetical passages, (3) agrarian legislation, (4) jubilee legislation, (5) classical prophecies, and (6) apocalyptic prophecies.
(1). Historical Narratives
Shea claims that certain OT narratives contain texts that show a relationship pattern between the terms “day” and “year,” and interprets this concurrence as the linguistic precursor to the YDP.33 One such passage is Genesis 5 where the phrase “And all the days that X lived were …years” repeats throughout the chapter. Moon refers to this repeated phrase as a “formula” that together with the “equivalent parallelism” in the OT poetic texts creates the “linguistic background of the year-day principle.”34 Genesis 29:27 is also claimed to show that “Jacob’s period of service to Laban in return for his coveted bride Rachel must have been computed on the year-day principle.”35 Shea mentions other OT narratives that seem to indicate that “there is [in them] a recognition of a particular kind of relationship between ‘days’ and ‘years,’” as “in these instances the word ‘days’ (always in the plural form) was actually used to stand for ‘years.’”36, 37
While it is true that “day” and “year” often occur together in certain OT narratives, the claim that this “day-year” concurrence is due to a “Hebrew thought pattern” is a theological assumption that Barr discards as philosophical speculation.38 Moreover, Shea never defines the linguistic nature (morphological, syntactic, lexical, semantic, discursive, or idiomatic) of the claimed “relationship.” Greswell contends that the “day-year” concurrence in the historical narratives is idiomatic in nature, expressed in Hebrew idiomatic expressions,39, 40 and cannot be accepted as a universal linguistic rule.
(2). Poetical Passages
The second group of texts where Shea claims to notice the YDP application is poetical passages “in which these two units of time [‘year’ and ‘day’] are side by side in a particularly close relationship.”41 This is due to the use of the rhetorical device known as parallelism. Shea argues that the “year-day” poetical pairs that indicate a “close and particular relationship between ‘days’ and ‘years’” are a linguistic device that “provides a background for more specific application of this type of thought in apocalyptic time prophecies,”42, 43 but recognizes that, “the poetic literature of the OT does not provide us with a year-for-a-day principle with which to interpret time periods in prophecy [emphasis added].”44 Moon makes also an attempt to connect the YDP with parallelism,45 but his exercise fails because there is no empirical evidence that a rhetorical device used in a particular section of the Bible could evolve into a rule that would govern time expressions all through the biblical text.
The OT poetical passages are interlaced with parallel rhetorical expressions because parallelism is a common linguistic device in poetical texts, used to enhance the inspired messages in the Hebrew poetical books. Lowth describes it as “the correspondence of one verse, or line with another,”46 while Buchanan Gray states that the presence or absence of parallelism in the OT books divides them into two classes.47,48 Poetical parallelism, though, is not a hermeneutical “scale.” As a rhetorical device, it remains a figure of speech that has an impact on the immediate context, and does not extend its linguistic effect into other contexts.
(3). Agrarian Legislation
The texts that deal with Hebrew agrarian legislation regulate labor and sacred time celebration. Shea claims that Leviticus 25:1-7 is “the earliest biblical text in which the year-day principle is reflected,”49 that “the sabbatical year [in Leviticus 25] is modeled from the sabbatical day,” and that this shows “a direct relationship between the ‘day’ and the ‘year’ since the same terminology was applied to both.”50 This relationship seems to lead to a quantitative modification in Leviticus 25:8, in which “the day-year principle operates the same way here as it does in Daniel – the use of ‘days’ (extended into the future) to mark off the ‘years’ of the future.”51 It also seems that “here [in Leviticus 25:8] terminology for a one-week or seven-day period is applied to a seven-year period. This is the day-for-a-year method of reckoning.”52 Moon shares the same perspective,53 but both scholars fail to explain what it means that “the year-day principle is reflected” in Leviticus 25:1-7 and how the sabbatical heptads have generalized into the universal quantitative rule that is the YDP.
Tregelles examines Leviticus 25 from a less speculative position and sees it as part of the Hebrew time model, the “septenary scale,” used “just as habitually as we should reckon by tens; the sabbatical years, the jubilee, all tended to give this thought a permanent place in their mind.”54 Terry concurs, and provides multiple examples of the number seven used in almost all aspects of the Hebrew religious life.55 This heptadic time model, though, never evolved into a pattern that could be generalized later into a linguistic “rule” or mathematical “equation.”
(4). Jubilee Legislation
The “reflection” of the YDP in Leviticus 25 appears to extend, in Shea’s perspective, from the agrarian laws that are described in the first part of the chapter (verses 1-7) to the Jubilee legislation included in the second part of the same chapter (verses 8-55). Both sections in Leviticus 25 are written in literal language, and, according to the YDP definition, the historicist principle should not be applied to them. Still, Shea claims that the YDP applies to both sections of the chapter, and that “the day-year principle operates the same way here [in Leviticus 25:8-55] as it does in Daniel [9:24-27],”56, 57 which he considers to be “established through reasonable interpretations of Scripture.”58, 59
The application of the YDP to the prophetic message in Daniel 9:24-27 requires, though, the translation of sabu’im as “weeks” and not as the alternative “sevens.”60 The second option would not be acceptable to Shea because it would weaken the current SDA historicist position on the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, “blunt the implications of the year-day principle advocated by the historicist system of interpretation,” and make the YDP application to Daniel 9:24-27 questionable,61 an action that would be nothing less than the Dragon’s attack on the “remnant.”62
Pfandl concurs with Shea on the issue, but notes that Ford and the revised Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary [SDABC] scholars hold the view that “the year-day principle is not involved in Daniel 9 [24-27].”63, 64 Other SDA scholars who favor the rendition “sevens” instead of “weeks” are Heppenstall,65 LaRondelle,66, 67, 68, 69 and Hasel, who warns the readers that “Daniel 9:24-27 is a crux interpretum in OT studies” (a biblical passage that eludes interpretation)70 and notes that the Septuaginta and Theodotion, the translations of the Hebrew OT into Greek, use the word “hebdomads” to render the Hebrew term sabu’im into English,71 while in post-biblical Hebrew “the meaning of ‘week’ in the sense of ‘weeks of years’ occurs hundreds of times.”72 The theologian also mentions several non-SDA scholars (such as E. J. Young, H. C. Leupold, and Carl F. Keil) who favor the reading “sevens” instead of “weeks.”73, 74 Hasel reviews the possible arguments for the rendition of sabu’im as “sevens” and which are (1) lexical,75 (2) morphological,76, 77, 78 (3) syntactical,79 (4) rhetorical,80 and (5) translation, but he doesn’t consider them adequate for a definitive conclusion in the matter.81 Numerous theologians and Hebraists favor the translation “sevens” over “weeks” for sabu’im in Daniel 9:24-27. Among them are Lurie,82, 83 Tregelles,84, 85, 86 Terry,87 Barnes,88 Stuart,89 Walvoord,90, 91, 92 Leupold,93, 94 and Young.95, 96
(5). Classical Prophecies
The Glacier View scholars claim that “the two principal texts that support the year-day method of interpretation [are] Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6,”97 and argue that Numbers 14:34 is a prophecy because it is “a punitive declaration made in advance.”98 Shea concurs, links Numbers 14:34 with Leviticus 25, and mentions that Numbers 14:34 includes “the third specific use of the year principle.”99 Tregelles contends that “there is nothing [in Numbers 14:34] that implies a principle of interpretation,” and that “in the prophetic part of the verse, years are literal years, and not the symbol of anything else,”100 while Stuart insists that the time periods in both Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 are literal and not figurative and that there is in both texts an “express mention and appointment, that days should correspond with years” that prevents misunderstanding about the time units involved.101 Terry concurs with Tregelles and Stuart that there is no support in Numbers 14:34 for the claim that the text defines a general principle because the text is written in literal language, and notes that the “judgment was pronounced on that generation,” and not formulated as a perpetual religious law.102
The second main text used to support the YDP is Ezekiel 4:6, and the SDA theologians claim that the text also contains a universal linguistic rule,103 but ignore the fact that the punishment in Numbers 14:34 was for unbelief and rebellion, while the acted parable104 in Ezekiel 4:6 was intended to bring God’s people to repentance. Shea sees the YDP “reflected” both in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6,105 while the Glacier View scholars see a different principle in each texts. 106 Shea, though, interprets the different “formulas” in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 as normal YDP application variants.107 Terry objects that in both biblical passages the text is literal, and that, therefore, no universal application could be drawn from them,108 while Stuart and Tregelles concur with him.109, 110
(6). Apocalyptic Prophecies
This group includes texts the SDA historicists have claimed to be apocalyptic prophecies and have interpreted from a historicist perspective. Because their prophetic message was assumed prior to exegesis, though, these texts have been misinterpreted. This interpretation approach, known as petitio principii, or “assuming the initial point” is fallacious because it is based on an alleged or assumed fact,111 and not on empirical confirmation. Some texts in the group are claimed to have passed the “pragmatic test,” which the Glacier View scholars consider to be “the final arbiter in determining whether the time periods are literal or symbolic.”112, 113 Shea expands on the same claim and mentions two kinds of evidence under the “pragmatic test:” (1) “historical fulfillment,” and (2) the “predictive use.” His first example is the fulfillment of the “70 [prophetic] weeks of Daniel 9:24-27,”114 while the second is Cressener’s calculation on the fulfillment of the 1260 days in Revelation 11-13, which, claims the SDA historicist, was fulfilled with “extraordinary chronological accuracy.”115
To link prophetic fulfillment with the YDP, though, is to commit the non sequitur116 and the post hoc117 fallacies. The first occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the evidence, and the second when a false cause is claimed for an event. For instance, Daniel 9:24-27 could confirm the YDP only if sabu’im means “weeks.” If sabu’im is read as “sevens” the YDP is not needed and is not validated in the interpretation of the prophetic passage. Certain prophecies in Daniel and Revelation seem to fulfill fictitious historicist events while actual historical events are dismissed as irrelevant. For example, the SDA historicists ignore the historical evidence that the horn in Daniel 8:9-14 is Antiochus Epiphanes and claim that only the Papacy meets the little horn criteria. Also, some time prophecies were reinterpreted after the erroneous predictions failed in order to protect the SDA historicists from the embarrassment that would follow the acknowledgement that their time interpretations were incorrect.
The most difficult issue the SDA historicists face in their defense of the YDP is that their support texts have nothing to do with symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies, while their YDP definitions limit its application to symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies. This creates a fundamental contradiction between the definition, support, and application of the YDP. From this perspective, Tregelles argues that, “a distinction has, indeed, been drawn between symbolic and literal prophecies,” and that “if this distinction be good, no literal prophecies ought to be brought forward amongst the supposed proofs.”118
Offline
Section # 4 of the YDP document:
YDP Support from Tradition
Shea argues in “Year-Day Principle – Part 2”119 that “the year-day principle was known and applied by Jewish interpreters during the second century down to the post-Qumran period,” and that “it is no longer tenable to hold that the principle was a ninth century A. D. phenomenon.”120 Pfandl echoes the claim, and states that “the historicist method of interpretation is not a Johnny-come-lately on the theologi¬cal scene, rather it rests on a solid biblical and historical foundation.”121 His claim is a non sequitur122 because an appeal to tradition123 or argumentum ad antiquitatem, is a fallacious argument that does not count as evidence.124 Shea himself cautions his readers that tradition is no evidence that Daniel applied the YDP or that the historicist principle is correct,125 while Ellen G. White’s warns often against the use of tradition to defend beliefs.126, 127
The “evidence” Shea presents is from second century Jewish interpreters who “were first and foremost in the application of the year-day principle to the prophecies.”128 His sources are the Hellenistic Jewish Literature,129, 130, 131 written in the Jubilee language (but the conclusion that these texts support the YDP is a non sequitur), 132 the Qumran Literature133, 134, 135, 136 that adds Daniel’s “70 weeks” to the previous topic, and the Post-Qumran Interpreters137 such as Josephus who “applied the ‘little horn’ of Daniel 8 to Antiochus Epiphanes” and “took the time element of the prophecy as literal time,”138 but whose historical statements have been distorted to appear that he “understood the 2300 evening-mornings as longer, not shorter than the 1290 days,” and that he “interpreted the 70 weeks as symbolic.”139 Among the Post-Qumran Interpreters, the Early Rabbinical Interpreters, 140, 141, 142 use Leviticus 25 language that deals with labor and the Jubilee. None of this literature can support the YDP, and appears to fall under fallacious manufactured evidence,143 that is, text distortion and misinterpretation aimed to protect the historicist assumed principle.
Shea’s claims that the YDP was used in the first centuries are contradicted by scholars such as Tregelles who argues that Daniel “understood seventy years to mean seventy years, and not twenty-five thousand two hundred years [emphasis in the original],”144 Maitland, who expands on Tregelles’s position and states that the YDP “was altogether unknown by the Jewish church before the Christian era—by the Apostles of our Lord—by the primitive church—by the Fathers,”145 and Elliot, who confirms Maitland’s assertion and states that “for the first four centuries, the days mentioned in Daniel’s and the Apocalyptic prophecies respecting Antichrist were interpreted literally as days, not as years, by the Fathers of the Christian church.”146 Burgh and Tregelles confirm and expand on Elliot’s contentions.147, 148
Maitland argues that Josephus provides definitive evidence that, indeed, the Jews and the Christians in the first centuries were not familiar with the YDP and never used the historicist principle as a hermeneutical tool because the Jewish historian “understood the times of Daniel to mean literal years,” and applied the desecration of the temple to Antiochus Epiphanes.149 Barnes states that there is no evidence that Martin Luther used the YDP in his biblical interpretation,150 while Stuart explains that the first knowledge of the YDP came from Mede’s published book on Revelation.151 Douty takes the position, supported with undeniable evidence, that the earliest time theologians used the YDP in the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation was in the ninth century, and that there is no evidence for the use of the YDP in the first centuries.152
The data submitted above shows that the SDA historicist claim that the YDP was used during OT times and in the first centuries is not supported with facts. Even if the evidence from tradition were genuine and empirical, though, that still does not change the fact that such documentation “does not ‘prove’ that this [YDP] method of prophetic interpretation was applied by Daniel, nor does it ‘prove’ the correctness of such a method.”153
Offline
Section # 5 of the YDP document:
Historicist Application of the YDP
The traditional application of the YDP has been, as Moon puts it, not to all prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, but to “certain time prophecies [emphasis added]”154 because the principle’s application has been limited and selective. This becomes obvious when one considers the total number of biblical texts to which the YDP has been applied, and which are, notes Tregelles, not more than ten. The texts he mentions are Daniel 7:25; 8:14; 12:7, 11, 12 and Revelation 9:5, 10, 15; 11:9, 10.155 The SDA historicists have followed, for the most part, the application tradition and have also applied the YDP to a small and selected number of texts, less than 20 in all, although the specific applications of the principle differ to a certain degree from theologian to theologian.
Some texts claimed to “reflect” the application of the YDP have been discussed earlier in the paper, and the conclusion has been that the claims did not survive the investigation. Among such texts are Genesis 29:27,156 Leviticus 25:1-7,157, 158 Leviticus 25:8-55, 159, 160 Numbers 14:34,161 Ezekiel 4:6,162 and Daniel 9:24. Concerning this last text Shea affirms that “all commentators on Daniel agree that the events prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27 could not have been completed within a literal 70 weeks or one year and five months.”163 While this is true, it is also true that Daniel 9:24 does not seem to need the YDP in order to be interpreted when sabu’im is rendered in English as “sevens” or “heptads.” Numerous theologians and Hebraists hold this perspective, among whom are Heppenstall164 and the SDA historicist scholars who contributed to the revised SDABC.165
Daniel 8:14 deserves special mention among the texts the SDA historicists interpret with the YDP because it seems to be a crucial passage in connection with the “sanctuary doctrine” and the teaching that “the heavenly sanctuary is to be cleansed from the sins of the professed people of God.”166 The context of Daniel 8:14, though, indicates that the verse is not part of the apocalyptic prophecy but part of the literal explanation of the vision in Daniel 8:1-12, as Tregelles has argued.167 This means that according to the YDP definition that restricts its application to apocalyptic prophecies, the application of the YDP to Daniel 8:14 is not correct and legitimate.
Even if Daniel 8:14 was an apocalyptic text, its SDA historicist interpretation remains questionable because it does not appear to be based in true historical facts. Most theologians have applied the verse to Antiochus Epiphanes and to his suppression of the Jewish religion. Stuart shows the evidence when he summarizes the historical events that are the factual basis for the prophetic vision in Daniel chapter 8.168 McHarg writes a detailed and effective 12-point case based on Jewish historical evidence that Antiochus Epiphanes IV is the little horn in Daniel 8,169 and demonstrates that Antiochus meets the prophetic narrative criteria for the little horn. In order to provide more factual support for his arguments, McHarg also includes a dramatic quote from William Barclay about what the Jews suffered at Antiochus Epiphanes IV’s hand.170
The application of the YDP to Daniel 8:14 is also problematic when one considers that the traditional SDA historicist translation of nitzdaq as “cleansed” has no historical and contextual basis. The arguments intended to defend this rendition, such as those in the paper Davidson wrote171, 172 are not credible. The scholar attempts to superimpose on the Hebrew term a semantic range that includes “cleansed,” “restored,” and “vindicated.” That his exegetical approach does not work is obvious when one tries to extend it to all Daniel 8, the entire prophetic book, or the entire text of the Bible. Under such exegetical parameters – each Hebrew term assigned multiple “meanings” – the interpretation of Daniel or the Bible would generate absurd results. The evidence from historical and linguistic data appears to indicate, therefore, that the best English translation for the Hebrew term nitzdaq in Daniel 8:14 is “restored [to its rightful state (RSV)].”
The application of the YDP to Daniel and Revelation has also generated some odd results among which is the “prophetic year,” a theoretical, calculated time period that runs for 360 days and not for 365 days as the natural astronomic year does.173 The biblical passage used in this calculation is Daniel 7:25 in connection with Revelation 11:2, 3174 and 12:6.175 Similar to Daniel 8:14, though, Daniel 7:25 is part of the literal explanation the angel delivers to Daniel about the vision, and not part of the apocalyptic prophecy, and this makes the historicist YDP application to Daniel 7:25 incorrect.
Time Expressions and YDP Application
In 2003, Adventist Today published a critical paper on the YDP176 in which I included the quantitative tabulation of all time expressions in the KJV Bible, including Daniel and Revelation, and evidence that the SDA historicists have applied the YDP only to a selected fraction of those time expressions. Fisel stated that the count I had submitted was “less than accurate,” because I had included “many passages in which time periods refer to ongoing historical events, and would not normally be subject to the application of the formula.”177 The fact, though, is that the tabulated data on the time expressions in the KJV Bible that I had submitted has been important in order to assess whether or not the YDP has been applied in a consistent manner to biblical texts. Ouro contends in his paper on the Apolesmatic Principle [APP] that “if [the APP] is indeed a fundamental principle of interpretation and a scientific methodology, then it should apply to prophetic texts throughout the Bible.”178 This criterion also applies to the YDP. The historicist “rule” is either applied to all the time expressions in the Bible or it is not applied at all. A selective application of a rule is no application at all.
In order to obtain a count of all the time expressions in the Bible, I performed a search on the KJV Bible text with the Bible Works179 search engine. The search showed 4138 time expressions in the entire KJV Bible, with 98 time expressions in Daniel, and 55 time expressions in Revelation. The count included both the multiples and submultiples of the “day” as standard chronological time mentioned in the Bible.180 A more accurate computation is obtained from the original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was written. Because the examination of all the time expression in the Bible is time and space intensive, this paper will limit the investigation to Daniel and Revelation.
The detailed examination of the manner in which the YDP is applied to Daniel shows that this application is irregular and selective. For instance, the principle is not applied to narrative passages, although it is applied to Genesis 5:1-32181 and 29:27.182 The YDP is applied to the term iddan (time) in Daniel 7:25, but it is not applied to the same Hebrew term in Daniel 3:5 and 7,183 or in Daniel 4, although the time periods are expressed in uncommon units in the chapter.184 Daniel 10 is stated to be “given largely in literal language,”185 and for this reason the YDP is not applied there, although it has been applied to other literal passages in the same book. In Daniel 12, the principle is also applied to verse 7 (the 1290 days), but no verifiable historical event could be linked to the date 186 Out of the 63 texts that contain time expressions, the YDP has been applied to 8 texts. The application rate is about 11%, or 1 in 9 texts, and that makes the texts to which the YDP has been applied the exception, and not the rule in the application of the principle.
The SDA historicists have applied the YDP in the same irregular and selective manner to Revelation. Kairos (time) is interpreted as a vague time reference in 1:3,187 and the same happens with emera (day) in 2:13, although the YDP is applied to the same term in 2:10.188 Hora (hour) in Revelation 3 is interpreted as vague,189 and so is chronos (time) in chapter 6.190 In chapter 8, hemiorion (half an hour) is interpreted with the YDP,191 although perspectives are divided in the matter. Verses 5 and 10 in chapter 9 have been considered for a while as evidence for the “pragmatic test”192 as both William Miller and Josiah Litch have applied the YDP to it, but when the prediction failed the claim was abandoned.193 No YDP application is made for emera (“day”) in Revelation 6:7 but chronos (time) in verse 6 is interpreted as a reference to the end of the “2300 day prophecy.”194, 195 Chapters 11 (the 42 months in verse 2, the 1260 days in verse 3, and the 3 ½ days in verses 9 and 11),196, 197, 198, 199 12 (the 1260 days in verse 6 and 3 ½ times in verse 14),200 and 13 (the 42 months in verse 5) are considered essential to the SDA historicist interpretation of Revelation, and the YDP has been applied to them, but ora (hour) in chapter 14:7 and 15 has been interpreted as nonspecific historical time.201 The same is the case with ora (hour) in chapter 17,202 and emera (day) in chapter 18. 203 The YDP is also not applied to the “1000 years” in Revelation 20.204 Out of the 45 texts that contain time expressions, the YDP has been applied to 13 texts. The application rate is about 28.9 %, or 1 in 3.5 texts, and as with the YDP application to Daniel this makes the texts to which the YDP has been applied the exception, and not the rule in the application of the principle.
The facts also indicate that an unrestricted application of the principle to all the time expressions in the Bible would generate strange results in numerous cases. This is the conclusion drawn by Terry,205, 206, 207, 208 Tregelles,209, 210, 211, 212, 213 and Stuart,214, 215, 216, 217 who consider such results evidence against the YDP. Some dedicated historicists, such as Elliot, have applied the YDP even to biblical passages that the more tempered SDA historicists have never considered for an application,218, 219, 220 and the results have been bizarre. This information is relevant because the scholar has applied the principle to those texts from the perspective that the YDP should be applicable to all the time expressions in the Bible and not only to a few selected ones as the principle has been applied in the historicist tradition.
In his arguments against the YDP, De Burgh disputes the historicist school’s position that interprets all the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation “as being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them,”221 and “intended by its ancient author to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the eschaton [emphasis in the original].”222 De Burgh’s contention is that the historicist school places an artificial and unbiblical restriction on the fulfillment of those prophecies and schedules Christ’s Second Coming at the convenience of the historicist theologians.223 That the Second Coming could not have occurred before the “2300 day” SDA historicist prophetic period had ended is an unacceptable idea even to some SDA theologians such as Neufeld. He contends that “if certain conditions have been met, Jesus would have come earlier, seemingly as early as the generation specified in Matthew 24:24,”224 and that “at whatever time the fulfillment would have come, the Holy Spirit could have provided the appropriate scale”225 for the prophecies.
Offline
Section # 6 of the YDP document:
The APP and YDP Compared
In his article on the APP, Ouro describes it as unscientific and inconsistent, and denies the claim that the principle is a legitimate hermeneutical method.226 The same criticism applies to the YDP, the hermeneutical “rule” or “equation”227 which the SDA theologians consider indispensable for the interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.228 The APP is the solution Ford has proposed in his manuscript, Daniel 8:14,229 for the multiple theological issues that have confronted the SDA historicists because of their questionable prophetic interpretations due in part to their selective YDP application.
Both Ford and the SDA historicists interpret the Bible as a “roadmap” that covers the historical time from the creation to the end of the world and includes reference points or “historical landmarks.” 230, 231 Embedded in the definitions for both the APP232 and YDP233 is the inconsistent and selective manner in which the two “principles” will be applied – that not all the Bible, but some prophecies in Daniel and Revelation might be interpreted with these hermeneutical tools. Such selective applications of the APP and the YDP are inconsistent and unscientific – application failures – because scientific rules must be universal in their application ranges and effects.234
Ford and the SDA historicists also accept and use the APP in their interpretation of the Scriptures – Daniel and Revelation included. Their disagreement is about application details, that is, to which texts should the APP be applied, and to which it should not be applied. Both the SDA historicists and Ford make dual applications to some OT prophecies. For this reason Ford supports and defends the APP with numerous quotations from the SDABC in order to demonstrate that the difference between him and the SDA theologians is in the selection of the biblical texts for the APP application and nothing else.235
Ouro argued that if the APP were “a fundamental principle of interpretation and scientific methodology,” then it would be applied “to prophetic texts throughout the Bible, and not only to a few selected biblical passages.”236, 237 The same inconsistent and selective hermeneutical approach is evident in the SDA application of the APP to various biblical texts. For instance, the SDA historicists have applied the principle to the seven churches in Revelation from the perspective that the seven local churches also represent the “seven consecutive periods of church history.”238, 239, 240 The SDA theologians, though, do not recognize a dual application to the vision in Daniel 8:8-14 that would allow both Antiochus Epiphanes IV and Rome as candidates for the little horn role. This interpretation would not be acceptable because “the only consistent method of interpreting the prophetic chapters of Daniel is that suggested by the historicist school,” and “since the little horn of chapter 7 cannot be Antiochus IV the little horn in chapter 8 should not represent him either.”241, 242
Ouro’s criticism of the APP has been focused on two issues that are essential for a correct rule application: 1. text pool (the texts to which the APP will be applied), and 2. application parameters (how the APP will be applied to the texts). His research on the APP provided evidence that the principle suffers from (1) limited application (the application range is too small), and (2) selective application (the application is limited to selected texts).243, 244 Neufeld makes his case against the YDP as a hermeneutical principle and shows that the SDA traditional application of the method to the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation has always been inconsistent and selective, and that some Bible texts have been arbitrarily excluded from the YDP application pool.245 The two application issues confront both the APP and the YDP. In response to Ouro’s criticism that Ford (1) has not applied the APP throughout the Bible, and that Ford (2) has applied the APP in a selective manner to biblical texts, we have also shown that the SDA historicists have applied the YDP in the same irregular and selective manner to Daniel and Revelation.
Conclusion
The factual data submitted in this paper has provided evidence for the unavoidable conclusion that the YDP – as an SDA historicist prophetic interpretation method – is not a divine law, biblical principle, or scientific method, but a theological assumption that has no linguistic support, is not grounded in the Bible, and cannot be defended with the Bible. This conclusion is based on the evidence derived from (1) the unscientific definition, (2) the questionable support (3) the irregular and selective application of the principle, (4) the bizarre and even absurd interpretations, and (5) the absence of a true linguistic background. The principle is illogical, unsound, and unreliable, and should be discarded as a hermeneutical method of prophetic interpretation and replaced with the linguistic method – a verified scientific approach to Biblical interpretation.
Offline
References
1William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm (Spring 2003), 22:2.
2Ibid., 22:3.
3Ibid., 22:4.
4William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 67.
5Ibid., 104.
6John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary, second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
7Gerhard Pfandl, “The Year-Day Principle,” Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April 2007, 1.
8Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Ezekiel 4:6.
9William H. Shea, “Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (Spring 2001), 89.
10J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 21.
11Ibid., 30.
12Ibid., 44:2.
13Ibid., 44:1.
14Ibid., 44:3.
15William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 103.
16J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 33.
17Gerhard Pfandl, “The Year-Day Principle,” Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April 2007, 1.
18William H. Shea, “Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (Spring 2001), 89.
19Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association,1978), Year-Day Principle.
20Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 7:25.
21J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 44:1.
22Ibid., 44:3.
23Jerry Moon, “The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days,” Adventist Today, volume 10, number 4, July-August 2002, 14-15.
24J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
25Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Explanatory and Practical (London: Blackie & Son, 1851), xxiii.
26J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
27William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 79-95.
28John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary, second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
29Gerhard Pfandl, “In Defense of the Year-day Principle, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 23/1 (2012), 9.
30J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
31Toby Joreteg, “Reexamining the Year-Day Principle in Prophetic Interpretation,” Adventist Today, volume 10, number 3, May-June 2002, 19.
32Don F. Neufeld, “This Generation Shall Not Pass,” Adventist Review, April 5 1979, 6.
33William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1 and 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 81.
34Jerry Moon, “The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days,” Adventist Today, volume 10, number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
35J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
36William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1 and 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 79-81.
37Ibid., 79-80.
38James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: SCM Press, 1961), 8-20.
39Edward Greswell, Fasti Tempores Catholici and Origines Kalendriae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1852), 151-152.
40Ibid., 152.
41William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1 and 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 81.
42Ibid., 81.
43Ibid., 81-82.
44Ibid., 81.
45Jerry Moon, “The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days,” Adventist Today, volume 10, number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
46Robert Lowth, Isaiah, A New Translation with A Preliminary Dissertation and Notes (Boston: William Hilliard, 1834), ix, 1-2.
47George Buchanan Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 37-38.
48Ibid., 38.
49William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 83.
50Ibid., 84-85.
51Ibid., 85.
52J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
53Jerry Moon, “The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days,” Adventist Today, volume 10, number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
54S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1866), 95.
55Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 382.
56William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 85.
57Ibid., 85.
58Ibid., 104.
59Ibid., 85-86.
60Ibid., 89:2.
61Ibid., 89:3.
62Jack J. Blanco, “The Historicist Interpretation of Prophecy: Its Present Relevance in the Light of the Holy Spirit,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 2/2 (1991): 67-80.
63Gerhard Pfandl, “In Defense of the Year-day Principle,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 23/1 (2012), 10.
64Ibid., 10-11.
65Edward Heppenstall, “The Year-Day Principle in Prophecy,” Ministry, October 1981, 18.
66J. Hans K. LaRondelle“Christ or antichrist: The mysterious gap in Daniel 9,” Ministry, May 1982, 14-15.
67Ibid., 15:2.
68Ibid., 15:3.
69Ibid., Ministry, July 1982, 12.
70Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27,” Ministry, May 1976, 5 D.
71Ibid., 5 D.
72Ibid., 6 D.
73Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Hebrew Masculine Plural for “weeks” in the Expression “seventy weeks” in Daniel 9:24,” Andrews University Studies, Summer 1993, No. 2, 105.
74Ibid., 106:1.
75Ibid.,106:2.
76Ibid., 105.
77Ibid., 107:2.
78Ibid., 107:3.
79Ibid., 107:4.
80Ibid., 107-108.
81Ibid., 105-106.
82David H. Lurie, “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s “sevens” and the Chronology of the Seventy “sevens,” JETS 33/3 (September 1990), 304.
83Ibid., 306.
84S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1866), 92.
85Ibid., 95.
86Ibid., 115-117.
87Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 388.
88Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (London: Blackie & Son, 1851), xxx.
89Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M. H. Newman, 1845), 462.
90John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1971), 216.
91Ibid., 217.
92Ibid., 219.
93H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1949), 406.
94Ibid., 409.
95Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: W. M. B. Berdmans Publishing Co., 1949), 191.
96Ibid., 195.
97J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 44.
98Ibid., 45.
99William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 86.
100S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1866), 114.
101Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Appcalypse (New York: M. H. Newman, 1845), 461.
102Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 386-387.
103J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
104William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 87.
105Ibid., 88.
106J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
107William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 88.
108Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 387 up.
109Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 461.
110S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1866), 115.
111Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 260.
112J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
113Ibid., 46.
114William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 100.
115Ibid., 101.
116Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261.
117Ibid., 263.
118S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1866), 118-119.
119William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 105-110.
120Ibid., 105.
121Gerhard Pfandl, “The Year-Day Principle,” Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April 2007, 3.
122Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261.
123Gerhard Pfandl, “The Year-Day Principle,” Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April 2007, 3.
124Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 264.
125William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 106.
126Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1950), 107.
127Ibid., 122.
128William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 105.
129Ibid., 106:2.
130Ibid., 106:3.
131Ibid., 107.
132Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261.
133William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 107.
134Ibid., 107.
135Ibid., 108:2.
136Ibid., 108:3.
137Ibid., 109:2.
138Ibid., 109:3.
139Ibid., 109:2.
140Ibid., 109-110.
141Ibid., 110:2.
142Ibid., 110:2.
143Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261-265.
144S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1866), 123-124.
145S. R. Maitland, Second Inquiry (London: C. & J. Rivington, 1829), 77.
146E. B. Elliot, Horae Apocalypticae (London: Seeley, Burnside, & Seeley, 1847), 232-233.
147William De Burgh, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, & Co., 1857), 417.
148S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1866), 111.
149S. R. Maitland, An Inquiry (London: C. & J. Rivington, 1829), 45-46.
150Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (London: Blackie & Son, 1851).
151Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 459.
152Norman F. Douty, Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1962), 1962.
153William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 106.
154Jerry Moon, “The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days,” Adventist Today, volume 10, number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
155S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1864), 119.
156J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
157William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 83.
158Ibid., 84-85.
159Ibid., 85:2.
160Ibid., 85:3.
161Ibid., 86.
162Ibid., 87.
163Ibid., 89.
164Edward Heppenstall, “The Year-Day Principle in Prophecy,” Ministry, October 1981, 18.
165Gerhard Pfandl, “In Defense of the Year-day Principle,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 23/1 (2012), 10.
166J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 12.
167S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1864), 121.
168Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 468.
169Winston McHarg, “Why the Little Horn of Daniel 8 Must Be Antiochus Epiphanes,” at Good News For Adventists.com: http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/wh … epiphanes/
170William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible: The Revelation (St. Andrews Press, 1975), 73.
171Richard M. Davidson, “The Meaning of NisΩdaq in Daniel 8:14,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 7/1 (Spring 1996): 107-119.
172Ibid., 118.
173Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 7:25.
174J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
175Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 12:6.
176Eduard Hanganu, “A Linguist examines the ‘Year Day Principle’,” Adventist Today, Sept.-Oct. 2003, www.atoday.com/160.0.html.
177Fernand Fisel, “Adventism’s Last Stand in the Battle for the Year-Day Formula,” at http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=4336 … 45c0784093.
178Roberto Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337.
179Michael S. Bushell and Michael D. Tan. BibleWorks 5.0.00, BibleWorks, 2002.
180J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 44.
181William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 80.
182J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46-47.
183Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 7:25.
184William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 74.
185Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 10:1.
186Ibid., Daniel 12:11.
187Ibid., Revelation 1:3.
188Ibid., Revelation 2:10.
189Ibid., Revelation 3:10.
190Ibid., Revelation 6:11.
191Ibid., Revelation 8:1.
192William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 100.
193Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 12:5, 15.
194Ibid., Revelation 10:7.
195Ibid., Revelation 10:6.
196Ibid., Revelation 11:2.
197Ibid., Daniel 7:25.
198Ibid., Revelation 11:3.
199Ibid., Revelation 11:9,11.
200Ibid., Revelation 12:6, 14.
201Ibid., Revelation 14:7.
202Ibid., Revelation 17:12.
203Ibid., Revelation 18:8.
204Ibid., Revelation 20:3.
205Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 387.
206Ibid., 387-388.
207Ibid., 388.
208Ibid., 389-390.
209S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1866), 123.
210Ibid., 123.
211Ibid., 123-124.
212Ibid., 124:1.
213Ibid., 124:2.
214Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845).
215Ibid., 460:2.
216Ibid., 460:3.
217Ibid., 460-461.
218S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1864), 118.
219E. B. Elliot, Horae Apocalypticae, third edition (London: Seeley, Burnside, & Seeley, 1847), 226 footnote 3.
220Ibid., 227, footnote 3.
221William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm (Spring 2003), 22, cited in Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 2.
222Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7.
223William De Burgh, An Exposition of the Book of the Revelation (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, & Co, 1857), 416.
224Don F. Neufeld, “This Generation Shall Not Pass,” Adventist Review, April 5 1979, 6.
225Ibid., 6.
226Roberto Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 326-342.
227William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1 and 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 103.
228Roberto Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 328.
229Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980).
230William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm (Spring 2003), 22, cited in Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 2.
231Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7.
232Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), 319.
233Jerry Moon, “The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days,” Adventist Today, volume 10, number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
234Roberto Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337-338.
235Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 1:1017-1019 cited in Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, 320.
236Robert Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 337.
237Ibid., 337-339.
238Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 2:1.
239Ibid., Revelation 2:1.
240Ibid., Additional note on Revelation Chapter 2.
241Arthur J. Ferch, Daniel on Solid Ground (Washington: Review and Herald, 1988), 83-84, 85-86, cited in Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 2, footnote 4.
242William H. Shea, “Why Antiochus IV Is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8” in Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 64.
243Roberto Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337.
244Ibid., 337-338.
245 Don F. Neufeld, “This Generation Shall Not Pass,” Adventist Review, April 5 1979, 6.
Offline