Articles 1844 and the 2300 Days Made Simple
| 1844 and the 2300 Days Made Simple |
 |
 |
|
1844 and the 2300 Days Made Simple  Many
Adventists say that they do not understand 1844 and the Investigative Judgment,
that it is too complicated for them. Others confirm this by discussing
technical details without end. The result is that many think that it is enough
to believe the simple Gospel and leave such matters aside.
But the Gospel they nearly always refer to is far more difficult to comprehend than the 2300 days. It is difficult to see how the Jesus such people make out to be God Almighty is different from the pagan Roman emperor the Romans worshipped. It is difficult to see how the Atonement finished on the cross is different from the Roman crucifix and the stations of the cross. In fact, the pretence of Gospel simplicity is not only complicated and impossible to explain or understand, it is a return to Rome. The true Gospel is clearly predicted in the book of Daniel, and outlined in the 2300-day prophecy in a simple, point by point way in Daniel 8 and 9. The book of Daniel is one of the most exciting books of the Bible because of the detail of prophecy. The series of empires in Daniel 2 is followed by more detailed visions showing the history of the Middle East and the world down to the end of the world. But the time visions of Daniel 8 and 9 are among the most remarkable. The problems set forth in the book of Daniel appear in the first verses. (Dan 1:1) In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. (Dan 1:2) And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. The entire book of Daniel focuses on the plight of Jerusalem and the temple in Jerusalem, the holy sanctuary, both of which were destroyed. But Daniel's view goes beyond the earthly situation to the heavenly in every event, and is the most detailed and yet simple explanation of the Gospel in the Bible. Keeping these two points in mind will help to understand everything in the book of Daniel, including the time prophecies of chapters 8 and 9. (Dan 8:13) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? (Dan 8:14) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. The point of the Gospel is the restoration of ”the sanctuary and the host”. The 2300-day prophecy outlines year by year when and how this takes place. Daniel recognized that each day represented a year. That is why he is so stunned at the length of time in Daniel 8. That is also why he recognized the closeness of fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy of the captivity at the beginning of Daniel 9:2. But he did not know when the 2300 years or prophetic days would begin, or what important events lay within that period of time. The explanation quite naturally comes in Daniel 9. (Dan 9:24) Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (Dan 9:25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (Dan 9:26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (Dan 9:27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
From these verses we get first the
starting point of the time prophecy: the going forth of the command to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem. We need only find that historical date, and all of the
other dates fall into place. In 457 B.C., a decree was granted to Ezra
by the Persian emperor Artaxerxes Longimanus. A copy of the decree is found in
Ezra 7. All ancient dates are confirmed by
reference to the canon of Ptolemy, which is based on the dates of a score of
eclipses, and so we know them for certainty. So the dates of Daniel 8 and 9
beginning at B.C. 457 can be easily calculated:
B.C. 457 2300 days and 70 weeks begin.
B.C. 408 the end of seven weeks (49 days).
A.D. 27 the end of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
A.D. 31 the middle of the seventieth week.
A.D. 34 the end of the seventieth week. A.D. 1844 the end of the 2300 days. 
A review of the traditionally accepted dates for each of the events mentions shows them to have been fulfilled precisely. The city of Jerusalem was rebuilt in B.C. 408, the coming of Messiah the Prince was fulfilled at Jesus' baptism in A.D. 27, the Messiah was cut off by his crucifixion in A.D. 31, the 70 weeks cut off for the Jewish people ended when the Sanhedrin officially rejected the Messiah and in evidence of it stoned Stephen in A.D. 34, and finally Christ stepped into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to make atonement for sin in A.D. 1844. When that work of cleansing the sanctuary is finished, Christ will return as promised. But there is no date given for that event. In the process of restoring the sanctuary and the hosts, that is the people, the following five things had to take place. They fit simply on the fingers of one hand.
Jerusalem
and the temple rebuilt.
The
baptism of Jesus.
The
crucifixion of Jesus.
The
Gospel sent to the Gentiles. The sanctuary cleansed. God moves simply from the earthly and carnal to the heavenly and inner. Each of these five events is necessary to restore the sanctuary and the people. If we set up a different goal from that of restoring the sanctuary and the people, we are inventing a pagan religion. Those who merely desire personal salvation are imitating the mystery cults of the Roman empire, cults that promised personal salvation. That is not what the God of the Bible promises. He promises to restore the sanctuary and the people. Any faith or gospel that promises something else is simply false.
Each
of these events is necessary. If we deny even one of them, we have invented a
false system of faith, a pagan religion. If we focus on just one of them and
forget the rest, such as the central one of all, the crucifixion, the result is
to invent a religion that does not differ essentially from the Mithra cult or
the Dionysian cult. Again, we have made ourselves pagans, outside the faith of
the God of the Bible. Evangelical Christians make a great deal over the fact
that Jesus, as contrasted with the man-gods of these pagan cults, is historical
rather than mythical. But they take him out of his Biblical history by denying
the equal importance, in its sphere, of each of the essential events in history
that make up the plan of salvation, or the restoration of the sanctuary and the
people.
What takes place at each of the historical events making up the restoration of the sanctuary and the people?
The message of the 2300 days or prophetic years is simple and straightforward. God provided an object lesson to explain what he was about to do to restore the sanctuary and the people. Jesus, the son of God, came to live and die among humankind, was resurrected and ascended into the heavenly sanctuary to serve as the true priest for the people. As they prayed for forgiveness, their sins were removed to the sanctuary through Christ's intercession. In 1844 Christ has been engaging in the work of blotting out the sins from the sanctuary and the people. When this has been finished the sanctuary and the people will be restored. This is the true plan of salvation. It is a far cry from the one found among the daughters of Babylon. Babylon holds that killing a man in the Middle East resolves all problems. That is an old pagan thought. In times of catastrophe, the people used to sacrifice an innocent victim to apease the gods and avert disaster. That is the same belief found in Evangelical Christianity today. It is a serious error, because it not only leads individuals into depravity and eventual loss of eternal life, but it affect political decisions. Today the most commonly believed political concept is that crucifying more people in the Middle East will solve the world's problems and make a new world order, a paradise on earth. It will not happen. That is because the basis is a pagan error that is not only opposed to God's plan of salvation, but it is grossly illogical and irrational as well. The truth is the five great events of the plan of salvation. Each individual may participate in them. We read the Bible to understand the plan of salvation in word and type. We are baptized with Jesus and participate in his life and death and resurrection. God Himself declares that we are His beloved children in whom He is well pleased. We rely on Christ by faith to have our sins, the transgression of the ten commandments, forgiven. We rely on Christ by faith to have our sins blotted out forever. We await is second coming, when the sanctuary and people will be restored for ever.
This
is the patience of the saints. Here are they that keep the commandments of God
and have the faith of Jesus. Hits: 8021 Comments (51)
  written by Gabriella Ricci, June 12, 2009
You seem to contradict yourself in the following paragraph.
"The two thousand and three hundred days answers the question of when the desolation of the sanctuary would end, not when it would begin, as we see in verse 13. The sanctuary was already desolate when the vision was given. That was the whole point so far as people in the captivity were concerned. There is no implication in the text that the beginning of the 2300 is to be dated from the desolation predicted in verse 11. The fulfilment of that verse might be seen in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem." First you say that "The sanctuary was already desolate when the vision was given." Daniel received that vision around 551BC. So if the sanctuary was already desolate then, WHO is the Little Horn desolating it??? We established that by the best of historical intentions Rome cannot come into play until 400 years after that, so WHO would be doing the trampling? Then you say that "the desolation predicted in verse 11. The fulfilment of that verse might be seen in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem." So the desolation actually began in 70AD. Now which one is it? It can't be both, since we're on the same prophetic timeline. Take your pick. Also, let me disagree with another point. Daniel 13 doesn't ask WHEN the desolation of the sanctuary will end. It asks "HOW LONG shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" Let me take a practical example of the difference. It's 9am in the morning. Me: HOW LONG will you be away with your friends? You: Two hours. If you leave right after, it means you'll be back at 11am. BUT if you leave at 10.55, logically I can only expect you to be back around 1pm. Now I could have asked: WHEN will you be back? You: In two hours. And this would obviously point to 11am, even if you leave at 10.55. Since the question in the Bible is HOW LONG, it is obvious that the answer is directly related to the beginning of the said activity, namely the desolation of the sanctuary and the counting cannot start before the desolation begins.
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 12, 2009
I apologize, but today I will not have time to respond in details to all the points you raised. But there is one particularly important issue (at least in my opinion) that I would like to discuss.
You wrote: « We seem to agree that both Antiochus and the Roman Empire are timewise valid candidates to be expressed by the Little Horn of Daniel 8, since they are both relevant to the holy land at the same period, that is 161 BC for the one and the same decade for the other. […] In short, I believe that Rome, arising about 161 in regard to Palestine is a valid candidate for the Little Horn. » In this statement you seem to admit that the Little Horn (representing Rome or Antiochus) came into power around 161 BC. BUT your timeline in the article gives as starting point of the 2300 days prophecy 457BC. In this case WHO trampled the sanctuary underfoot for almost 300 years between 457BC and 161BC??? Conversely, if the starting point of the 2300 days prophecy is 161BC and accepting that 1 day = 1 year, then its end should be around 2139AD, thus more than a hundred years ahead of us. I could maybe add that actually Rome lived rather peacefully with the Jews until about 63BC when Palestine became a part of the Roman Empire (bringing the end of the prophecy to 2237AD) and that the sacrifices in the temple didn't cease until the desctruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, taking us to 2370AD as the end of your timeline. For lack of time, I will stick to these purely mathematical and logical considerations for today. God bless.
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 11, 2009 "The term "cut off" was not taken from the KJV text, but from Daniel 9:24, where the word "determined" translates the Hebrew nekhtakh, which also means "cut off." " The operative word here being ALSO. Why not take it at face value and accept « determined » as a correct translation? Then your whole idea of connecting the two timelines falls on its face. That same Hebrew word can also mean: « to mark out beforehand, to say, to be determined, to give counsel, to take counsel, to loose thereupon, to judge/decide, to arrange, to determine/move sharply/be cut off, to place/set/put, to complete/finish/determine. » Why not use one of those? Or for that matter stick to « cut off » and wonder if the 70 weeks could be cut off in the middle of the 2300 years or at the end, instead of the beginning? « Holy Place and Holy Places translate one single word ta hagia, which sometimes refers to the Holy Place, the Most Holy Place, or both, depending on the context. » (in Hebrews) Don't you think that if it was such an important thing to differentiate between the two, then God would have made sure that we are easily able to tell the difference by simply providing two different words? And not leave us with a guesswork? You don't mention it, but let's take Daniel 8:14, which is the base of your prophetic interpretation. The KJV says: The sanctuary will be cleansed. Now, my translation here says « reconsecrated ». Other translations use: « vindicated », « declared right », « restored to its rightful state ». The Hebrew word used here is used 41 times in the Old Testament, and this is the ONLY place where the KJV translated it by « cleansed ». I don't think it makes a strong case for your interpretation. It would be nice if you could quote some other texts that make a clearer case for Christ's heavenly ministry starting in 1844. I believe that God makes sure that we clearly understand the important points on which to base our faith and upon which our salvation hinges. He says, repeats and re-repeats things all through the Bible, through different people, in different contexts, in different languages, in different words to make sure that we « get » the meaning. I mean look how many texts are pointing to Jesus in the Old Testament, then how many times Jesus repeated who He was and what He had come for and finally all the writings of the apostles repeating the same stuff in different fomulations. Nothing left to chance or tortuous word interpretations there. So why would He do that with the cleansing of the sanctuary if it was of such high importance for our salvation? I am not trying to convince you to accept my explanation here, merely pushing you to open your mind and study this subject again without any preconceived ideas. It is not because Ellen White said something that it is necessarily true. I am sure that if you honestly look at these texts again, you'll see the twists and turns needed to literally squeeze the texts into your theory. Again, I believe that God is not a god of confusion. He explains things clearly and logically, so that we might come to know Him better and have a living faith. May He guide you as you seek Him.
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 11, 2009 « The article depends on a particular understanding of the entire sequence of visions up to that point, an understanding that the reader may not have. » Wouldn't it make sense then to provide this understanding to the readers instead of expecting them to take everything they read at face-value? As it stands, the article shouldn't be called « 1844 and 2300 days made simple » but « Oversimplification of Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 9:24 ». « From the point of view of time, both the intervention of Rome and the action of Antiochus are equally valid. » I am not sure if you mean Rome as Roman Empire or Rome as Papacy. If it's the Roman Empire, it was founded in 750BC, it only came in contact with the Jewish nation in 161BC and was nowhere by 1844. If it's the Papacy, then it only officially started in 538AD and was « mortally wounded » in 1798, thus almost 50 years before 1844. (See the article on Next and Last Pope detailing Revelation 17) So if the starting point of the prophecy is 457BC as you state, none of these could have been « desolating the sanctuary » for those 2300 years. Also, Daniel 8 talks about a horn coming out of one of the four horns on the head of the beast representing Greece. Logically it means that this very horn is attached to the Greek empire. In all other prophetic visions, Rome was represented by a totally separate beast (see Daniel 7) or by a separate section as in the statue in Daniel 2. Also, Daniel 8:23 talks about a « king », not a kingdom. « My point is that the motivation for seeing Antiochus as the the little horn diminishes its credibility. [...] I find the interpretation that Antiochus is represented by the little horn to have historically suspect motivation. If there is an interpretation that accounts for the facts as well or better, without being politically tainted, it is preferable. » The fact that the interpretation has been misused does not mean that it is wrong. Half of the Bible (if not all of it) has been used to justify acts of cruelty that go against God's character. Yet it does not mean that the Bible is wrong. Just because round wheels have been used on carts going to war, you do not need to invent a triangular one... « Daniel 8:14 does not come "in the middle of all of this", but at the end of the vision, in a separate section of the vision (verses 13-14) relating to the conversation of the saints. » Let me disagree with this. Daniel 8 is 27 verses long. Verse 14 is right in the middle of this by simple mathematics. I am not a Bible scholar, but even I know that in the Bible the most important information is usually given in the middle of the text that is built around in a kind of pyramidal form. By pure logic it would mean that verse 14 is the culmination of everything around it. Attaching it to something one chapter down in human fabrication. « The time of the end, to which the 2300 extends, was signaled by the Lisbon earthquake, the falling of the stars, and the dark day, all of which were noted by Bible students of the time as pointing to the time of the end as predicted in Matthew 24:29. » Lisbon earthquake: 1755 Falling of the stars: 1833 Dark day: 1780 Please tell me by what kind of twisted mathematics do you connect these to precisely 1844? « Given that the book of Daniel is made up of a series of visions (interspersed with historical narratives), each vision adding information lacking in the preceding, Daniel 9:24 logically refers to what was left ambiguous in Daniel 8, that is, the timing of the period mentioned in verse 14. » I think your logic on this one is somewhat far-fetched, especially because you refuse to look « closer to home » for a simpler/better explanation.
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 11, 2009
Thank you again for your detailed response. I really appreciate being able to have an open discussion with you. Again, since this is an open website, if anybody else would like to offer an opinion or question, it is more than welcome.
I will follow your example and try and break down my response, in order to make it as simple to understand as possible. I would like to keep the focus on Daniel 8 and Jesus' heavenly ministry, since this is the main point of this article, but I will try and address any other questions that I feel related. Please let me know if you think I failed to answer on something that seems important to you. Before I start, just a small comment on my « lack of humor » You say : « you need to lighten up on me and search your heart for a spark of humor. I may be the ogre you seem to think I am, but even that can be a source of amusement rather than outrage . » If this exchange was face-to-face or even in private e-mails, I would be definitely less formal in my writing. However, this is a public website visited by thousands of people every day. (Which again proves the quality of the material provided and the need for the Truth people feel) In this light, it is important to stick to facts instead of personal considerations and interpretations, since some people's faith might (and according to the website's mission *should*) be influenced by what they read here. There might be quite a few Adventists among those visitors and I wouldn't like them to feel alienated by being called a « pain » and dismiss all the truths they might find here just because they do not feel welcome. (See Matthew 18:6) As for the remnant, I did not object being part of them, I objected to having the *mentality* that makes some of them think that they are better than anyone else. Big difference. Ok, end of personal considerations.
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 10, 2009
11. « The general focus on the crucifix, the limitation to a death cult, is itself of dubious spirituality, but when it deprives the Bible doctrine of those features that distinguish it from the pagan mystery cults and their predecessors the solar-myth deity cults, then we can and must say that it is unacceptable. »
I think that calling belief in the crucifixion a « death cult » is somewhat out of line. I do believe that Christ's resurrection is just as important as His death, and the Bible went into great details about predicting, describing and explaining the final hours and the death of Christ, as well as His resurrection. All the Hebrew sacrificial system was pointing towards that one event. On the other hand, there is not much about his work in the heavenly sanctuary. Yes, it is mentioned, but by far it is not given the same importance as His death and resurrection. So pretending that our salvation hinges on the belief in this work of Atonement that started precisely in 1844 (again, belief based on Bible texts taken out of context) is portraying a god who would on purpose hide the clues and lead us on a wild goose chase, in order to limit the number of people having a full understanding and thereby being able to pretend to salvation. I for myself don't believe in such a god. I believe in an eternally loving Father who sacrificed His own Son for our sake and who gave us all the knowledge and all the clear proofs we need to have faith in Him, be redeemed by grace through faith, do His will and prepare for His second coming, so that we'll spend eternity with Him. 12. « Keeping Sabbath and enjoying its blessings is better than participating in the pagan festival of Sunday with its implication of sun-worship and the Mithra cult. […] There are ten commandments, not nine. » I am not denying the importance of the Sabbath, but what's that got to do with the subject here? 13. « Roman Catholics are almost always better people than Seventh-day Adventists, who can be a real pain. » This is an unacceptable generalization and value judgement, bordering religious racism. 14. « I pray that you will join the remnant who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14:12). » I appreciate your prayers, but the way you formulate it supposes that I am currently NOT part of the remnant who keep God's commandments which is not up to you judge. I for my part pray that God would give us His light to help us know Him better and prepare for His return. I would also like to thank you, since despite our disagreements, this discussion made me search my Bible and look for answers with renewed strength and interest, bringing me closer to God.
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 10, 2009
9. « 4. "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." 1 John 1:7 So if it is Jesus' blood that purifies us, why would He need to purify us again?"
You make some assumptions here that do not appear valid to me. The first is that 1 John 1:7 states that we were purified from all sin as soon as the blood was shed at the cross. Given the details of Hebrews 7-9 in regard to Christ's heavenly ministration, that understanding of 1 John 1:7 does not seem valid. We are not purified from sin before the blood is administered in the heavenly sanctuary. Ok, let's take Hebrews 7-9. 7:27 – « He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. » Again, the idea that sins were redeemed when Christ offered himself. 8:1-2 « We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. » Note: « serves » present tense. Hebrews was written in AD 60-70. 9:7-12 « But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshipper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings – external regulations applying until the time of the new order. When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. » Note: « entered » past tense, meaning that in AD 70, Jesus was already in the Most Holy Place. So why would he enter again 1774 years later and moreoever make a big fuss about it in a prophecy? Also, blood of Christ = eternal redemption. It is obvious from this text that the earthly high priest needed to cleanse the Most Holy Place because the blood of goats and calves was not enough, BUT Christ's blood brings eternal redemption, so no need for cleansing. v.15: « He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. » Christ's death = people set free from sins. v.26, 28 « But now he has appeared once for all at the end of ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. […] Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people » Again: sacrifice of Christ = take away the sins of many people You'll note how many times in these chapters the expression « once for all » is used. I think it should draw your attention on the capital importance of Christ's sacrifice. Please, if you have precise texts that would support your theory, let us examine them together. 10. « The failure to recognize the reality of what the crucifixion of Christ means in relation to his resurrection and priestly intercession in heaven is related to the pervasive idea that human problems can be solved by violence and the sacrifice of human lives. » I think the Bible makes it pretty clear and most Christians believe that it is NOT sacrifice of human lives that solves our problem of sin, but the sacrifice of a Holy Being, namely the Son of God himself. So again, I don't think that your point about crucifying people in the Middle East (and why the Middle East of all places???) is relevant. (continued)
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 10, 2009
2. « the 70 weeks were cut off, that is, they were part of a longer time period from which they were cut off »
Please tell me where you find the verb « cut off ». I read Daniel v.24-27, but the only thing that seems cut off is the Anointed One in verse 26, which is I would think the death of Jesus. 3. « the dates arrived at fit the actual historical dates for the going forth of the decree and the building of Jerusalem and the temple, to say nothing of the remarkable coincidence of fitting the ministry of Christ to the very year and season, all of which confirms the interpretation. » Agreed, but that's only relevant to chapter 9, which in my opinion is self-containing. 4. « On what basis do you establish 13 years between the third year of Belshazzar and the first year of Darius? That appears fragile to me, especially since the identity of Darius has been much debated. » I used the footnotes of the Archeological Study Bible. In any case, even if it is not exactly 13 years, Daniel is speaking about two different kings, meaning that there is some time between the two prophecies. 5. « Furthermore, the attachment of the prophecies to Antiochus Epiphanes is predicated on the assumption that Daniel was not written in the sixth century at all, but in the second. » I am sorry, but I really don't know what you mean by that. Why couldn't have Daniel predicted something in the sixth century BC that would happen four hundered years later? God gave him visions of the Messiah, that doesn't mean Daniel's book had to be written at the same time as Jesus was on Earth, or??? Please explain your rationale. 6. « "1. Jesus said "It is finished" John 19:30 Why would He have said that, if He still needed to cleanse the sanctuary to make sure we are saved???" The context seems to indicate that when Jesus said "It is finished", he was referring to the offering of himself in sacrifice for sin. That the offering was completed does not imply that the atonement was completed. On the antitypical day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) when the goat was slain the offering was finished, but there remained the entire service of Atonement in the Most Holy Place to be accomplished after that. » Fine. However Jesus did not say, « well, this is done, now on-on to bigger and better things ». He said « it is finished ». 7. « "2. 1844 was 165 years ago. Just how long do you think Jesus needs to clean the sanctuary? I mean, He could do it with a clap of his fingers, no?" I wonder at the motivation behind this question. Everything that God has done for the redemption of humankind is put in an historical setting that includes long periods of time. » Because in these events you mention God slows down for US. He created the world in six days, so we can have a seven days week, tailored to our human nature. He gave Humanity a couple of thousand years to understand and prepare the plan of salvation before Jesus was sent here. Jesus hasn't come back yet, because He doesn't want anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)The Millenium takes 1000 years so that our limited minds have time to grasp and understand what is going on. As for the cleansing of the sanctuary? For you and me, it wouldn't make the slightest difference if it took three minutes or three hundred years. 8. « "3. Why would God give us a prophetic date that no one can verify? There is debate among Christians about every phase of redemption. » True, a lot of things can be debated. But again, the point of God's prophecies, especially the ones that are time-bound in a way or another is to be verifiable. Why would God give us something that vague that would have to be taken out of context and bound to a totally different prophecy 13 years down the line in order to point to a date that – again – NO ONE can verify and that cannot be linked to ANY earthly event. Why wasn't there an earthly manifestation of such a glorious event if it was so important to us? Why didn't God send an earthquake or something to tell us, « hey people, there is something BIG going on in Heaven right now! » ??? Maybe His way of keeping so completely silent in October 1844 was His way of telling the believers awaiting the Second Coming, « You guys made a mistake in your calculations. Start over. » So instead what did they do? Admit that they were wrong and look for other answers? No. They said: « The date WE calculated is right, the event GOD made happen is wrong. » Isn't this a presumptious way of trying to squeeze God into their own plans? (continued)
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 10, 2009
Thank you for your detailed and quick response. I think it is important that we can debate about these issues while praying that God shows us His light and brings us to a better understanding of Himself and of His plan for us. Since I am still not convinced about your explanation of 2300 evenings and mornings, here are some more points that I'd like to discuss with you and anybody else who would like join in and give us an opinion. (I've cut out some the previous discussion in order to reduce the length of each point. If you think that something important is missing, please feel free to point it out.)
1. « The reason I think the starting point for the 2300 evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:14 is the same as for the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24, is simply because the 70 weeks were cut off, that is, they were part of a longer time period from which they were cut off. The nearest antecedent in the text is Daniel 8:14, and so it is the first choice. » Let me disagree with that. In your whole article, you never mention the details of the prophecy in Daniel 8. You take a verse out of the middle of Daniel 8 and link it to the end of Daniel 9. Just by pure logic, it would make sense to first look for a starting point of the prophecy in the very context of Daniel 8:14 instead of going one chapter and 13 years down the road. In this respect, it would be good to first present what is in Daniel 8. THEN if there is nothing in there that you can relate to, you can still go and look for an explanation someplace else. Without going too much into details (since I am sure you have a good understanding of this chapter), Daniel talks about a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes that defeats the ram that was there before him. Then the one horn is broken off and replaced by four prominent horns. Out of one them came « another horn which started small but grew in power » (Dan 8:9) The ram is the Medo-Persian Empire (v.20), defeated by the goat that represents Greece (v.21)and its prominent horn is Alexander the Great. Since the four horns replaced the one horn, but still grew on the head of the same beast, we can suppose that they represent the four generals between whom the kingdom was divided at the death of Alexander. In the same logic, since the other horn that started small but got more powerful grew out of one of these horns, it would mean that it was still related to Greece and more specifically to one of the four kingdoms. Indeed verses 22 and 23 say: « The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from this nation but will not have the same power. In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. » So the king represented by the small but later powerful horn will come towards the end of the four kingdoms in which Greece was divided at the death of Alexander. He will come from one of these kingdoms. Verses 10-12 and 24-25 describe in details the way he will be acting. The description fits perfectly Antiochus. v.10: He got rid of God's rightful priests and replaced them by pagan ones. v. 11a: He claimed to be the earthly manifestation of Zeus. He called himself Epiphanes (God manifest) v.11b-12: He established a pagan worship in the Jerusalem temple. All Jewish rites were outlawed, resulting in the cessation of daily sacrifice. v. 24: He conquered large territories, he wanted to Hellenize and make people worship him. v.25a: He used deceit and ruse in his dealing with his political partners. v.25b: He died of a kind of plague that made his body stink so much that people couldn't bear the smell. It was widely considered as a punishment of God for his pride and ruthlessness. So right in the middle of all this, in verse 14 we have the prophecy of 2300 evenings and mornings (note: it's NOT written « days ») . Don't you think that it would make sense to connect it to the desolation of the temple brought by Antiochus and the restoration orchestrated by Maccabeus? (continued)
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 09, 2009
What makes you think that the starting point for the 2300 evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:14 is the same as for the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24? The prophecy in Daniel 9 was given 13 years after Daniel 8, so on what base do you connect them?
Also I would strongly suggest you follow the example of the Bereans who "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11) and compare the Scripture to some material relating the "little horn" in Daniel 8 to Antiochus Epiphanes who ruled the Seleucid kingdom from 175BC to 164BC. According to this interpretation 2300 evenings and mornings are just that: about six years altogether that passed between the time Antiochus "set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar" (1 Maccabees 1:59)by sacrificing a pig and the victory obtained by Judas Maccabeus which eventually led to the reinstatment of the daily sacrifice. This victory is to this day commemorated by the Jews in the feast of Hanukkah. Please understand that - just like you - I am looking for the Truth. My point here is not seek a conflict but to honestly and open-mindedly examine the Bible, as well as diverse, sometimes conflicting explanations and interpretations proposed by different people and denominations, through the guidance of God's Spirit in order to get closer to God and understand His purpose better.
written by Gabriella Ricci, June 09, 2009
I've heard this 1844 prophecy a few times, however I still have a number of doubts:
1. Jesus said "It is finished" John 19:30 Why would He have said that, if He still needed to cleanse the sanctuary to make sure we are saved??? 2. 1844 was 165 years ago. Just how long do you think Jesus needs to clean the sanctuary? I mean, He could do it with a clap of his fingers, no? 3. Why would God give us a prophetic date that no one can verify? All the other prophecies in the Bible are pointed towards events here on Earth that are visible to all, their point being of proving the veracity of God's Word. So why would God confuse everybody by giving a date that only brings debate between Christians? 4. "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." 1 John 1:7 So if it is Jesus' blood that purifies us, why would He need to purify us again? Last, but not least, mixing in political considerations about "crucifying more people in the Middle East" is totally out of place. Also calling Christians "pagans" because they focus on the crucifixion of Christ that IS the central point of our faith is unacceptable. It is this "remnant mentality" that sounds as if you considered yourself better than the others. Well, Jesus said "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also." John 10:16 I understand that you are passionate about spreading the truths that you discovered but calling other Christians names will be somewhat counterproductive in this respect. You have some eye-opening and thought-provoking articles on this website that are of excellent quality, but this one is an unmitigated disaster, not only because of its content that - even if it might be true - is not sufficiently argumented and supported, but also because of the form you put on it.
 written by Kevin McGill, May 02, 2009
I am currently reading1844 Made Simple by Clifford Goldstein, it was nice to see this post, and the visual timeline is helpful
 written by Natalie K, April 21, 2009
Hello Yesudas,
In order to understand the significance of 1844, we must first understand the significance of the sanctuary as God revealed it. The sanctuary here on earth, that was originally built by Moses, was a copy of the one in heaven. Here on earth, when the sanctuary was cleansed, the High Priest would go into the Holy of Holies, and cleanse the mercy seat from the sins (blood) that had been sprinkled on it during the year. The mistake of the believers in 1844 was assuming that the sanctuary to be cleansed was on the earth, when in fact the sanctuary on earth had been long demolished and lost significance because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and the sanctuary in heaven is all that now exists. Jesus is now in the Holy of Holies passing judgment on the dead, and will soon start with the living, that is, if He hasn't already. I hope this is clear and understandable. God bless you! In His love and service, WLC Team
 written by Yesudas Nathan, April 16, 2009
Can we really fully understand God's way wayof doings things? Aren't the terms cleansing the sanctury, entering the most holy etc. anthropomorphic terms which are not consistent with the God's nature of omnipotence and omnipresence?
I do not know much about these things. Please calrify.
written by Natalie K, April 04, 2009
Indeed, the prediction that Christ's coming was going to be in 1844 was wrong, however, an event did take place in 1844, but the wrong event was predicted. The sanctuary in heaven was to be cleansed, which they had predicted that the sanctuary was the earth. Later on, this was clarified.
God bless you! In His love and service, WLC Team
 written by joy krueger, March 28, 2009
I agree with Colin that the two witnesses will be witnessing during the 1260 days of tribulation and will lay dead for three days prior to the return. I DO NOT think this prophecy has been fulfilled yet... but it will soon be.
written by Natalie K, March 27, 2009
Hello Colin,
The judgment indeed began in 1844, and we know that the Lord will delay His second coming. As for the two witnesses, this has been fulfilled, and you can read more about it in the following link: http://worldslastchance.com/daniel-a-revelation/identifying-the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11.html In addition, chapter 13 or 15 (can't remember right now) in the book "The Great Controversy" addresses the two witnesses of Rev. 11 comprehensively. The chapter's title is "The Bible and the French Revolution" or something like that  It will really help you understand this valid topic. You can download this book for free from the following link: http://worldslastchance.com/vi...rsion.html If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. God bless you! In His love and service, WLC Team
 written by mel phillips, March 25, 2009
Jesus really is coming soon.I hope and pray that there are others like me who are ready to meet Him.I am still readying myself every day to meet my Lord and Master.
 written by Colin Waynert, March 23, 2009
If Judgement began in 1844, we would have seen the return of Christ. We will know that his return is close when we see the two witnesses dead in the streets of Jerusalem and they will be refused burial and will be resurrected after three days. Learn the lesson from the fig tree.
 written by rosalie simborio, March 10, 2009
it help us to be aware..it's really inspiring..
 written by KEN CHRISTIAN ADRIAN BARTOLOME, March 09, 2009 A Time to Think Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.—Helen Keller To Act Face your challenges with determination and resiliency.
written by KEN CHRISTIAN ADRIAN BARTOLOME, March 09, 2009
these article helps me a lot.............eye opener.
 written by Melody Asuncion, March 05, 2009
Yes, Jesus is coming soon..let us be ready to meet Him..
 written by Simon Nainggolan, February 22, 2009
please translate this articles to Bahasa Indonesia languange.
thank you very much.
written by Natalie K, February 06, 2009
This topic of the Feast of Tabernacles is something that we plan to look into more carefully, and much discussion has been going on concerning it. From what you seem to know of this topic, what is the significance of knowing the time of the feast of tabernacles in relation to the 2300 year prophecy? What would that mean if we did know?
 written by Hadassah Sinclair, February 02, 2009
Christ is in the sanctuary as high priest. We get this date line from the 2300 days in Daniel, is there a date line for the "time" after the sanctuary cleansing ( as in the day of atonement) and moving into the feast of tabernacles? In other words is there a time line given in the Bible that tells us when the Feast of Tabernacles will begin for the day of Atonement (1844) has been a very long day.
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I will not argue with you about the interpretation of Daniel 8 anymore. Bible scholars who are much more knowledgable and eloquent than myself have made their point and ample evidence is found on the internet that proves not only that Daniel 8 and 9 have been thoroughly misinterpreted by the 1844 Advent movement, but also that the notion of Investigative Judgment as presented here and by the Adventist church is unbiblical. I will not cite webpages here by respect for your own site, but a short Google search should provide ample material.
I don't blame you for sticking to your guns, great scholars have refused to see the evidence presented to them on this matter and chose to stick to Ellen White's erroneous teachings on the sole assumption that she had the Gift of Prophecy and as such was infalliable.
Again, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to dig deeper into my Bible. This little conversation of ours started a much bigger snowball that will very probably lead to radical changes in my life.
I am praying that the Lord may guide you on your path as you are earnestly seeking for Him and His Truth. "Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." Jn 8:32
Gabriella