1

THE S.D.A. SANCTUARY MESSAGE DEFENDED

By Derrick Gillespie (*Edited and Revised in April, 2016)

All those who continue to attack, disparage and reject the SDA Churchs Sanctuary Message, they
often either disregard and or miss certain crucial considerations. TO LAY CHARGES AGAINST A CERTAIN
ASSERTION OR VIEWPOINT, OR TO OPPOSE IT, LAYS THE 'BURDEN OF PROOF' AT THE FEET OF THE OPPOSITION, AND
NOTHING HAS YET BEEN SUBMITTED BY ANY OF THE CRITICS (FROM INSIDE AND WITHOUT ADVENTISM) TO CONVINCE ME
THEY HAVE A SOLID OR FOOLPROOF CASE ON THIS MATTER. Why do I say so? Several considerations make their

viewpoints less than convincing or absolutely factual for me!! Here are a few.

SUMMARY POINTS OF DEFENSE:

1. Modern critics often make the claim that a number of top SDA scholars have over time either
criticized and or abandoned the SDA Churchs Sanctuary Message, and so, they argue, that must mean
it is without foundation!! In recent times the SDA Church established a committee of SDA's top scholars,
called the "Daniel and the Revelation Committee" (DARCOM), and after meeting from 1981-1992 it
PRODUCED A SEVEN VOLUME SERIES OF OVER 2400 PAGES, HAVING ADVENTISM'S TOP SCHOLARS
(AMONG OTHER THINGS) DEFENDING THE DOCTRINE. Critics may belittle/reject the DARCOM
publications, but must not ignore them as the Church having several of its top scholars recently
reaffirming (among other things) Adventism's teachings on Daniel 8:14 and the Investigative Judgment
message. Let me quote a report on the DARCOM affirming what I just said:
"They [the DARCOM seven volume series] contain a collection of biblical studies prepared by a large
number of [SD] Adventist theologians who firmly believe that our teachings on the sanctuary are
biblically based." - Angel Manuel Rodrguez, Nov. 1997. Response To the Investigative
Judgment: A Bible Based Doctrine?
Hence, for critics to quote the SDA scholars who may have a 'difficulty' with SD Adventism's view on
Daniel 8:14, and the Sanctuary Message, this ignores the reality of the above about the DARCOM
report. Critics also seem to think that a polemic which uses dissent from scholarly 'insiders' (like
Desmond Ford, and the late Raymond F. Cottrell, among others) that this is a foolproof method of
undermining a teaching. It may seem formidable, but certainly not unbeatable, since if even the very
Bible has 'insiders' to Christianity itself (i.e. liberal theologians and modern new age 'Christian' scholars)
undermining the Bible, and the Bible is increasingly being presented BY LIBERAL CHRISTIANS as having many
so-called contradictions, errors, discrepancies, myths, and unfulfilled prophecies, and even socalled unscientific claims, then what's really new or insurmountable about 'insiders' to Adventism
dissenting to aspects of SD Adventism's teachings? If God gave the Jews the "oracles" of truth for very
many centuries, yet many of them (Christianitys theological predecessors) still rejected the
Christian/ultimate Messiah when he finally came, and today Judaism itself is even an opposing force to
the teachings of Christianity, and if even its top Jewish scholars and its Talmudic writings give no support
to the main/orthodox teachings of Christianity, then why should I be so bothered by a few or even
several inside scholars in Adventism having a difficulty with certain aspects of our teaching, i.e. *IF
THESE TEACHINGS CAN STILL BE DEMONSTRATED AS BIBLICALLY VALID? I declare they certainly can be
demonstrated as such, and the opposing voices have given me nothing in the absolute to absolutely

disprove what SDAs believe to be biblical. Let me now demonstrate from the Bible itself how ineffective
are the challenges being raised by critics from both within and without!
2. The Bible itself has proven the opposing voices (obligated to bring the 'burden of proof') to not be
convincing enough in the following areas:
a] The book of Hebrews gives no absolute proof that Jesus has been serving within the second
apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, or that he carried out the full/complete work symbolized by
that apartment) ever since his ascension (or before 1844), and the term "within the veil" in the book
of Hebrews, BEING AMBIGUOUS IN NATURE, offers no absolute refutation of the Sanctuary
Message as taught by SDAs. The term within the veil I will expound on later to show why it is indeed
ambiguous. This issue I will demonstrate and expound on hereafter (citing how even the opposing
inside scholars like even Desmond Ford unwittingly proves how ambiguous the term "the veil" really
is). But suffice it to say here that it is true that Jesus ascended to the very presence of His Father, but his
work as both the Lamb, our Advocate (Priest) and High Priest cannot be proven (despite all the
protestations of the critics) as being without natural phases and or happening within its own timetable.
The SDA teaching about Jesus being in Gods very presence even while his work is undergoing phases
can be easily accounted for. In heaven there is no sinful being or person, and so there is no need to
separate heavens inhabitants (including angels) from Gods direct presence, as necessary on earth
among the ancient Jews in the earthly temple services. Angels (sinless beings) freely have full access
to the throne room of God, and they stand in his very presence daily (see Matt. 18:10, Luke 1:19 and
Rev. 5:11); unlike sinful humans on earth who were/are separated from him because of our sinful
nature. And even though Jesus remains a human, a glorified human (see 1 Tim. 2:5), yet because of his
inherent divine nature (Heb. 1:8) as well as his spotlessness or sinless condition as our Advocate he,
like all the other inhabitants of heaven, has direct access to the very throne room of God as well as to
Gods very enthroned presence. Actually Jesus shares the very throne of God (Rev. 3:21). However it is
quite interesting that in Revelation 8:3, Rev. 1:4 and Rev. 4:5 the presence of the heavenly alter and
the symbolic seven branched lamp (representing the Holy Spirit) is seen directly BEFORE (literally 'in
front of') the Throne of God and the Lamb (the same throne as in Rev. 3:21). ON EARTH THIS "LAMP" AND
THE ALTER WAS IN THE FIRST APARTMENT OF THE SANCTUARY (A PATTERN OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY)!! And this is
compelling evidence for me and other doctrinally settled SDAs that John's visions of Heaven before the
arrival of the pre-Advent Judgment scene (of Rev. 11:18, 19 or Daniel 7: 9, 10) seem to place God's
MOVEABLE throne in the first apartment of the Heavenly sanctuary; I say moveable throne because
that is certainly why in visionary symbol it has wheels, and why God in Daniel 7: 9, 10 is represented in
vision as seemingly coming in from elsewhere to sit in Judgment and thereafter examine the records
of human lives (i.e. both the wicked and the righteous; see Eccl. 3:17). All of this biblical reality as
outlined above certainly allows for MOVEMENT of both God the Father and His throne through the two
sanctuary-apartment phases of Jesus heavenly ministry as believed by SDAs!! There is certainly implied
a clear movement of focus in terms of what is being accomplished in heaven when the scene in Daniel
7:9, 10 and Rev. 11:18, 19 arrives!! For nearly two thousand years now Jesus has been doing a work of
Advocacy as our Mediator in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1-6) as himself the Sacrificial Lamb, himself
the daily Priest (Mediator) and himself the High Priest as well. Why? Since Hebrews 8:1-6 shows that
the normal daily priests and their daily services serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things, then Jesus as Advocate (Priest)*MUST carry out heavenly work typified by the
normal daily priests as well (see Heb. 8:4, 5), and not just the High Priests distinctive one-day work at
the climax of the year of all temple activities. That is why I reject the views of those (like the dissident
insider Desmond Ford) who say Jesus ascended to only accomplish the distinctive work of the High

Priest as carried out only on the Day of Atonement. If that was the case then the normal earthly
priests and their daily round of services, and even the normal daily work of the high priest himself as
seen in Heb. 7:27 (even going into the first apartment with blood for sins; and Lev. 4:7, 17, 18), these
would have no counterpart in heaven itself (in contradistinction to Heb. 8:4, 5); only the distinctive
one-day or Yom Kippur work of the High Priest would find fulfillment (according to Desmond Ford
misguided claims). But we see Jesus carrying out BOTH roles, but obviously in two phases as typified
repeatedly on earth by the repeated yearly cycles of temple services in the outer and inner apartment
(see Heb. 10:1-12). Jesus in Heaven fulfills the repeated yearly rounds of activities carried out by both
the daily priests and the High Priest as well. He does this by one sacrifice of himself as the Lamb on
earth, by one entry as the human priest into the heavenly sanctuary, by one ongoing period of
advocacy as Mediator, as typified by the daily priests (and the high priest as well), and he climaxes
that one heaven-centered cycle (singular) of activities, or the one period covering the process of
redemption/atonement, with one special occasion (typified by the day of Atonement) with himself
also being the High Priest. Most critics fail to appreciate that the PROCESS of atonement, as typified
by shadows on earth, was one carried out throughout the year (including the work of the normal
priests with the daily atonement sacrifices); not just in its climaxing phase on the special day of
Atonement (Yom Kippur) when the High Priest did a distinctive climaxing work of atonement. As on
earth with the earthly sanctuary, so it MUST unfold in heaven as a process over time, and in phases,
or else the shadows on earth would find no counterpart in heaven as the book of Hebrews
explains!! These truths I find gripping and cannot ignore, despite all the rantings of the critics.
I also find it very gripping that only when the pre-Advent Judgment "TIME" was introduced in Rev.
11:18, 19 (i.e. "the TIME of determining rewards and punishments BEFORE Jesus returns with all
rewards; see Rev. 22:12) that John made reference to the Ark of the Covenant FOUND IN THE INNER
APARTMENT (a container for holding the main moral standards which even the saints will be judged
by; see James 2:10-12; 1 Kings 8:9) thus strongly indicating that the inner apartment of the heavenly
was figuratively opened for business, in a manner of speaking, ONLY when the INVESTIGATIVE
Judgment arrived (which did not cover the whole Christian era, but a specifically appointed timeActs 17:31). The above cited references, such as Rev. 11:18, 19 and Acts 17:31, et al, I will further
explain hereafter to show their potency.
b] Critics cannot disprove the SDA viewpoint that Jesus ascended to heaven to relate to the entire
heavenly sanctuary and its services as typified on earth in the earthly sanctuary; not just to relate to
the inner apartment and its one item of furniture, the Ark of the Covenant. Jesus actually ascended
and does/did a work related to all aspects, but in unfolding phases. Proof? Hebrews 8:2, 5 and Hebrews
9:18-24 make plain (in the KJV and many other translations) that Christ was to relate to ALL the
"PATTERNS" AND "THINGS" (PLURAL) IN "HEAVEN ITSELF", and not just one room of the Most Holy
place, and its one item, the Ark of the covenant (BOTH SINGULAR SUBJECTS). Jesus is pictured as
entered into heaven itself and into a place patterning the "holy places" (Hebrews 9:24) on earth, or
he entered once into the sanctuary as a whole (Hebrews 8:2), and this sanctuary is also called the
holy place (Hebrew 9:12) or ta hagia in Greek. IT WAS THE ENTIRE EARTHLY SANCTUARY THAT HAD ALL THE
ITEMS "WHICH *ARE FIGURES [OR PATTERNS] OF THE TRUE", and this indicates that where Jesus started to serve
as its counterpart "IN HEAVEN ITSELF" it has ALL THE PROTOTYPE "PATTERNS" [PLURAL] of the earthly
sanctuary; not just the one room of the Most Holy place being a pattern (singular), as the true
prototype.

By the very reference to "FIGURES/PATTERNS" of the true, and to Jesus entering "HEAVEN itself" these
expressions indicate that the place Jesus started to serve upon his ascension was filled with "FIGURES"
OR "PATTERNS" [PLURAL]. No wonder Hebrews 9:23, when written in the first century, makes plain that
it should be [future tense] all "THINGS" (PLURAL) in the heavenly sanctuary that should be (not
have been but *SHOULD be) SYMBOLICALLY "purified" with Jesus blood; NOT JUST THE ONE ROOM OF
THE MOST HOLY PLACE, AND NOT JUST THE ONE ITEM OF FURNISHING IN IT (SINGULAR). The very language of
Hebrews 9:23,24 makes plain Jesus was to serve in the entire heavenly sanctuary with all it "PATTERNS"
(PLURAL); he was not just to serve in relation to one room, or one item of furnishing, but IN RELATION
TO PLURAL SUBJECTS AND "THINGS" OR "PATTERNS". In addition to this, the very reference to
purification of heavenly things and patterns refutes the claim that nothing defiling can be in
heaven. Its clearly symbolic language at play, and so SDAs are on firm foundation to refer to symbolic
cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary in our Sanctuary Message. But the main point here is that
Hebrews 9 makes sweeping descriptions of the overall temple and priestly services and ceremonies, and
points to the heavenly ministry of Christ as their counterpart; Hebrews 9 is not just about the special
event on the special Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).
DR FORD STANDS REFUTED
Many critics and dissident insiders alike, e.g. Dr. Desmond Ford, they forget that the work of the
normal daily priests (not just the High Priest) must find fulfillment in Jesus heavenly/sanctuary
ministry, and they also forget that the High priest on earth served right throughout the year in the
earthly temple AS A WHOLE (e.g. Lev. 4:7, 17, 18); not just on the one day he entered the Most Holy
place annually. If these earthly realities or shadows must find fulfillment in Jesus life/work in
heaven, then it stands to reason that Jesus is to serve BOTH as a normal priest would in the heavenly
sanctuary (no wonder his priesthood has been for nearly 2000 years so far), as well as serve as the
High Priest would daily, as well as in the shorter period covered by the final segment of ministry in the
Most Holy Place. Hebrews overall, especially Hebrews 9, proves that his heavenly ministry (involving
BOTH his roles AS THE SACRIFICED LAMB AND OUR HEAVENLY PRIEST) ignores no aspect of the earthly
temple as a whole, with all its "PATTERNS" OR "FIGURES" (PLURAL). I dont know of any critic that could
take that understanding away from me!!
The dissident SDA insider, Dr. Desmond Ford, tried in several of his scholarly papers, to make it seem
that because Hebrews 9 refers to Jesus as High Priest entering the holiest of all or serving within the
veil, and because reference is made to bulls or bullocks and calves, and goats, and to Jesus as
high priest entering once into the holy place, then this must mean only the special shadows of the
Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) activities would characterize his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary from
the very moment he ascended. This, he argues, would involve only the most holy place phase of the
work of Jesus as priest, and hence would effectively nullify the SDA Sanctuary Message of a twophased or two-apartment ministry of Jesus and its related date of 1844. But I find this to be
unconvincing eisogesis (reading into the text) on his part, and I cannot but reject his well-intended but
misguided claims (no matter how scholarly they may sound coming from a highly respected

intellectual; scholarship and intellect does not automatically mean one must be correct). Apart
from what I showed earlier, here are additional points to refute his claims regarding the above
described:
[i] The expression holiest of all in Hebrew 9:8 (a reference to the entire sanctuary in heaven) is NOT
exactly the same Greek expression used in Hebrews 9:3; despite also translated as the holiest of all in
the KJV. The writer of Hebrews simply made the point in Hebrews 9:8 that while the earthly sanctuary
was still standing, or fully functional, the way into the heavenly sanctuary or ta hagia (translated as the
holiest of all in the KJV) was not yet manifest, i.e. Jesus was not yet operating as priest in the heavenly
sanctuary during the old testament age. He first had to become human to become the priest in the
heavenly sanctuary, and also had to have a perfect blood sacrifice to offer, in this case it would be
himself, before his ministry above in the ta hagia or true tabernacle (also called the holiest of all)
could begin. In contrast, we find that when the writer of Hebrews wanted to clinch a more specific
meaning, i.e. with specific reference to the most holy place as the second apartment in the
sanctuary as a whole (which is also called the holiest of all in the KJV), he used the compound Greek
expression hagia hagion, or hagia hagia, to specifically mean the holy of holies or inner
apartment of the sanctuary!! Thus we cannot just read the English expression holiest of all (translated
from the Greek ta hagia) and assume it automatically means the most holy place specifically, simply
because the expression ta hagia is AMBIGUOUS, and Dr. Desmond Ford himself unwittingly admits
this, when he said (while quoting from a newer and misleading translation):
"[Hebrews 9:12] 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.
.... the word [ta hagia] that is here translated "most holy place" is literally "holies." .....The word itself
can mean the sanctuary as a whole, or it can mean the first apartment, or it can mean the second
apartment. You can prove nothing from the Greek, because it has these possibilities..."
-Desmond Ford, The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?
Here Desmond Ford, a staunch critic of Adventism's doctrine of the Sanctuary, admits freely, and rightly
so, that the plural term "holies", sometimes translated "holy place", other times "holy places" (coming
from "ta hagion" or "ta hagia" in Greek) is *AMBIGUOUS, and at times it means the sanctuary as a
whole, sometimes the outer apartment, and other times the inner apartment, so it is CONTEXT that
must be appealed to in order to ascertain meaning. This ambiguity of the Greek word is similar to the
AMBIGUOUS word "law" in the Bible (from the Hebrew "torah", or the Greek "nomos"), and hence
context is crucial. Now, interestingly, I found out (by doing a careful review of the Greek), that all places
where it is claimed that Jesus "entered" [PAST TENSE] into the Most Holy Place into the presence of the
Father is based on speculation, because THE EXPRESSION COMPLEX, "HAGIA HAGION" IS MISSING!! The
expression used about Christ in the sanctuary in the presence of the Father is always "hagion" or "ta
hagia", which means simply either Heaven itself, or just the sanctuary on a whole (e.g. Heb. 9:8, and
Heb. 10:19). Coupled with that is the fact that in the KJV Jesus is said to have "entered" into "the holy

place" (singular) in Hebrews 9:12 and into "holy places" (plural) in Hebrews 9:24, with both expressions
coming from ta hagia. This further MAKES IT VAGUE AS TO WHICH COMPARTMENT HE "ENTERED"
UPON HIS ENTRY INTO THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY....thus making the issue not as clear-cut as some
think!! But by now it should be plain that hagia hagia or hagia hagion is used by the writer of
Hebrews to specifically mean the inner apartment, and he used it only when he wanted to clinch that
specific meaning, and so we cannot impose on the holy writ what the writer himself never chose to
write. Thus SDAs are correct when we say Jesus started to serve in the sanctuary (ta hagia) as a whole
at first, but the inner apartment phase of his ministry came only later (i.e. in 1844). We are also on
sound footing when we insist that Heb. 9:12 should be translated as he entering the holies or the
holy places, or the sanctuary on a whole; not specifically the Most Holy Place/apartment phase of
ministry. And he [Jesus] being said to enter once into the heavenly temple, as priest and high priest
all in one, is simply comparative language in terms of this heavenly action being compared to the
overall services of the earthly temple being repeated year after year. Jesus did not need to do the
repeated yearly round of services year after year, but does everything onceboth in terms of his
sacrifice on the Cross outside the temple while on earth, his entry into the heavenly temple overall,
his purification (Heb. 9:23) of the things [plural] in heaven (not just the later symbolic
purification of the one item of furniture in the most holy place; the ark with its mercy seat), his
ongoing intercession as the daily priests would have done but in (repeatedly yearly cycles), and also in
terms of the distinctive and climaxing Day of Atonement service the high priest did (but repeats year
after year).

[ii] Also, since the much debated expression, "the [temple] veil", needed a qualifying term by the very
writer of Hebrews i.e. "*after [or within] the *SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3), so as to clinch a more
specific meaning with reference to the hagia hagion (the most holy place), and since there were two
veils to the temple, it is therefore not conclusive that Heb. 6:19 was referring specifically to behind the
"veil" of the Most Holy Place when it was written. Even the writer of Hebrews SYMBOLICALLY uses the
term "the veil" to mean Jesus' flesh (Heb. 10:20). It is obvious that to be in the Temple demanded that
one pass through, and is behind or within the first "veil" to the door of the Temple. Thus the
expression in Heb. 6:19 could be referring to being "within" or behind any of the two "veils", since
Jesus was not a High Priest BEFORE his incarnation, as He must have been made human to even
minister in the Heavenly sanctuary in the first place (Heb. 5). So his incarnation, obedience, and
crucifixion opened the way, or gave Him the right to His ministry in the Heavenly sanctuary, that is, He
earned the right via his state of being in the flesh (another type of veil as well; Heb. 10:20) to be
minister "within the veil" or just simply the sanctuary itself. There is no evidence in the expression
itself, i.e. "within the veil" in Heb. 6:19 that this meant SPECIFICALLY The most Holy Place", and not just
within the sanctuary itself!! In fact as we consider the earthly sanctuary we realize that the common
people could only see the courtyard. They could not enter or see into the sanctuary itself; only the
priests (i.e. the daily as well as the high priest). Thus when either the priest or high priest disappeared
from their view he was entering through the first veil into the sanctuary as a whole, and only by faith
they accepted what took place inside. Thus the expression within the veil can legitimately mean

BOTH being in the temple as a whole, as well as being in the most holy place behind the second veil
(Hebrews 9:3). The verses of the entire chapter of Hebrews 9, discuss all the services of the priests and
high priests in their daily rounds, as well as that once a year event involving the High Priest going into
the second apartment. The people could not see the priests in ANY of the work done in the holy
places behind the veils of the sanctuary itself, whether it was in the holy place OR the most holy. In
the same way, when Christ ascended to heaven we could no longer physically see Him. We must
follow Him in faith as He ministers for us in the Holy Places with all its original patterns (plural) in
the true sanctuary of heaven; not just in the Most Holy Place/apartment.
[iii] Finally, while it is true Hebrews 9 makes reference to purification, bulls, goats, calves, heifer,
sprinkling of ashes and blood, and refers to the high priest entering the most holy place once yearly,
etc., and while it is true its mainly an imagery of the specific Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and
references the work in the most holy place, yet these descriptions are NOT ONLY about that. Bulls,
calves and goats were used other days of the year, for instance (with blood entering the first apartment
by way of the high priest on other crucial occasions like in Lev. 4:7, 17, 18), and the sprinkling of ashes of
the heifer, and dedication or symbolic purification of all the vessels and furnishings of temple with
blood (all acting as patterns of the heavenly things Jesus would relate to; Heb. 9:23) these all relate
to other days in the yearly round of activities as well. This again debunks the claim of Dr. Desmond Ford
that it was only the inner apartment work Jesus entered upon. And so the SDA position in its Sanctuary
Message remains sound, despite the attempts of dissidents like Dr. Ford (notoriously the greatest
detractor and misleading teacher in Adventism in modern times) to use ambiguous biblical references
to try and overturn it.
c] Critics cannot prove that a pre-Advent Judgment by Christ (2 Cor. 5:9, 10; John 5:22) is not needed,
and they also cannot that prove that it is not prophetically timetabled, neither can they prove that its
not possible to know when it will start. Heres why they cannot!! When Jesus ascended he ascended as
a person invested with very many overlapping roles that either were already fulfilled in Him or will be
fulfilled in Him (e.g. He is Priest, High Priest, Sacrificial Lamb, Final Judge, Rewarder, King of kings,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Elder brother, Second Adam, et al) and it was and is proper to identify
him by every role/title, even if he has not fully officiated in that role at the time of he being referred to
in writing or speech as such. It is also quite logical that the unfolding of the salvation plan in Jesus,
serving in his various capacities, this does have a certain time table, and will unfold in its proper
sequence according to Gods plan. That is why, despite Jesus was expected to return immediately
after his ascension by New Testament Bible writers and apostolic Christians alike, yet almost two
thousand years of waiting has demonstrated quite convincingly that the redemption time table is
spread out over more time than had been previously thought. No doubt this is what Jesus alluded to
just before he ascended. Note carefully!
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this
time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the
times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. - KJV
Times or seasons [plural] naturally unfold in sequence and naturally have a timetable! No doubt that
is why it was further recorded about Jesus work above:
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to
repent: Acts 17:31 Because he [God] hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in

righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained [i.e. Jesus]; whereof he hath given assurance unto
all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. - KJV
Ecclesiastes 3:17 God shall judge [*BOTH] the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time for every
purpose and for every work. KJV
The Biblical expressions indicating that [1] God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world
and [2] there is a time for every purpose and for every work as it concerns judging both the wicked
and the righteous, these present irrefutable proofs that a divine timetable is being followed for Jesus to
judge the world (see John 5:23); whether in terms of what 2 Corinthians 5:9,10 and Ecclesiastes
12:13,14 bring to view as an INESCAPABLE investigation of ones life record, or whether in terms of the
later executing of justice and giving rewards at Jesus appearing. BOTH are timetabled by God! And for
those who think that believers saved by grace through faith are exempt from an examination of their life
record thereafter by Jesus (see 2 Cor. 5:10), and who think that their assurance of salvation is so-called
made uncertain by the notions of a required standard of obedience and an investigative judgment on
their lives, they are easily refuted by the following Scriptures (its crucial that they be all read before
moving on):
THE INESCAPABLE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT ALL OVER THE BIBLE
- See Philippians 2:12 with 1 Corinthians 9:25-27 and with John 15:1-8
-see Ecclesiastes 3:17 with Matthew 22:1-14 and with 1 Peter 4:17-19
-see James 2:10-12 with Revelation 11:1, 18, 19 and with Malachi 3:16-18
-see Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14 with Matthew 12: 36, 37 and with Revelation 20:11-15
Notice especially in Mal. 3:16-18 (just like in the parables of the talents and of the sheep and the goats;
Matthew 25) God carefully examining the book of record of those who fear him, and in an event
involving him making up his jewels he is seen actively examining his saints. Notice too in James 2:12
how (in accordance with Ecclesiastes 12:13,14) it makes the point that saints too should be mindful of
being judged by the law that was referenced in verses 10 and 11 of James 2 (obviously the Ten
Commandments). And notice how Rev. 11:1, 18, 19 brings to view the Ark of the Covenant (see why in 1
Kings 8:9 and Malachi 4:1, 4) just when the saints are also being examined or measured against a
standard while rewards are determined. And there are certainly other Scriptures like the ones above
showing clearly that both the saints and the lost will be examined/investigated, and rewards and
punishments determined, and obviously before Jesus returns with rewards for all (Rev.22:12). Saints are
certainly saved by grace (Eph. 2:8, 9), but will be judged by works of willing obedience (see Rev.
22:12-14); the very good works that grace teaches us to do THROUGH GODS INDWELLING (see
Titus 2:11-14 and James 2:20-24). God assesses the lives of the saints for the required fruit of
obedience to be shown, even as we remain or abide in Jesus in order to willingly show fruit of
obedience or good works (Eph. 2:10 and Titus 2:11). Failure to show fruit of obedience will stand
in judgment against the Christian (John 15:2), and hence why he can lose his initial standing with God,
as John 15:1-8 and 1 Cor. 9:25-27 clearly shows!! This is what the examination of lives by God in the

pre-advent judgment, even of the saint is all about (2 Cor. 5:9, 10; Eccl. 12: 13, 14; Mal. 3:16-18), and
many want to sidestep or belittle this crucial aspect of the Bible!!
Now, as it concerns judgment on all in Acts 17:31 (written by A.D. 63) notice carefully the future
tense of the words he will judge the world as it relates to the already appointed day for this
event. Thus when Acts was written by Luke by 63 A.D. (decades after Jesus had already ascended) that
event of judgment (whatever it would be like) had not yet occurred, nor was it already going on
since Jesus ascension!! I am convinced that there is nothing unbiblical about SDAs teaching that while
the timing of second coming may have been withheld (not just from the disciples at the time Jesus
spoke, but now we know it is still being withheld until he comes), but that does not necessarily mean
that we cannot know about the timing of the investigative aspect of God judging or examining BOTH
the righteous and the wicked (see again 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Eccl. 3:17; Mal. 3:16-18), i.e. as done through
Jesus in the Sanctuary above before he comes with rewards for all (see Rev. 22:12). SDAs believe that
certain Bible prophecies (as recorded in Daniel) would have been unsealed late in the very time of
the end, and in those very prophecies is revealed the appointed time for the investigative judgment
phase of Jesus work. This we believe has to be so in order that a special Judgment hour message can
be given when the appropriate time required it (symbolized as being preached by three angels, as
recorded in Revelation 14:6-12). This is what SDAs are distinctively and uniquely known for as it
concerns proclaiming its unique Sanctuary Message and or Judgment Hour Message, and hence
fulfilling a unique prophetic role in Christendom, despite all the opposition!! We believe that this
Sanctuary Message MUST be preached, that it will be fiercely opposed by Satan more than any
other message of the end times (because of its serious import), and we believe it can be biblically
defended, and this is what this presentation by me is all about.
d] The fact that Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 IDENTIFIED the power bringing "*THE
abomination [transgression] of desolation" to be Rome, totally obliterates the popular viewpoint that
Antiochus Epiphanes (a Syrian king) fulfilled "THE" (specific article) "abomination of desolation" that
was prophesied by Daniel. Antiochus never brought "desolation", neither to the temple (since he left it
standing), nor to Jerusalem (it remained in place), nor to Israel (since the Jews rose up in successful
rebellion against the invasion of Antiochus, by way of the Maccabees)!! And so he cannot be the REAL
agent of "desolation" (since he brought only temporary *disruption to Israels temple services), but
rather the REAL power in view was the empire of Rome which came nearly 200 years later! Once Rome
appears in the picture as bringing the fulfillment of "THE" (specific article) related "transgression
[abomination] of desolation" prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9, then it makes it plain that the time frame
of the vision of Daniel 8 and 9 was to run into a long time period represented in symbol as "2300
days" (but with the day-for-a-year prophetic principle in operation in order for that to happen). In
fact, the very fact that Revelation 13, and 17 pictures IN SYMBOL a Roman power with the "body of a
leopard", i.e. it being largely characteristic of the features of the Grecian power that it came after
(remember Greece was the leopard power in symbol; Daniel 7), this totally nullifies all those opposing
viewpoints which believe that a Roman "little horn" power could not have arisen out of a Grecian
empire depicted in Daniel 8. All notable history books depict Rome as a "Greco-Roman" empire,

10

simply because it was so "Greek" at its core in so many ways.... and this is very telling of what Daniel
saw in vision long before Rome came on the scene, especially with Jesus himself identifying Rome in
Matthew 24:15 as the real power fulfilling the "abomination of desolation" prophecies of Daniel.

e] None of the critics has ever disproven the SDA understanding that the question being answered by
Daniel 8:14 was literally asking "HOW LONG THE VISION?" or "UNTIL WHEN IS THE VISION?" They
have never disproven that (according to the SDA viewpoint) ONLY *ONE GENERAL VISION WAS IN
VIEW (not two), and that the time period, as *SYMBOLICALLY presented in vision (i.e. presented as
2300 evening morning, but translated by Jews themselves in the Septuagint and Theodotion as
prophetic days), that it applies to the TIME SCOPE of the entire vision Daniel got in Daniel 8; not just
the aspects itemized as samples of that vision in Daniel 8:13. If any element of that vision runs into or
find fulfillment in the period when Rome was the desolator of Israel (as Jesus showed plainly in
Matthew 24:15), then we know that the vision of Daniel, as involving a certain desolating power, did
not end with Greece, neither was the Grecian king Antiochus Epiphanes the real power that would bring
in the abomination [transgression] of desolation, as mistakenly thought to be so by the critics
(including dissident insiders like Desmond Ford and Raymond F. Cottrell). Jesus Matthew 24:15
utterance is a major obstacle to the opposing view of the critics; an obstacle which they must overturn
before they can effectively refute the SDA position on who was the desolating power of Daniel 8.
ABSOLUTELY NO ONE HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED!! AND I AM SPEAKING WITH ABSOLUTE
HONESTY WHEN I SAY SO. Until they can, then the SDA viewpoint remains valid.

f] No one has shown, except by eisogesis (reading into the text) that the question in Daniel 8:13 does
not (or cannot) allow for the Roman power being the "abomination [transgression] of desolation" (see
again Matthew 24:15), and being the power prophesied to symbolically "trample" on the truth, and to
even obscure and "cast down" the "place" (i.e. role and function) of the heavenly sanctuary, and, that
if it did "defile" any sanctuary it was to have been the *earthly or Jewish one in the literal sense (in
AD. 70); the same Rome that was later responsible for "defiling" the Church as the spiritual sanctuary
that it took up residence in (2 Thess. 2:4) in the spiritual sense (by way of the Roman Catholic power,
the Papacy). In addition, no one has yet ABSOLUTELY disproved the SDA teaching (except by
assumption they have) that the prophecy was not all-embracing of Rome's relationship to all these
sanctuaries. None!!

g] No one has been able to overturn (try as they might) the clear link between the visions of Daniel 2,
Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 and 9, or disprove they being roughly parallel in their scope, since they all point
to prophesied events that run from their starting points from within either the time of the empires of
Babylon or Medo-Persia, and they all extend to the time of "the end" long after they started (see
Daniel 8:17, 19, 26), i.e. in the days when God's people and his cause are finally vindicated, and when

11

God sets up his eternal kingdom. And it is here where the Sanctuary Message of SDAs also finds its
greatest polemic strength.
In as much as the visions of Daniel 2 and 7 BOTH end with God's kingdom set up (established) which
vindicates his people and destroys opposing forces with a God-centered event, so too the final opposing
force or "little horn" power of Daniel 8 is "broken without hand" (Daniel 8:25), i.e. by A DIVINE EVENT
OR BY DIVINE INTERVENTION! The same way the scope of the visions in Daniel 2 and 7 ended with divine
events (the kingdom of God established ultimately in the end times), the same is true for Daniel 8..."The
sanctuary" is "cleansed" or justified or "vindicated", or "set right" (Daniel 8:14) DURING the time of
the end (see Dan. 8:17, 19, 26) as the ultimate divine event that ends the scope of the vision. Now, by
no stretch of the imagination can it be countenanced that the Grecian king Antiochus Epiphanes (i.e. a
single person; not a whole kingdom as normally symbolized by the word "king" or "kings") operated until
or within the period referred to as the time of "the end" (but Rome, pagan and papal, certainly did, does
and will). Nor was Antiochus' death/demise evidenced to be the result of being "broken without hand"
or by divine intervention (but Rome, in its Papal stage, certainly will be; 2 Thess. 2:4, 8). If it is that the
final opposing force in Daniel 8 is to be dispatched by divine intervention, and then God's kingdom
finally established for good, then we must ask, is the Daniel 8:14 event, described as the "cleansing of
the sanctuary" (or it being "set right" or "vindicated", according to some translations) is that in any way
an event that can signal divine investigative judgment and God's people finally vindicated and set up
thereafter? It certainly can (as I will explain below).
Daniel the prophet probably never realized that there would be another sanctuary in operation long
after the earthly one that would be first rebuilt after Babylon had destroyed it, and then totally
destroyed by Rome in A.D. 70; with Rome being the real "desolating" power or "THE" (specific article)
"abomination of desolation"; Matthew 24:15. And so Daniel probably had his eye only on the earthly
sanctuary (no wonder he never fully understood all of the details of the single vision between Daniel 8
and 9). Now, if the scope of the *vision (SINGULAR) of Daniel 8 and 9 (just like the ones in Daniel 2 and
7) extend to the time of "the end", then it is plain that the LITERAL sanctuary that would be "cleansed"
or "set right" DURING the time of the end would have be the one still existing/operating up to the
time of "the end"...i.e. THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY (and MAYBE TOO the spiritual sanctuary or temple,
the Church, in the second instance). Seeing that Hebrews 9:22, 23 makes plain that even the heavenly
sanctuary, of "necessity," needs to be SYMBOLICALLY "cleansed" or "purified", then it must mean the
heavenly sanctuary had matching GOD-GIVEN ceremonies of "cleansing" in the earthly sanctuary that
patterned it (if even in less glorious terms). The GOD-GIVEN ceremonies that could be so identified are
the dedication and purification ceremony of all the vessels of the temple by Moses (i.e. the things in
both sanctuary apartments), and, more importantly, the annual "day of atonement" ceremony, or Yom
Kippur, as recorded in Leviticus 16. But how could this most important Leviticus 16 Day of Atonement
ceremony find its counterpart in the heavenly sanctuary, and be also an event of judgment that would
signal the ultimate demise of the "little horn" power that was to be "broken without hand"? The Jews
themselves have long seen Yom Kippur (the day of atonement in Leviticus 16) as closely tied to a day of
investigative judgment (see Yom Kippur online at the following link:

12

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippur
The Jewish Encyclopedia I cited at the link above puts it this way:
"In rabbinic Judaism the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur] completes the penitential period of ten
days...[with] the annual day of judgment, when all creatures pass in review before the searching eye
of Omniscience..."

This Jewish understanding is in reality quite ironic, seeing that just as Daniel 7 shows a vindication of
God's people AFTER a judgment scene (obviously occurring in the heavenly temple above where God
dwells), and AFTER an event which results in the "little horn" power's ultimate demise (Daniel 7:9, 10,
26, 27), LIKEWISE Daniel 8 also brings into focus a "cleansing" of the only remaining LITERAL sanctuary at
the very time of "the end" (i.e. the sanctuary above), and that too results in the "little horn" power
being "broken without hand". With this evident parallelism SDAs firmly believe that the heavenly
ceremony of "cleansing" is also one of investigative judgment that looks into the records of people's
lives, and determines their final destinies and rewards, just as the Jews believed about the earthly
shadow or counterpart (the Day of Atonement) was a time of divine investigation of the lives of the
people of God.
How can the above described connection, as made by SDAs (and Jews), be Biblically supported? Heres
how. God has appointed ONLY ONE "day", or event, or period (not more than one), for *JUDICIALLY
judging/assessing *BOTH the wicked and the righteous *BEFORE establishing his glorious kingdom and
punishing the wicked at Jesus' second coming (see Acts 17:31, 2 Cor. 5:10 with Ecclesiastes 3:17). When
Jesus returns he would have rewards for all (Rev. 22:12)...including the judicial punishment of the antiChrist power in 2 Thess. 2:8, and hence THIS JUDGMENT OF ASSESSMENT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE TIME OF
"THE END" BUT BEFORE JESUS RETURNS (see Revelation 11:1, 18, 19 roughly locating that investigative event
in the period when the nations are angry, i.e. in the period involving World Wars for the first time, or
after the 1844 date). From the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, SDAs have learned that when the prophetic
period covered by the entire vision of Daniel 8 (see Daniel 8:13) is complete (expressed in symbolic
language as "2300 days", but symbolically meaning years) then an event of sanctuary "cleansing" would
take place, and would also be a period of divine Judgment in heaven (the same one identified in Daniel
7:9-11); one that is "Investigative" in nature, and that would result in not just the demise of the
opposing little horn power, but also a judging and vindication of God's people by way of their Advocate
and High Priest (Jesus Christ) at his throne. This is what "1844" is all about (the year that ends the period
covered by the singular vision of Daniel 8 and 9), and it has a more solid footing in the Bible than the
critics do realize. HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD JOHN THE REVELATOR SEE THE TRUTH IN VISION (IN REVELATION 11:1,
18,19) THAT THE JUDGMENT/ASSESSMENT OF ALL IS ALSO TIED TO THE OPENING OF THE MOST HOLY PLACE AND THE ARK
OF THE COVENANT BEING SHOWN? ONLY ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT OR YOM KIPPUR WAS THE INNER APARTMENT OF
THE TEMPLE VIEWED BY THE HIGH PRIEST, AND YET HERE IS JOHN SHOWING THE HEAVENLY COUNTERPART, AND ITS INNER
SANCTUM BEING SYMBOLICALLY "OPENED", AND THAT BEING TIED TO A DAY OF JUDGMENT ON ALL.

I think that is

13

rather telling, and gives credence to the Jewish Rabbinical view that Yom Kippur is also tied to
judgment/assessment of peoples lives.
Is it any wonder John the Revelator also ties the opening of the Most Holy Place with the "TIME"
APPOINTED (SEE AGAIN ACTS 17:31) for judging ALL people of earth in Revelation 11: 18,19, INCLUDING
GOD'S OWN PEOPLE? To those too blind to see it will not be obvious, but the SD Adventists have long
seen the connection and will continue to preach it no matter the fierce opposition from within and
without the Church. Some assume that because the book of Hebrews does not specifically address the
prophetic issue of the sanctuary "cleansing", then it denies the "INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT" doctrine as
understood by SDAs, but that is a paltry polemic against the SDA teaching since Hebrews was *NOT a
book meant to explain prophetic issues in detail, but it simply gave a sweeping view of how Jesus
ministers in THE true heavenly sanctuary (AS BOTH THE SACRIFICIAL "LAMB" AND PRIEST, INCLUDING BEING THE
DAILY ANTI-TYPICAL PRIEST AS WELL AS HIGH PRIEST), and that, no doubt, ALL the earthly symbols/figures in the
earthly sanctuary would eventually find fulfillment in the ongoing ministry of Jesus in the heavenly one
(ALL IN THEIR OWN TIME, OF COURSE).

[*See the Appendix below, showing my detailed

explanations about 1844 and the SDA Sanctuary
Message]

APPENDIX: MY DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE 1844 AND SANCTUARY ISSUES IN A

DISCUSSION FORUM ONLINE IN 2004
From:

Gilli2484 (Original Message)

Sent: 8/10/2004 5:37 AM

IN THIS THREAD I WILL SEEK TO LAY OUT AS CLEARLY AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE THE S.D.A. PERSPECTIVE ON
THIS ISSUE TITLED ABOVE. I HOWEVER WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING ANYONE DIRECTLY IN THIS THREAD, NO
MATTER WHO MAY POST HERE AS A "NAYSAYER". THIS THREAD IS INTENDED TO INFORM, NOT DEBATE, AND IF
SOMEONE IS GENUINELY INTERESTED IN FIRST UNDERSTANDING THE SDA PERSPECTIVE ON THIS MATTER, THEY
ARE INVITED TO FIRST LOOK AT JUST MY POSTING IN THIS THREAD, BEFORE GOING BACK TO LOOK AT WHAT ALL
THE "NAY SAYERS"(WHO WILL UNDOUBTEDLY POST HERE) HAVE TO SAY. WHY? THAT'S THE WAY TO GO, UNLESS
THE READER INTENDSTO GET CONFUSED BEFORE EXAMINING THE FULL EVIDENCE PRESENTED FROM THE SDA
PERSPECTIVE FIRST.

INTRODUCTION
By the term, "Investigative Judgment" I mean the time appointed (Acts 17:31) in which God will judge
the world by Christ Jesus, and there will be an examination of the record of ALL lives (past and
present) before eternal destinies are sealed. Of COURSE THIS EXAMINATION IS NOT TO INFORM
THE OMNISCIENT GOD, BUT SIMPLY DONE SO THAT HE CAN BE DEEMED FAIR IN THE EYES

14

OF THE UNIVERSE (e.g. on looking angels in Heaven).

The word "judgment" means both an examination of cases, as well as the execution of justice, and the
two meanings should not be confused. Evidently God has a time appointed for both however. My
purpose in this thread is to talk about the investigation phase of Judgment.
When does the "Investigative Judgement" (IJ) take place?

The Bible is clear- IT MUST BE BEFORE JESUS COMES (and not "come" in a "secret rapture", or
in an "invisible presence", mind you)!! Why? Because the Bible itself says so, and implies it in
several ways:
Quote:

*Rev. 22:12- Jesus said, "Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me,
to give every man according as his work shall be"!!
Now it is absolutely logical that if when Jesus comes, his reward for EVERY MAN will be WITH HIM (or
IS with" Him), then the conclusion is inescapable that the decisions regarding the nature of the
rewards must be taken BEFORE He comes the second time. If as Malachi 3:16 says,
Quote:

"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the
LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written
before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his
name"
then it stands to reason that God has records of the lives of people on earth, so that the rewards will be
based upon the INVESTIGATION of the records. See also Rev. 20:12, where it is clear that both the
good and bad have a record of their lives.
Now this raises another pertinent question, If Jesus has His rewards with Him at His second coming,
does that mean that ALL (both good and bad) must receive their reward at that precise moment? Not
necessarily, and in fact, the Bible speaks directly to the issue in stating that the wicked will receive their
eternal reward AFTER the Second Coming, that is, AFTER the "thousand years" (millennium), when
they will be resurrected to be gathered before the great white throne of God, and to have their
sentences passed on them based on the Books. See Rev. 20:4-15. This must be another phase of
God's Judgement, since all investigation must have taken place BEFORE Jesus returned the second
time with the rewards for all. So why is there the reviewing of the Books again in Rev. 20:11-15?
Simply because God must APPEAR to be just in the eyes of all looking on, even the lost soul himself
wants to know why he is lost, so the Books are opened to show why the lost were never transported to
Heaven at Jesus' Second Coming.
To be left behind would have been the clear signal that you are not among the saved, because 1
Thess. 4:16, 17 makes it very clear only the saved leave the earth at this time. Interestingly, the wicked
would, in a sense, start to receive their rewards at Jesus' coming, by not being raised in the first
resurrection, or (for those still alive) by not being changed in a moment, and transported to glory.
However, only the living wicked would have been conscious of their eternal loss at that moment, but

15

they would still have to wait another thousand years to face the great "white throne" judgement, to hear
the records of their lives, and be separated from God eternally. Simple reason being that the
"brightness" of Jesus', second coming immediately slays the living wicked (see proof in 2 Thess. 2: 8)
The wicked dead at Jesus second coming would have been unconscious of that fact until they are
raised after the "thousand years" to then receive their rewards. This would be the "executive" (passing
sentences) phase of God's judgment on the lost!
Now let me hasten to say that since it is clear that the "investigative" phase of God's judgement must
take place before Jesus' Coming, then it is easy to see the relevance of Rev. 14:6, 7 announcing a
specific time when this "investigative judgement" IS COME, OR IS HERE. SDAs believe that Bible
prophecy gives the exact year when this "investigative judgement" started (that is, in 1844), a
judgement phase so critical that a warning message is symbolically rushed by an "angel", a
messenger, or movement on earth, if you like, to declare it is here, just BEFORE Jesus comes. That's
why the year 1844 is so important in Adventist prophetic understanding.
Now let us revise what was said so far. The term "investigative judgement" (an expression coined for
convenient labelling) must take place BEFORE Jesus comes the second time. The "executive"
(passing sentence) phase of the judgement on the lost will climax after the "thousand years" are
finished. I then introduced the year 1844, as being the year that SDAs believe the "investigative" phase
of God's judgement began in Heaven, but I DID NOT SHOW WHY THIS YEAR WAS SEEN AS
BIBLICAL. Now, the purpose of this thread is to show, in basic terms why this revealed year (as SDAs
believe) is Biblical. AND I CAN ONLY SHOW THIS UNINTERRRUPTED, AND THAT IS WHY I WILL
IGNORE ALL "NAYSAYERS" UNTIL I AM THROUGH!!!
Now, let us be general first, then specific. Can we have an idea of the general period when God's
"investigative judgement" will begin, or, better yet, began in Heaven? Yes we can! Notice the words of
Revelation 11:18, 19:
Quote:

"18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the
dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto
thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name,
small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his
temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and
thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail."
The first clue of when the investigative judgement of God began, is seen in the expressions WHEN [1]
"the nations were angry, and WHEN [2] God "shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth".
Question! Isn't obvious that God is saying that the investigative Judgement comes just before Jesus
comes, and thus it was it was not going on during the whole period of the Christian era (since Jesus
returned to heaven)? It is made obvious by the Bible saying, THE TIME HAS COME TO GIVE
REWARDS TO THE SERVANTS OF GOD (SAINTS), and of course we know this must be before
Jesus comes. It is also made obvious by connecting this TIME with when the "nations are angry" (i.e.
are in turmoil more than ever in history), and with when men are in the process of "destroying the
earth".
Now, any historian, and social scientist will be able to tell you that never before the first and second

16

World Wars was it more evidenced that "the nations" are "angry" on a large scale, and never before
the modern era of atomic bombs, and industrial waste (pollution), and population explosion on the
globe (pressuring the earths resources, making species extinct) is it more evidenced that men can,
and are "destroying the earth".
Therefore we can conclude that it must be within the last 200 years (when these 'signs' were
evidenced more than any other time for the FIRST TIME in all history) that the "investigative judgement
will be going on just before Jesus comes. No other period in history could fit this description better than
the post-1800 period when the industrial revolution and resultant creation of pollution, the explosion of
world population, the frightening invention of atomic bombs, and the occurrence of two World Wars
signalled that man can, and is destroying the earth, and nations can fight world wars, and will still fight
world wars. Notice too another clue in Malachi 4:1,4-6. This is closely connected to Rev. 11:18, 19,
because both verses warn of God calling men back to His Ten Commandment Law (THE ONLY ONE
KEPT IN "THE ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT"- 1 KINGS 8:9). How does God warn? Most times through
people.
Question! Which set of people are most known (IN ALL OF CHURCH HISTORY) to warn about God's
standard of Judgment being His Ten Commandments more than SDAs? None! When was this group
formed? Within the same post-1800 period just described above. And notice that God describes the
warning being given as Him "sending Elijah" THE PROPHET (in symbol of course) just BEFORE "the
great and dreadful day of the Lord."
What will this "Elijah" message warn of? Read it for yourself in Mal. 4:4 and compare it with Rev.
11:18,19 AND 1 Kings 8:9.
With that now established we can now get specific about the year 1844, the year revealed for the
INVESTIGATIVE judgement to begin, because it is seen clearly as falling within the general time frame
of when God would signal he will be investigating and deciding over the records. The key to unlocking
the year 1844 is found first in Jewish types and symbols, and in the text Daniel 8:14. Have I lost you at
this point? I am sure non-Adventist users of this web site would be lost. But just hold on. It will get
more interesting.
See you in the next post, but in the meantime just look up the meaning of the "Yom Kippur" (Day of
Atonement) celebration among the Jews of old. See what happened during this time in the sanctuary
of the Jews, and ask the question, how will this symbolic feast or ceremony find fulfilment in the work
of Christ as High Priest above? That should prepare your minds for the explosive truth to come in the
next post about the year 1844. Bye for now. God bless.

The following is largely credited to: V. Ferrel's- A Biblical Defense Defending our
Historic Beliefs about the Sanctuary in Daniel and Hebrews (2003)

From:

Gilli2484

Sent: 8/10/2004 5:44 AM

A WORK OF JUDGMENT
(AN OVERVIEW- Details later)
As promised, here following is an outline of the significance of Yom Kippur and the
significance of 1844 as the year of Judgment beginning in Heaven. I will deal with the
specific points later in greater detail. Sorry if this post is a little long.

17

Quote:

Leviticus 23:27-30.
Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a Day of
Atonement: it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and you shall afflict
your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
And you shall do no work in that same day: for it is a Day of Atonement, to
make an atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatsoever soul
it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be
cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that does any
work in the same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.
The Jewish people always recognized the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur] as a judgment day. Even to
the present time it is so regarded. See the web site www.jewfaq.org. The following is a copy of a
statement published in a Jewish paper in the city of San Francisco in 1892 (during pioneering
Adventism). The Jewish Day of Atonement was coming on, and the rabbi issued this announcement:
Quote:

The monitory sounds of the shophar [trumpet] are to be heard every

morning in the orthodox synagogues, advising preparation for the day of
memorial and of the final judgment of Yom Kippur [Yom-day, Kippur
atonement]. - Jewish Exponent_ September, 1892.
In 1902 Isador Meyer, a Jewish rabbi, spoke of the Jew on the Day of Atonement as follows:
Quote:

He is also summoned by the voice of the same trumpet, or shophar, to

scrutinize retrospectively his actions of the past year, while he stands
trembling before the all-seeing eye of Eternal justice sitting on the throne of
judgment.
I DO THINK THAT THE JEWS MUST BE RESPECTED FOR KNOWING THE FACTS ABOUT THEIR
OWN CEREMONIES (HOW DONE AND THEIR IMMEDIATE MEANING), EVEN IF THEY LACK THE
INSIGHT OF HOW IT POINTS TO CHRIST WHOM THEY REJECTED.
Thus from this we see that the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was a work
of judgment (to all in Judaism; EVEN TODAY- See any Jewish website on Yom Kippur). And the
cleansing of the earthly sanctuary was a type of the cleansing of the heavenly. Therefore it follows
unquestionably that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is a work of judgment also. This preAdvent judgment is not just about the "little horn" power which blasphemed God's temple, but is also
about ALL men (Christians and non-Christians) since Christ would return with rewards for ALL men
(Rev. 22:12). INTERESTING THAT EVEN THE PROPHECY OF THE LITTLE HORN ENDS WITH
ALLUSION TO JUDGMENT ON IT PRECISELY AT THE SAME JUNCTURE THAT THE SANCTUARY
IS SAID WILL BE "CLEANSED" (AN IMAGERY OF YOM KIPPUR WHICH WAS JUDGMENT

18

RELATED.
THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY TO BE "CLEANSED"
Let us now return to Daniel's prophecy,
Quote:

Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be
cleansed. Daniel 8:14.
The beginning and ending of the 2300 days ["evenings and mornings"- prophetic years] is made very
clear in the prophecy. In Daniel 9:24-27 [where the explanation of time in Daniel 8 is continued] this
period is divided and subdivided in such a way as to leave us in no uncertainty whatever. Note the
words of the prophecy.
Quote:

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. 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.
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. 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 over spreading of
abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and
that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Now we can be absolutely certain that we have the right dates for the beginning and ending of this
period if we begin counting from the cross. From that as the starting point in our reckoning, we can
count backward to find the beginning and forward to find the close. The first 69 and a 1/2 weeks of this
period were to reach down to the cross. At the end of 69 and a 1/2 weeks or 486 and a 1/2 years
(reckoning a prophetic day as a literal year), the sacrifice and oblation was to cease (verse 27), which
signified that at that time the earthly sanctuary service would come to an end (i.e. in Gods eyes they
no longer had any significance).
The event which terminated the earthly service was the crucifixion of Jesus, therefore we know that
when Christ was crucified, 69 and a 1/2 weeks, or 486 and a 1/2 literal years, of the 2300 - year period
had passed. We have only to figure back 486 and a 1/2 years to 457 B.C, to find the correct starting
point; and forward 1813 and a 1/2 years to 1844, to find the end of the period. It is clear, therefore, that
the earthly sanctuary came to an end before the close of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, and that this
prophecy could not refer to its cleansing. Since there were still 1813 and a 1/2 years of the 2300 year

19

period to be fulfilled after the cross, we must of necessity conclude that this prophecy of Daniel refers
to the only LITERAL sanctuary that was in existence at that time, that is, the heavenly.
Let us take it in another way. The period of seventy weeks, or 490 days, brought to view in the
scripture already quoted, is only a division of the full period of 2300 days. The seventy weeks also had
several divisions, each terminating with some definite event, such as the completion of the work of
rebuilding Jerusalem, the baptism of the. Savior, the cutting off (or crucifixion) of the Messiah, and the
completion of the time of the Jews. Taking the Bible method of reckoning prophetic time, i.e., each
prophetic day for a literal year (Ezekiel 4:6), these seventy weeks, or 490 days, would equal 490 literal
years, and they would date from 457 BC., at which time the final and complete decree to restore
Jerusalem went forth.
A THREEFOLD DECREE
We find this threefold decree given first by Cyrus, the king of Persia (Ezra 1:24), repeated by Darius
(Ezra 6:6-12), and again repeated by Artaxerxes (Ezra 7: 12-26). In E= 6:14 we read these words:
Quote:

The elders of the Jews builds, and they prospered through the prophesying
of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built, and
finished it, according to the commandment of the God of
Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and
Artaxerxes king of Persia.
The commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem was, then, according to the Scripture itself, a
threefold decree, given lastly by Artaxerxes in 457 BC. From this date, therefore, we begin to count
that long period of 2300 years reaching to 1844. Seven weeks, or forty-nine years, of this time were to
cover the period of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Forty-nine years this side of 457 BC., would bring us to
408 BC., the year in which the reconstruction work was completed.

Sixty-nine weeks, 483 years, were to reach to Messiah the Prince. This would bring us to AD. 27, and
that is the year when Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan, upon which occasion He was
anointed, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34), and was proclaimed the son
of God, by a voice from heaven. (See Luke 3:21, 22; Acts 10:38.)
THE SEVENTIETH WEEK
In the midst (middle) of the last, or seventieth, week, Messiah was to be cut off. A week would be
seven prophetic days, or literal years, and half a week would be three and a half years. Christ was
anointed for His earthly ministry in AD. 27. Three and a half years later, or in AD. 31, He was cut off by
crucifixion.
The whole of the last, or seventieth, week was to be devoted especially to the Jews.
Quote:

He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Daniel 9:27.
This was fulfilled by Christ's personal ministry of three and a half years, and by the ministry of His

20

apostles, who for another three and a half years laboured almost exclusively for the Jews. After that
time the Jews were no longer to be considered the specially chosen people of God.
Beginning with Christ's ministry in AD. 27, this week, or seven literal years, would reach to AD. 34. It
was in that year that Stephen was martyred, Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and the Jewish nation, as
such, was rejected. In rejecting Christ and His gospel, they had rejected the only means of salvation,
and God could no longer count them His chosen people. Soon after this it was boldly announced that
the disciples had turned to the Gentiles.
Quote:

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the
word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it
from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life,
lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I
have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou should be for salvation
unto the ends of the earth. Acts 13:46, 47.
This first division of the 2300 day prophecy - the seventy weeks-absolutely confirms the fact that we
have the correct starting date for the entire period. Figured from the year 457 as a starting point, every
detail of the prophecy works out to perfection; and therefore shows beyond all doubt that the initial date
is correct.
This evidently was one of the reasons this subdivision of the prophecy was made. This seventy week
period was to seal up (make sure) the vision and prophecy. It serves to prove the starting point.
When we therefore take 457 BC., as the date for beginning this period of 2300 prophetic days, or literal
years, it clearly brings us down to the year AD. 1844.
Or, to state it another way:
The first seventy weeks, or 490 years, reached down to AD. 34. The difference between 490 years and
2300 years is 1810, and if we add 1810 years to AD. 34, we have AD. 1844. The 2300 - year prophecy
ended, therefore, in 1844. The evidence of this is absolutely conclusive, as the subdivisions of the
prophecy leave no room whatever for doubt.
But what was to happen at the end of the 2300 years?
Quote:

He said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall
the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel8:14.
The time had come for the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.
As we have already seen, the only LITERAL sanctuary of God in existence in 1844 was the heavenly
sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary, with its services, had passed away, having no further meaning after
the cross; and the priesthood had changed from the sons of Aaron to Christ.
But of course there is also the spiritual temple existing at that time, the Church. Was this trampled
underfoot, invaded by pagan abomination, "cast to the ground", etc.? Certainly! And thus this "temple"
needed to be cleansed or made right again (another possible meaning of Daniel 8:14). That is where
the formation of the Remnant Church came in. The call came for the true followers of Christ to leave
Babylon, "the mother of harlots" (along with her 'daughter' churches of false Christianity) and form
once again a pure apostolic type Church. If this was not another type of cleansing at the end of the
prophetic 2300 years then only spiritual blindness prevents us from seeing this truth also.

21

I will hereafter respond to CERTAIN "classic" objections that have been common over the
years to the forgoing explanation. See you in the next post where I will look at what others
honestly say (and what some just mischievously say) in objection. God bless.

Reply
Recommend
From:

Gilli2484

Delete

Message 3 of 34 in Discussion
Sent: 8/10/2004 5:51 AM

Here are over a dozen challenges to the truly Biblical Adventist, who must, like the "Berean", prove all
things, and be ready to give a reason for his faith and beliefs. These were gleaned from a web page
on-line, and should serve as a good test paper for me to demonstrate the validity of the "1844" date,
and the "Investigative Judgment" doctrine:
Quote:

1. He [the Adventist] must prove that 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices
equal 2,300 full days when there is no evidence from Daniel 8:14 -- or any
text of Scripture -- to show it.
2. He must prove that in prophecy a day equals a year, and that an
evening and a morning sacrifice equals one day which he can then turn
into one year.
3. The context implies that the period began when the daily sacrifice was
suspended. He must show that it began in 457 BC; a date having nothing
to do with the daily sacrifice.
4. He must prove that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" means cleansing it
from the confessed sins of the saints when the context refers to cleansing
it from pollution by the enemy of the saints.
5. He must prove that confessed sins defile the sanctuary; an idea stated
nowhere in Scripture.
6. He must assume the 490 years are cut off from the 2,300 year although
nothing is said of this in Daniel 8 or 9.
7. He must assume that the 2,300 years and the 490 years begin together.
8. He must maintain that the re-consecration of the sanctuary (Daniel 8:14)
and the anointing of the sanctuary (Daniel 9:24) are not the same thing,
though they seem to.

22

9. He must prove that the "word" (Daniel 9:25) was a kingly decree, and
that the king was Artaxerxes.
10. He must prove that the cleansing of the sanctuary merely
"commenced" (when Dan 8:14 says nothing about "commencing") in 1844.
11. He must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable than the
Rabbinical, and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of Atonement in
October.
12. He must prove that the "cleansing" of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is of
the kind typified in Leviticus 16.
13. He must show that the Day of Atonement began in 1844, and he must
explain why Christ's *act* of Atonement is separated from the *Day* of
Atonement by 18 centuries.
14. He must then show that there are two apartments in the heavenly
sanctuary and that Christ moved from the holy place to the Most Holy place
in 1844. He must also show that when the New Testament says Christ
entered God's presence (Hebrews 9:12), this means the *first* apartment.
15. He must then prove that the judgment which began in 1844 was an
"investigative judgment" of God's professed people, not a judgment (as the
text implies) of the wicked.
I will be dealing with each challenge, point by point, in a series of posts after this. AND I SAY AGAIN,
I CAN ONLY SHOW THIS UNINTERRRUPTED, AND THAT IS WHY I WILL IGNORE ALL
"NAYSAYERS" UNTIL I AM THROUGH!!!
So let me start with the first two challenges:

"CLASSIC CHALLENGES/OBJECTIONS" No. 1 and 2

Quote:

He [the Adventist] must prove that 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices
equal 2,300 full days when there is no evidence from Daniel 8:14 -- or any
text of Scripture -- to show it.
He must prove that in prophecy a day equals a year, and that an evening
and a morning sacrifice equals one day which he can then turn into one
year.
Now I don't know of anywhere better to start, but in the Word itself. DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD I SAY

23

UNTIL YOU SEE IT IN THE BIBLE ITSELF (STATED OR CLEARLY CONTEXTUALLY

SUGGESTED). So have your Bible nearby to read every reference before moving on. A literal
translation, though not perfect (as seen below), of the text under consideration shows clearly a
number of things1. The word "sacrifice" was never in the original, but is added by SOME translations, because the
translators impose this word upon it
2. The original text used, for the first time in the entire Bible, the expression "evenings [and] mornings"
along with the number 2300; it was never written as "days", but clearly warrants this translation
3. There is only ONE "vision" between Daniel 8 and 9, and thus there is an intimate connection
between the explanation which was started in Daniel 8 and the continued explanation in Daniel
9. Daniel 9 begins with Daniel in prayer, NOT IN VISION, and an angel (Daniel 9:21-23) returned
to CONTINUE the explanation started in Daniel 8, which Daniel was still frustrated over
(especially its TIME component). Also remember that there was no 'chapterization' and
'versification' (chapters and verses) in the original text of Daniel, so the 'chapters' (as we now
know them) were simply a continuous relating of the events in order.
3. Most Bibles (translations), including the LXX (Greek version of the OT) translated the last word of
Daniel 8:14 as, "CLEANSED"; even though there is nothing wrong with other meanings of the original
word, i.e. "put right", "made right" etc.
Quote:

From the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

Dan 8:13 Then I heard a certain holy one speaking, and another holy one
said to that one who spoke, Until when is the vision, the regular [*sacrificeADDED WORD] and the desolating transgression, to give both the
sanctuary and the host to be trampled?
Dan 8:14 And he said to me, For two thousand, three hundred evenings
and mornings, then the sanctuary will be put right.
Dan 8:15 And it happened when I, Daniel, had seen the vision, then I
sought the meaning. And, behold, the form of a man stood before me.
Dan 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, and he
called and said, Gabriel, make this one understand the vision.
Now from the above it is clearly demonstrable that it was the ENTIRE VISION, which included the
trampling of the sanctuary and the "host" (people of God), along with the beasts (ram and goat) and
the "horns", which would extend over the period of "2300 evenings [and] mornings". Why? Because
the question starts out asking: "UNTIL WHEN IS THE VISION" (!!). Which vision? The vision
CONCERNING the things listed as just a SAMPLE of what that vision contained. This obvious, and
simple truth too many are willing to ignore in favour of their own ideas that the question was only
about just the trampling of the sanctuary by the "little horn". If the question had said, "How long will be
the trampling of the sanctuary", then it follows logically that the TIME FRAME would ONLY concern
itself with that aspect of the vision. But it did not just ask that. Did it? Certainly not. And I ask, why is it
that some strive to ignore this reality? Because it is then easier to allow for the Antiochus Epiphanes
explanation of the "little horn" power. But if one is true to every word of the Bible, then one cannot
ignore any portion of it. Of course the sanctuary and Gods people are the focus of the vision, BUT

24

GOD CHOSE TO BEGIN THE VISION IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD OF THE "RAM" KINGDOM. That is
self-evident.
Now, if the period covered by the ENTIRE vision obviously started in the Persian period and ended
with the sanctuary being "cleansed and made right, then we have to go back to that period to begin
any calculation of time. And this is precisely what Daniel 9:25 tells us to do, even giving the exact year
to begin. But more on that later. However what this tells us from the outset is that the period of "2300
evenings [and] mornings" must then be SYMBOLIC "days" or LITERAL YEARS, since this is obvious
from the CONTEXT. This is precisely what the non-Adventist commentator, Adam Clarke observed
(though he began the period at the wrong time):
Quote:

Dan 8:14 Unto two thousand and three hundred days - Though literally it be two
thousand three hundred evenings and mornings. Yet I think the prophetic
day should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must
signify so many years. - Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
I do think that I have established a good foundation for showing that the period covered by the "2300
evenings [and] mornings" is a LONG PERIOD of many centuries. In my next post (Part 2) I will
conclude on the first two "challenges" under consideration, by showing why the "2300
eveningsmornings" expression is best interpreted 2300 FULL "days", but should still interpretively
mean prophetic years (in light of ALL the symbols and symbolism in Daniel 8), and by showing that
the period could NOT end with the earthly Jewish sanctuary (which would have been out of existence
by then). God bless you for now.

Reply
Recommend
From:

Gilli2484

Delete

Message 4 of 34 in Discussion
Sent: 8/10/2004 5:55 AM

In my last real post on the topic I closed by saying:

Quote:

I do think that I have established a good foundation for showing

that the period covered by the "2300 evenings [and] mornings" is
a LONG PERIOD of many centuries. In my next post I will
conclude on the first two "challenges" under consideration, by
showing why the "2300 eveningsmornings" expression is best
interpreted 2300 FULL "days", but should still interpretively mean
prophetic years (in light of ALL the symbols and symbolism in
Daniel 8), and by showing that the period could NOT end with the
earthly Jewish sanctuary (which would have been out of existence
by then).
Now let me continue by acknowledging that a vast number of interpreters share in the view that the

25

question in Daniel 8:13 was specifically about (in their view) the trampling of the sanctuary and God's
people by the little horn power, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes (in their interpretation). So why, you may
ask (and rightly so) would I see it as judicious to go against this "crowd" and declare otherwise? For
the simple reason that I do believe that no aspect of the prophecy should be ignored. The question did
not ask, "How long will the sanctuary be trampled", but it asked "HOW LONG WILL BE THE VISION",
and then proceeded to list just SOME of the things contained in the vision. If the vision under
consideration consisted of the "ram" kingdom (Medo-Persia), the "he-goat" kingdom (Greece), the
desolating little horn power, and, among other things, the prophecy of an abomination of desolation to
be visited upon God's people and God's sanctuary, then it is the period covering ALL happenings in
that vision that is to be considered in the length of the time prophecy of "2300 evenings and
mornings". It is very obvious to me that it is God's sanctuary and people that are deemed as most
important in the vision, thus the question in Daniel 8:13 highlighted only those aspects, but not to
suggest an exclusion of the other elements of the vision.
I have no difficulty with the view that Antiochus seem to have fulfilled certain aspects of the little horn
prophecy, BUT ONLY AS A TYPE OF THE TRUE ANTI-CHRIST POWER TO COME FUTURE TO
HIS KINGDOM, THAT IS, ROME; AN ANTI-CHRIST POWER WHICH WOULD BRING THE TRUE
"ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION" JESUS REFERRED TO IN MATTHEW 24:15, AND WHICH
WOULD STAND UP AGAINST THE TRUE "MESSIAH THE PRINCE", JESUS HIMSELF.
It is absolutely clear to me that the only way for the elements of the prophecies about the anti-Christ
power and the abomination of desolation to find fulfilment AFTER Jesus' and Paul's time (2 Thess.
2:1-5), BUT APPLYING TO ROME, is to see the "2300 evenings [and] mornings" first as meaning
FULL "days", but interpreted as FULL prophetic years!! Why? The events in the vision started during
the reign of Medo-Persia, and for portions of it to reach down to Jesus' time DEMANDS a long time
period of several centuries. This must be so if in about A.D. 31 Jesus is declaring "the [specific article;
distinctive and exclusive] abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel" as STILL FUTURE!!
Therefore it is easy for me to see the 2300 day/year interpretation for the events in the ENTIRE
VISION as perfectly logical if the vision (concerning, among other things, the sanctuary's trampling)
was to last that long from the reign of Medo-Persia to when "the sanctuary will be cleansed". It is also
striking that the angel in Daniel 9:25 began his time prophecy explanation also in the same MedoPersian period (which commanded Israel's restoration after Babylonian exile, sanctuary and all). Just
coincidence? Certainly not! Because the internal evidence in Daniel clearly suggests that Daniel 8 and
9 are intimately connected to the SAME time prophecy, and BOTH chapters point to the coming TRUE
MESSIAH.
It is also easy to see that if the 2300 day/year interpretation relate to events beginning in the Persian
period, THEN THE PERIOD OF 2300 YEARS WOULD NATURALLY EXTEND WAY BEYOND THE
EXISTENCE OF THE EARTHLY JEWISH SANCTUARY (destroyed in A.D. 70) BY OVER 1500
YEARS AT THE LEAST.
That is why 1844 is interpretively allowable, and why the TRUE heavenly sanctuary, and the Church,
as God's spiritual temple, would have to be the ONLY possible candidates for fulfilling the expression,
"will be cleansed" at the end of the 2300 day/year period.
In the next post I will endeavour to show textually why there is Biblical evidence to support the
FULL "2300 days" translation in, first, the LXX (Septuagint) and, secondly, in several other
translations, and also why the alternate "1150 [literal] days" interpretation is, first,
mathematically erroneous, and, secondly, does not even find exact fulfilment in the life of
Antiochus Epiphanes if applied to him (if it doesn't fit, reject it). See the weaknesses and
shortcomings of the Antiochus interpretation as I explained at
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q28.htm I will also endeavour, in my next post, to
demonstrate the validity of the day/ year prophetic principle, IN LIGHT OF ALL THE OTHER

26

SYMBOLS FOUND IN DANIEL (beasts, horns, figurative or representative language, etc).

God bless you as you ponder on these humble foregoing thoughts of mine.

Reply
Recommend
From:

Gilli2484

Delete

Message 5 of 34 in Discussion
Sent: 8/10/2004 6:00 AM

WHY THE DAY/YEAR PRINCIPLE IS

VALID IN DANIEL 8: 14?
In fairness to the opposition, let me first say that it does appear that on the surface the original and
literal language of Daniel 8:14 does not completely forbid the application to literal days, thus equaling
literally a few years. No laws of exegesis, not much (it would seem) in the language itself, could be
regarded as violated, if such an interpretation were given to the language, and so far as this point
(literal language translation) is concerned, there would be little room for debate (if that was the only
consideration). But the same remark may be made as to the symbolic application of the language taking it for a much longer period than literally the number of days in the text itself; that is, regarding
each day as standing for a year. This could not be shown to be a violation of prophetic usage either,
or to be forbidden by the nature of prophetic language, because nothing is more common than
symbols. Obviously though, ONLY ONE APPLICATION IS BEST APPLIED TO FIT THE ORIGINAL
INTENT OF THE PROPHECY, and it seems more judicious to apply the day/year principle for the
following reasons:
(a) Recognizing that when the elements of the vision were first presented (i.e. before their later angelic
explanation) the time aspect is best translated as literal days (from the Hebrew text), this however
does not make null and void the following consideration. It is the fact that, in the prophecies, it is not
unusual to designate the time symbolically. Although a few instances can be referred to in which this
is not done, prophetic time is commonly represented by some symbol; some mark; some peculiarity of
the time or age referred to.
(b) The designation of time in Daniel 8:14 occurs in the midst of symbols - where all is symbolic
language - the beasts, the horns, the little horn, and the trampling, and casting down of truth, Gods
people and the place of Gods sanctuary by such a power, etc.; and it would seem to be much more
probable that the symbolic method would be adopted as designating the time referred to than a literal
method.
(c) It is quite apparent (as pointed out earlier) that the events in the ENTIRE VISION do actually
extend far into the future - far beyond what would be denoted by the brief period of just a few years.
And certainly it is dishonest to say that if Antiochus was close enough to fulfilling the time prophecies
(if the literal days are counted and applied, i.e. 2300 literal days, or literally half of that period) then he
fulfilled the prophecy. That is like saying God did not get His predictive math spot-on, or exactly right,
and must be helped out by the liberal interpreters. THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY
THE STANDARDS OF THIS BIBLE STUDENT!! If the glove doesnt fit
Let us now explore the weaknesses in the application to just literal days, and why the day/year
principle perfectly fits the time part of the prophecy better, and thus demands a better reception.

27

THE EVENING-MORNING EXPRESSION

Quote:

8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days;
then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
The evening-morning phrase-The actual Hebrew says it this way:
Quote:

And he said to me, Until evening (ereb) morning (boqer) two thousand
and three hundred, then shall the sanctuary be nisdaq.
What does this mean? Liberals thoroughly enjoy pointing to ereb boqer and nisdaq as clear evidence
that our historic interpretation of 8:14 cannot be right. Yet there are no problems with either term,
absolutely none! The various charges against our Sanctuary beliefs are like the scientific facts in
defence of Creationism. When you assemble the actual facts, the contending errors of evolution melt
away.
The liberal chargeHere is the charge that the critics make: Daniel 8:14 does not talk about days, but about eveningmornings-so they must refer to the morning and evening sacrifices. Therefore, since there was a
morning and evening sacrifice each day, it would take two offerings to equal a full day (or so they
argue).
Because of this, 8:14 refers to 2300 sacrifices, or 1150 days they content. Thus, they continue to
argue, we must divide 2300 in two in order to arrive at the correct number in 8:14. Another evidence is
that the phrase, daily sacrifice, is in the three preceding verses (8:11-13) of the KJV.
Here is an example of this theory, found in one of the modern Bibles:
Quote:

I heard the other angel answer, It will continue for 1,150 days, during
which evening and morning sacrifices will not be offered.-Daniel 8:14,
Good News Bible, published by the American Bible Society.
Now, apart from the fact that the word sacrifice is an imposed (supplied) word (never in the original
text), and apart from the already clearly proven fact that the events of the ENTIRE VISION was what
the 2300 evening [and] mornings expression was all about (thus a very long time period involved)
note carefully now how this self-destructive reasoning of the opposition breaks down naturally.
Neither 1150 nor 2300 days is compatible with AntiochusThis 1150 days interpretation is actually an effort to harmonize the prophecy with the pathetically
inadequate time span during which Antiochus persecuted the Jews. Antiochus desecrating pagan idol
was set up on the Temple altar of burnt offering on the 15th day of the 9th month of the 145th year of
the Seleucid Era, and pagan sacrifices began there 10 days later.

28

After a period of warfare, a newly built alter by the Jews was consecrated and offerings begun on the
25th day of the 9th month, in the 148th year of the Seleucid Era. This is what is seen (by the
opposition) as the TRUE fulfilment of the abomination of desolation, and the cleansing of the rededicated sanctuary after this defilement.
Apart from the already noted fact that Jesus introduced the TRUE abomination of desolation in Daniel
as still future in A.D. 31 (LONG AFTER ANTIOCHUS), thus effectively destroying this argument, note
also the following computation difficulties faced by the opposition.
We thus have here a period of exactly 3 years and 10 days, during which Antiochus IV stopped the
Temple services. It is not 2300 literal days, which would be 6 years, 4 months, and two-thirds of a
month. And it is not 1150 days. That shorter figure (1150 days) is still two months too long! There is no
historical time period mentioned in the Book of Maccabees or in Josephus regarding Antiochus IV,
which corresponds with either 2300 or 1150 literal days. No amount of theological gymnastics can
account for this mathematical discrepancy in the prophetic fulfilment. The best the opposition can do is
talk about reasonable closeness of their time application to Antiochus. Nonsense. God is more precise
than that, and if they would be honest enough to admit that Antiochus was just, in a way, probably a
faint shadowy type of the TRUE little horn, or the (anti-typical) Roman Anti-Christ power yet FUTURE
TO HIM, then this difficulty would vanish. Oh what a tangled web we weave
The evidence that evening-morning stands for whole daysBoth the preterist (or semi-preterist) and futurist theories are based on a literal day interpretation of
8:14. But the facts show that 8:14 is best read as a full 2300 days, WHICH THEN REPRESENTS
2300 YEARS; not as 2300 sanctuary offerings or 1150 literal days!! Here are the supporting facts.
Days in the Greek and Latin translationsIt is first important to mention that both Greek translations of the Old Testament (the Septuagint and
the Theodotion) included days in their translation of 8:14: Until evening and morning days two
thousand and three hundred . . They well-knew that days were meant, not sacrifices. The
translators of the Septuagint were learned Jews (in their own language) living in the second century
before Christ. They knew Hebrew very well, much better than todays critics. Even the Latin Vulgate of
Jerome translated the eveningmorning expression as days. Note carefully the words of the Albert
Barnes Commentary on the Bible, about the literal translation of the expression, "2300 evenings [and]
mornings" (we are not so much concerned here at this point with his later interpretation):
Quote:

Unto two thousand and three hundred days - Margin, evening, morning. So
the Hebrew, ereb boqer. So the Latin Vulgate, ad vesperam et
mane. And so Theodotion - heos hesperas kai proi - to the evening and
morning. The language here is evidently what was derived from Gen. 1.,
or which was common among the Hebrews, to speak of the evening and
the morning as constituting a day. There can be no doubt, however, that
a day is intended by this, for this is the fair and obvious interpretation. The
Greeks were accustomed to denote the period of a day in the same manner
by the word nuchthemeron (see 2Cor. 11:25), in order more
emphatically to designate one complete day.

29

THUS IT IS CLEAR THE EXPRESSION MEANT "DAYS" IN THE LITERAL HEBREW!! THE
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION IS OBVIOUSLY ANOTHER MATTER.
Sacrifices are not in the original textIt is an unproved assumption that the 2300 evening-morning expression refers to the tamid sacrifices.
The word, sacrifices, is not in 8:14; nor is it anywhere else in the Hebrew of the book of Daniel!
Sacrifices is found 79 times in the Old Testament, but not once in Daniel (nor is the word,
sacrificed, found in Daniel).The five tamid (daily) instances in the KJV where translators have
added sacrifices (daily sacrifice) in Daniel are not in the Hebrew. Because tamid (used here as an
adjective) requires a noun to go with it, the translators include sacrifice. The words, sacrificed,
sacrificeth, and sacrificing are not in Daniel either. The book has nothing to say about sacrifices.
The morning and evening sacrifice applies to both offerings as a unitIn Leviticus and elsewhere, there are passages in which the continual refers to the morning and
evening sacrifice-but it always does so as a single unit. It is a continual burnt offering (singular
offering, not plural offerings).
Continual is a technical term which, in the Hebrew, applies to both sacrifices as a unit. The
legislation of Exodus 29:38-42 is precise. The double sacrifice is spoken of as a singular unit (cf. Num
28:3-6).
To explain this in more detail, the continual burnt offering consisted of two offerings, one in the
morning and the other in the late afternoon. Because these symbolized a continual offering, they-the
two of them-were spoken of as being a single offering each day.
If the 8:14 time span really did refer to the continual burnt offering (as the liberals say it does), the time
span would therefore have to be 2300, not 1150.
Evening-morning is not the same as morning-eveningThis is a major point! The evening-morning cannot refer to the continual burnt offering, for that
offering is always called the morning-evening continual burnt offering. In the Hebrew, it is literally
burnt offerings morning and evening (Exodus 29:39; Leviticus 6:12-13; Num 28:4; 2 Kgs 16:15; 1
Chron 16:40; 23:30; 2 Chron 2:4; 13:11; 31:3; Ezra 3:3). The continual burnt offering is never spoken
of (in the reverse order) as the evening-morning offering. With one exception, all other sanctuary
procedures were spoken of as morning-evening. That sole exception was the lighting of the lamp
stands, which were lit on a sunset to sunrise (evening-morning) basis. Doing so would ensure that
the oil would last throughout the dark hours.
Evening-morning is singularThe term, evening-morning is written in the singular number, even though in the English, it is written
2300 days. This fact favours the view that the Hebrew expression represents a unit of time, namely,
a 24-hour day. In the book of Daniel, the other Hebrew word for days (yamim), is plural in 1:12, 14;
12:11; and 12:12.
The truth about evening-morning designating daysIn the first chapter of Genesis, we find the grand display of the power of God in creating our world in
six days. In order to make it very clear that each day was a literal 24- hour day, the phrase chosen to
represent each 24-hour day was evening-morning (ereb boqer)-the very same phrasing used in
Daniel 8:14. Indeed, Daniel 8:14 (plus one other passage) is the only place outside of Genesis 1
where ereb boqer is used. This fact only adds to the weighty importance of the Daniel 8:14 time
prophecy! In Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, with His own mouth, God spoke ereb boqer at the end of
each day of Creation Week. In Daniel 8:14, the same Creator spoke ereb boqer again! Let no man

30

ridicule the fact or seek to make light of it!

Ereb boqer as the meaning of a 24-hour day-not two half days-is as solid as is the days of Creation
Week! To deny the one is to deny the other!
That other passage where ereb boqer is found is 8:26; this is where Gabriel refers to the 2300-day
prophecy, using the special phrase applied to it by Christ and says its fulfilment is for many days.
Always remember that the question, "ad-matay", in 8:13 does not only mean how long but also can
mean until when.
The question specifically asks about what happens when the time span of the VISION ends. In 8:26,
Gabriel repeats the message of 8:14 that the end is far in the future (despite the events at the start of
the vision began to happen after the Babylonian kingdom). This is also the message of 8:17 and 8:19,
where the fact is stated that the 2300-day prophecy would reach its conclusion at the time of the
end.
Why is evening-morning used to signify a 24-hour day?
That is a good question. In the Bible, the day starts at sunset. That pattern was given us during
Creation Week (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). It is confirmed by the statement in Leviticus 23:32, From
even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.
The setting and phrasing of the evening-morning points directly to years as the meaningThe conversation in 8:13 refers to the entire vision of 8:3-12, indicating, thereby, that the 2300
eveningsmornings cover the period extending from some point within the ram kingdom (MedoPersia), on through the he-goat kingdom (Grecia); from there through the activities of the little horn-to
the end (8:17, 19). Thus it is obvious that the year-day principle is functioning in chapter 8. The 2300
evenings-mornings must cover the whole period of the events symbolized, beginning at some point
during the ram period. An understanding of that time span as literal days (as presented by the
Antiochus expositors) does not fit the context of the question, and cannot stand up to the words of
Jesus in Matthew 24:15.
It obvious that this foregoing explanation is as solid as a rock, and it is now time to consider the yearday principle:
THE YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE
Hotly contested by the critics is our application of the year-day principle to the 2300 year prophecy in
Daniel. But our historic defence is powerful.
Now that I have established that the phrase, ereb boqer (evening-morning), is to read as a literal 24hour day when presented among the symbols of Daniel 8, we must next establish that each day in
Daniel 8:14 is a prophetic day; that is, each one stands for a year.
Why is hidden language used?
For reasons given below (and those earlier posted), it is obvious that Daniel 8:14 is speaking about
2300 years, not 2300 days.
Apocalyptic time propheciesApocalyptic prophecies tend to be filled with dreams, visions, and symbols instead of historical
narratives. In this category, we find the 3 times, 42 months, or 1260 days for the persecution of
Gods people that is mentioned twice in Daniel (7:25; 12:7) and five times in Revelation (11:2, 3; 12:6,
14; 13:5).

31

A period of persecution lasting 10 days is referred to in Revelation 2:10. Men were to be hurt for five
months under the fifth trumpet (Revelation 9:5), and were to be slain for a longer period of time under
its sixth trumpet (Revelation 9:15). Gods witnesses were to lie dead in the streets for 3 days before
their resurrection (Revelation 11:9). The abomination of desolation would continue for 1290 days
(12:11).
In Daniel 8, for example, we find symbolic figures (ram, goat, horns), symbolic actions (casting down
and trampling stars), and symbolic time (evening-morning; days). Why pick out only one aspect and
make it literal?
The year-for-a-day principle (precedence) in ScriptureWe would be quite ABITRARY in our interpretation to assume a day as meaning a year, if we did not
have a Biblical precedent for this. But it has been given to us.
The year-for-a-day pattern is given to us in several passages; the first two occur in legislative codes:
Leviticus 25:1-7This is the earliest Biblical text in which the principle is implied. It is found in Levitical legislation and is
the ordinance of the sabbatical year. A single Sabbath is to be read as a year; a seven-day week is to
be interpreted as seven years.
The farmer was to plant and harvest crops for six years and then rest on the seventh, or sabbatical,
year. When ye come into the land which I give you, the land shall keep a sabbath unto the Lord
(Leviticus 25:2). The sabbath is not a weekly Sabbath, but the sabbath of every seventh year. In
Hebrew, we are told: The land shall sabbatize a sabbath to the Lord. Leviticus 25, verse 4, calls it a
sabbath of rest unto the land while verse 5 calls it a year of rest unto the land.
Leviticus 25:8Here we have another legislative year-for-a-day pattern. A literal translation reads:
You shall count seven sabbaths of years, seven years seven times, and to you the days of the seven
sabbaths of years shall be forty-nine years. The explanation given us is that a sabbath of years is to
be understood as a period of seven years. Here we have a day into a year arrangement. The seventh
day has been taken to stand for a seventh year. As the seventh and concluding day of the week, the
Sabbath is understood here to stand for the seventh year of a period of seven years. Thus each day of
the weeks that end with these sabbaths in the jubilee cycle stands for one year.
Next, we discover two other patterns, or models, for year-for-a-day applications. Both are prophetic
time spans. After providing the pattern, God immediately applied it. The first is given in a narrative and
provides a clear application of the year-day pattern to a predicted lengthy period of time, based on a
few days:
Numbers 14:34The Israelites were told that, because of their rebellion, for every day the spies were in the promised
land, the nation would be forbidden to enter it.
Numbers 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each
day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years.
The days used to measure off years were based on events of the immediate past. This was a
prophetic judgment and used the year-day principle. In this narrative instance, a past day stood for a
future year. However, in an apocalyptic prophecy such as we find in Daniel, a future day stands for a
future year.
Ezekiel 4:6This parable pointedly illustrates the use of the year-day principle. Although it is a parable, it has a
prophetic application.
Ezekiel 4:5-6 For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the

32

days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when
thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house
of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
The 40 years in the wilderness, marked by a year-day principle, was a major event in Israelite history,
known to all the people. But it had occurred centuries earlier. So it is significant that this additional
reminder of the year-day principle was given to Ezekiel, not too many years before Daniel began
receiving his visions which involved year-day applications (chapters 7-12).
The time prophecy, indicated here (390 + 40), appears to apply to the progressively sinful state of the
Israelite nation under the divided monarchy.
Careful Bible students recognize that Ezekiel 4:4-6 is directly linked to Numbers 14:34. Both the act of
bearing and the evil borne are expressed in the same way. Both are introduced with the same
phrase, referring to the number of the days, and both express the idea of each day for a year with
the same twice-said phrase: day for the year . . . day for the year. The year-day principle in both is
linguistically the same.
CONCLUSION.
God then gave us symbolic time prophecies in dreams and visions, which, obviously, are about
extremely important matters spanning centuries, and He placed the time factors in year-for-a-day
patterns. This is clearly operating in Daniel 8:14 and clearly ONLY the wise would understand (by
the help of the Holy Spirit of prophecy), but those captivated only by the wisdom of men and only the
methodology of institutions of learning are clearly not the best discerners of this truth. Only the most
deluded and dishonest would dare venture to say that the foregoing is not reasonable, and
compelling.
In the next post I will look at some more of the "classic objections" to 1844, especially the
objection to the expression "cleansed" as it relates to the sanctuary intended in Daniel 8:14.
Was this "cleansing", first a proper translation, which sanctuary would it relate to at the end of the
evidently LONG time period of many centuries, and how is this judgment related (if some Jewish
purification ceremonies did not relate to judgment)? THIS WILL GET MORE EXPLOSIVE, so see you
then.

Reply
Recommend
From:

Delete

Gilli2484

Message 6 of 34 in Discussion
Sent: 8/10/2004 6:03 AM

WHAT'S IT ABOUT ALL THIS

SANCTUARY "CLEANSING"?
At this point, let's now return to the "classic objections" I have not yet responded to directly, and
analyse carefully a few more. The challenges assert that:
MORE "CLASSIC OBJECTIONS"
Quote:

1.The context implies that the period [2300 eveningsmornings] began

when the daily sacrifice was suspended. He [the Adventist] must show that

33

it began in 457 BC; a date having nothing to do with the daily sacrifice.
2.He [the Adventist] must prove that the "cleansing of the sanctuary"
means cleansing it from the confessed sins of the saints when the context
refers to cleansing it from pollution by the enemy of the saints.
3.He must prove that the cleansing of the sanctuary merely "commenced"
(when Dan 8:14 says nothing about "commencing") in 1844.
4.He must prove that the "cleansing" of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is of
the kind typified in Leviticus 16.
5.He must then prove that the judgment which began in 1844 was an
"investigative judgment" of God's professed people, not a judgment (as the
text implies) of the wicked.
I have sought to group the above challenges/objections (excerpted from the list I presented in an
earlier post) because they are best answered together, since they are related.
Now it is very easy to respond to challenge No. 1 (as listed above) because the very question itself is,
for the most part, invalid. My previous post (before this one) has already clearly demonstrated that the
period of time in question was about the ENTIRE VISION, and that it does not relate to just suspended
"sacrifices" (literally), since the question was about, " until WHEN is the VISION" (itself). Also, the
Hebrew text did NOT have the word "sacrifices", but something broader in mind (the text used just the
word tamid, meaning simply "continual", and not "sacrifices", and then it used nisdaq for "cleansed",
instead of the usual word taher for normal ritual cleansing). The difference is significant in
Hebrew, and should not be ignored at all, since its symbolic significance is rather potent. Also of
significance is the fact that the RETURNING angel (the same one in Daniel 8) later related the specific
time when the time period of the ENTIRE VISION should begin. See Daniel 9:20-25.
It is no point at all (worth worrying about) that because the vision in Daniel 8, and the EXPLANATION
of the time aspect of the prophecy were separated by over a dozen years that this means they were
unrelated. The fact is that the beginning point of the time aspect of the prophecy was still future to
Daniel's lifetime and thus it did not come after the event prophesied (so a few years separating the two
explanations is of no consequence; God does things in a timely way). The only thing about the
challenge worthy of note is that the Biblical Adventist must indeed be able to show that the beginning
point of the 2300 years was in the more 'Israel-friendly' Persian period, in 457 B.C. to be exact. That
will be reasonably demonstrated soon hereafter, but notice at this point though that it was precisely at
the beginning of the Persian period that the angel returned to explain to Daniel the time aspect of the
vision given during that closing stage of the Babylonian era (Daniel 8:13, 14). The Persian period
began and Daniel was now even more curious about time in prophecy as it related to his people and
the sanctuary. Coincidence? Hardly. But more on that later.
Before moving on, as promised in my last post, I will now seek to show why the word "cleansed" in the
K.J.V. is deemed as a good translation, in view of the other renderings of the original word, nisdaq.
First let me indicate that of over 25 translations I have looked up *16 of them translate the word as
"cleansed". That indicates that there is strength in that rendering; not a sectarian rape of Scripture as

34

some would like to think.

Cleansed in 16 versions: Septuagint; Rheims-Douay; Moulto; Boothroyd; Spurrell; Martin; Vulgate;
Harkavy; Ray; Knox; Noyes; King James Version; American Revised Version; and three French
versions: Osterwald, Segond, and Lausanne.
More importantly, let me hasten to say that the oldest translations of the Old Testament are the
second century B.C. Septuagint and the Theodotion. Both render nisdaq with the Greek term,
katharisthesetai (shall be cleansed). Those careful Hebrew scholars, who lived only a few centuries
after the time of Daniel, believed that this was the best single word with which to translate nisdaq. So
cleanse is a perfectly acceptable word in Daniel 8:14 and Adventism's preference for that rendering
is in good company.
However nisdaq, in its various verb forms, includes meanings far broader than merely cleanse, and we
want to know them.
Other renderings of the word, nisdaq, include
Be consecrated in Luthers German translation.
Be righted in the Smith-Goodspeed translation.
Be restored to its rightful state in the Revised Standard Version.
Be restored in Moffatts version.
Be declared right in Youngs translation.
Be justified in texts of Leeser, Sawyer, and in the margins of King James Version and American
Revised Versions.
Be victorious in Margolis translation.
Be vindicated in Rotherhams version.
Be made righteous in Van Ess translation.
Be sanctified in Fentons version.
Now with that in mind, we can proceed with the thought in mind that, as I have previously argued,
despite the word "cleansed" is correctly used, there is nothing wrong with applying the other uses, like
"restored to its rightful place", "righted", "vindicated", etc., since THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
PROPHECY NECESSARILY LIMITING THE MEANING TO ONLY THE "CLEANSING" OF
WHICHEVER SANCTUARY IT HAPPENS TO BE AT THE END OF THE 2300 YEARS (AT THE END
OF THE EVENTS IN THE VISION OF DANIEL 8). Why? I strongly believe that there is ample
evidence that the prophecy might just have had both the Heavenly sanctuary and the earthly spiritual
temple (the Church) in mind, that is BOTH would be "cleansed", but just from different things.
Both would be made victorious or vindicated, but in different contexts. The trampling of the sanctuary
and God's people underfoot, and the casting down of the "place" of God's sanctuary and His truth to
the ground, ARE SIMPLY SYMBOLS FOR, ON THE ONE HAND, THE DEFILEMENT OF THE
CHURCH (THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE) BY THE PRESENCE AND PAGAN INFLUENCE OF THE
ANTICHRIST POWER, THE PAPACY (2 THESS. 2:4), AND ALSO THE OBSCURING OF THE
TRUTH ABOUT THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF GOD'S SANCTUARY AND TRUE HIGH PRIEST (ONLY
MEDIATOR) IN THE LIVES OF CHRISTIANS AFTER THE ROMAN ANTICHRIST CAME ON THE
SCENE.
Thus both sanctuaries would simultaneously (in the same time period; i.e. at the end of the 2300
years) be "made right", "made victorious", and "vindicated", as the truth is made clear again to the
world. Thus while the Heavenly sanctuary is being "cleansed" in the anti-typical Judgment sense of
Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur (to be shown hereafter), and "vindicated" too, so too the earthly spiritual
temple (the Church) is being "cleansed" (in another context) of pagan defilement, and "vindicated" too,

35

as the "Remnant" leaves the confused ranks of spiritual Babylon in Christendom (since the spiritual
awakening of the modern era) and restores the truth about God's true apostolic Church, God's law,
Sabbath, state of the dead, etc. This all happens while God is "sealing" his chosen elect (making up
his jewels) once and for all, thus pronouncing them "vindicated", to the chagrin of Satan, "the accuser
of the brethren". Hallelujah!!
That discovery, while prayerfully contemplating the Word, has been the impression of the Holy Spirit of
prophecy upon my spirit. Call it fanciful thinking, if the reader so desires, but spiritual things are
spiritually discerned and I don't need high powered learning about exegesis, and textual analysis,
before the Holy Spirit can impress such things upon my spirit. I however think that careful textual
analysis should be used to later intellectually CONFIRM what was discerned in the spirit and heart
(since there are indeed demonic spirits of false prophecy), but the Bible does give me enough
evidence to think this way.
I will be continuing this part of the presentation in an upcoming post (since I don't want to make this
one too long). However I will close here by saying that it is very clear to me that the anti-typical
"cleansing" of the Heavenly sanctuary, in the sense of the typical "shadow" in Lev. 16 and the
Judgment related Yom Kippur was the intent of Daniel 8:14.
Why, you may ask, do I not see it in the sense of 2 Chronicles 29 for instance (another type of
cleansing)? Simply because the internal evidence in Daniel 7, and 8 suggests that the little horn power
would be judged by God after his God-allowed tenure.
Now if, as seen in Daniel 7:26, the destruction of the little horn power (certainly not Antiochus) is
directly preceded by an investigative type Judgment in heaven (also seen in Daniel 7:9-11), and in
Daniel 8 the vision ends with a sanctuary "cleansing" and the little horn destroyed without human hand
(i.e by God's executive justice), then parallelism in meaning demands that we must recognize the
following.
THE ONLY SANCTUARY PURIFICATION CEREMONY SIMULTANEOUSLY CONNECTED TO
JUDGMENT WAS YOM KIPPUR, AS JEWS HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED, EVEN TO THIS DAY
(EVEN IF THEY DON'T SEE HOW IT REALATES TO JESUS AS OUR JUDGE AND ADVOCATE
ABOVE). See John 5:22; Act 17:31; 1 John 1:1.
So, faced with a choice of which Jewish ceremony would BEST typify BOTH an anti-typical sanctuary
"cleansing" and Judgment SIMULTANEOUSLY leaves this Bible student with only ONE such choice
indeed- Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement and Judgment).
But of course it is not only the little horn power, which would be subject to examination, and thereafter
Gods executive justice. God's judgment "at the end" does not work that way. It has to be ALL men
(good or bad; see Rev. 11:18,19) whose lives are examined BEFORE Jesus comes with rewards for
ALL (Rev. 22:12).
Notice how that even the last stage of the Church on earth is symbolically referred to as Laodicea,
which means the judging of his people, that is, God's people (the Church) which exist on earth just
before the Anti-Christ power will be destroyed (without human hand) by Jesus coming 2 Thess. 2:8.
Is God opening our eyes even more here? I certainly do think so. If the final stage of the Church is
called "Laodicea" (i.e. people living in that period) then it is obvious the Judgment covers a period
(terminated by the Second Advent). Thus in 1844 this period simply commenced.
Enough said here. I rest my case for now.
See you in the next post, as I will continue this awesome study.

Reply

Recommend

Delete

Message 7 of 34 in Discussion

36

From:

Gilli2484

Sent: 8/10/2004 6:07 AM

WAS THE START OF 2300 YEARS

444B.C. OR 457 B.C.? - Part 1
Introduction
In my last post I made the crucial point:
Quote:

"...the Biblical Adventist must indeed be able to show that the

beginning point of the 2300 years was in the more 'Israel-friendly'
Persian period, in 457 B.C. to be exact. That will be reasonably
demonstrated soon hereafter, but notice at this point though that
it was precisely at the beginning of the Persian period that the
angel returned to explain to Daniel the time aspect of the vision
given during the closing stage of the Babylonian era (Daniel 8:13,
14)."
Now, as I continue this awesome study, I realize that here, more than anywhere else in this 'adventure
of discovery', is where the "1844 Message" of Adventism will either stand solid or crumble under the
weight of evidence, for or against it respectively. And so I breathed a prayer with every stroke of my
keyboard that I may rightly divide the Word of truth, and not be another propagator of error and
heresy.
As I began to write this portion if the discourse I had the Holy Spirit impressing so strongly upon me
the following, that I could not but share it with you as a prelude:
1. Before you can ever get to the final level in this journey of building truth upon truth, in order to reach
the date of 1844, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that the 'milestone' of the Messiahship of Jesus be
reached, and proven in the numbers and the calculation of dates BEFORE you get to 1844. The two
are part of the same journey. But in this journey one must get first to mathematical/historical proof of
Jesus as, first, the "annointed" Messiah, and then the "slain Lamb" or "cut off" Messiah BEFORE you
get to Him as the appointed Judge of all (while being our Advocate) at a specific time in the line of the
prophecy. AND THEN THE FOLLOWING THOUGHT HIT ME LIKE AN EXPLODING BOMB!!
2. Of all the Christocentric portions of the Old Testament, Daniel 9 (as connected to Daniel 8) would
be the most awesome prophecy since it proves, BY THE NUMBERS, the absolute truth of Jesus'
Messiahship prophesied long in advance. Thus this would probably be the most attacked truth by
Satan himself, as he tries to cloud the issues. His challenge on Jesus was, "If thou be the Son of
God...", or put another way, ARE YOU REALLY THE MESSIAH? Jesus proclaimed, "It is written"!!
This must be our answer to the critics as well who try to cover up, or deny the truth that Jesus is
indeed proven as the Messiah by the most potent of prophecies.

37

Sad it would be for me to find myself ALSO fighting against, or denying this truth, as I fight against, or
deny "1844", SINCE BOTH ARE INTIMATELY CONNECTED.
Interestingly, while most non-Adventist Christians (other denominations) oppose "1844" MANY are still
unable (God be praised) to get past the truth that Daniel 9 does prove Jesus' Messiahship by the
numbers. This is indeed heartening, and is not too bad. What a sad state of a affairs it is, however, for
a Christian man who decries even the basic and awesome truth of the Messiahship of Jesus proven
by Daniel 9.
It is of no real consequence that Daniel 9 spoke of "an anointed" or "a messiah", and not with the
definite article, "the". Leaders, priests, and kings of Israel were all "anointed" as "messiahs" of sorts,
thus Jesus would be just one among many in this sense. But if it is discovered that he is the TRUE
"anointed of God", and "Prince of Princes" ("ruler of rulers" literally) truly prophesied of *IN Daniel 8
and 9 (the one TRUE High Priest and Mediator) among his many predecessors in Israel, then this
truth in Daniel should be held tightly to, and defended against Satan and ALL his agents with every
fibre in our being. THIS IS WHAT I WILL STRIVE TO DO AS I CONTINUE THIS STUDY, GOD HELP
ME!!
457 BC., 444 B.C. AND THE TRUE MESSIAH IN DANIEL 9!!
Let me begin the Math/historical calculations this way. Jesus has been shown by most historical
authorities to have been born during king Herod's lifetime, most likely in 4.B.C. (but probably even as
early as 6 B.C.), since the calendar based on his birth was found to be a few years too late in it
beginning point.
Now it would mean that from his birth to his baptism, and Holy Spirit "anointing" at Jordan, would be in
about A.D. 27 (I prefer to use 4 B.C. as his birth date). It was on his thirtieth birthday that he chose to
be baptised (as was the customary age to embark upon leadership and public office), and then started
to declare, "THE TIME IS FULFILLED"!! Mark 1:15 (See Gal. 4:4). Who is to say that Jesus was not
here referring to the time fulfilled for the public appearing of the true "anointed" or "Messiah".
Now, unlike Antiochus who failed the fulfil the finer mathematical points of the 2300 literal "days"
application (of preterists, semi-preterists), Jesus will be shown to fulfil EXACTLY the mathematical
calculations of the 2300 "years" HISTORICIST application of Daniel 8 and 9.
As early as the third century B.C., the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 were understood to be 70 "weeks of
years," i.e. 70 x 7 = 490 years. The LXX, in translating the Hebrew for "weeks" in Dan 7:25-27,
inserted the additional phrase "of years," providing the first published example of what would later be
called the "year-day principle". Thus the day/year application of Daniel 9 (at least) has ancient (and
authoritative) precedence from the users of the original language.
What is sure is that if the period 2300 "years" (coupled with Daniel 9) interpretation is correct (and it is;
I will clearly demonstrate that hereafter) then to begin it in 444 B.C. (as some contend- See Daniel
9:25) would bring us to A.D. 39 for the date of his baptism.
This would immediately conflict with his birth date of 4 B.C. (or even 6 B.C.). Would He be over forty
years of age upon entering his public ministry? Certainly not (according to the Bible itself). Thus He
could not then be accurately declaring the "time is fulfilled", if it was a reference to Daniel prophecy of
the TRUE Messiah's arrival (and I believe it is, AS DO MANY NON-ADVENTIST COMMENTATORS).
However, if the signal beginning point of Daniel 9:25, and divisions of the time prophecy be followed
faithfully (using the oldest, and most reliable punctuation of this verse in the LXX and Theodotion; not
the later conflicting 'Masoretic' ones adopted by the R.S.V. or N.E.B. versions, for instance) then it will
be soon discovered that 457 B.C. is the precise date allowing Jesus to accurately say, "the time is

38

fulfilled" in A.D. 27.

In that year (A.D. 27) he would be truly about thirty years of age (4 B.C. + A.D. 27= 30-31 years'; with
no zero year), the first "69 weeks" of 483 prophetic years would certainly have the TRUE Messiah
appearing in public (embarking on his public ministry), and the math/historical calculations would
EXACTLY prove him to be the TRUE Messiah prophesied of centuries before; the same one who
would be "cut off" (Hebrew, karath; destroyed, consumed, killed, as in Gen. 9:11) just a few years
after that in the last (the 70th) "week" of years i.e. somewhere between A.D. 27 and A.D. 34 (and
this time period of his crucifixion is easily proven in history books).
But you may ask, and rightly so, how is this connected to Daniel 8:14 and 1844, and how do I
get these two prophecies to begin the same year? Well go back to the overview (my second
post in this thread) for that answer in a preliminary way, but I will endeavour to give you the
VERY COMPELLING details of this connection in my next post.
From:

Gilli2484

Sent: 8/11/2004 5:18 AM

WAS THE START OF THE 2300 YEARS

444 B.C. OR 457 B.C.- Part 2
THE CLEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN DANIEL 8 AND 9
I found it rather interesting that at least one opposer of "1844" in another discussion forum like this
one (hewill remain anonymous) had the insight to see that Daniel 9:25 and 26 clearly show at least
two personalities, namely, an enemy power called just "the prince" (specific) that "shall come and
destroy" , and another figure called "a Messiah, the Prince" (without the definite article). Now I found
this, while, on the one hand, being a little amusing coming from him (the reason for my amusement
will soon be apparent), it also being a good place to start this post to show how Daniel 8 and 9 are
intimately connected, and why both the "70 weeks" of years, and the " 2300 days" of years should
both begin in 457 B.C.
Daniel 8 ended with Daniel, while an exile in Babylon (during the closing days of Babylon's world
dominion), contemplating, but "astonished" over the vision given to him in that chapter. He distinctly
declared at the end of that chapter that, "NONE understood it" (Dan. 8:27). Now it is certain that it
could not mean ALL portions of the vision was not understood, since the explanation of what the "ram"
kingdom or empire (Medo-Persia), the he-goat empire (Greece), "the he-goat's first horn" (fist phase of
Greece's empire under Alexander), "the later four horns" (divided Greece), and the little horn (AntiChrist power) were to be was given. So what aspect bothered him most? Obviously the time given in
Daniel 8:14, since he started to enquire about earlier time prophecies given in Jeremiah as it
concerned Israel and the sanctuary.
Evidently he wondered if there was a connection, and when exactly would the events in this "vision"
begin. Could the earthly Jewish sanctuary, still in ruins at this time, be now ready for restoration, since
it was prophesied (from Dan. 8) that some sanctuary or the other (related to God's people) would be
"cleansed"?.
He must have reasoned: If it was the sanctuary in earthly Jerusalem that was to be the focus of this
prophecy, then it certainly must first be re-built, and his people as a nation restored before this
FUTURE desecration, desolation and "cleansing" of it could ever happen. That was only logical. Thus

39

he took heart in the fact that the 70 years of punishment earlier prophesied by Jeremiah must now be
coming to a close, and proceeded to pray to Jehovah over the matter of his peoples sins, and for God
to restore Israel.
That is how Daniel 9 started, and its connection to Daniel 8 is "set like concrete before my feet". NO
POWER ON EARTH CAN CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE, SINCE THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN
DANIEL IS SO COMPELLING!!!
Notice from Daniel 9:20- 27 that the angel just simply returned to give "understanding" of "THE vision".
Now if there is one thing that no one can ever adequately disprove (at least to me) is that the use here
of the specific article, "the" in circumstances like these (where no other vision existed between
chapters 8 and 9) MUST then be a clear reference to an earlier matter already referred to or known of.
Let me illustrate in simple terms. If I say to you, In THE thread on "Did Jesus Come in 1914?" on this
message board you will see such, and such, then it is painfully evident that I take it for granted you
already know what thread I am talking about, or it already exists, and I can refer to it with the article
"the" because it was already written, and, or you already know about it.
Now let us translate this in terms even a kindergarten would understand. The angel returned (Daniel
9:21), THE SAME ONE SEEN IN THE VISION EARLIER (a few years before) and just launched into
an EXPLANATION- "CONSIDER *THE VISION"!! Which vision? Daniel understood perfectly. The
angel simply meant, "Now understand aspects of the vision given earlier".
Only delusion fails to see this simple truth, or intellectual stubbornness, and Satanic twisting of Holy
Writ declares otherwise.
The angel then abruptly started to explain TIME matters to be considered from "THE VISION" in which
he earlier appeared to Daniel.
Notice carefully now how he was able to just also refer to the "the people of THE prince [or "ruler",
"king" literally] that shall come" to destroy Israel, that is, after he had just referred to the "Messiah"
(another figure) that was to be "cut of". Why? THAT TOO WAS ALSO IN THE EARLIER VISION!! It
was the "little horn" power (the enemy power working though its own "people"), and not the "Messiah",
in that instance, that "would come" to destroy the sanctuary (and be on the scene when the TRUE
"abomination of desolation" would be visited upon Israel (See again Matthew 24:15).
So even the opposition unwittingly proves the connection of the two chapters (Smile ).
See how all this ties in with Rome (pagan and papal) if the explanation of "70 weeks" (483 prophetic
years) brings us down to the TRUE MESSIAH (and the Roman period in which Jesus referred to the
FUTURE "abomination of desolation spoken of by [the same] Daniel")? God help us all to see it.
Notice then in Daniel 9:24 how the angel just abruptly said "70 Weeks" (of years) are chathak for thy
people. The word "chathak" (used only once in Holy Writ) is proven by the best research into the
ancient text to mean "cut off", "amputated", "divided", as well as "determined" and "decreed".
Translators will only apply the best meaning here when they see the connection between Daniel 8:14
and Daniel 9:24. So this Bible student (Mr Gillespie) makes his own choice of the BEST meaning to
apply here, by looking at the range of meanings of the word, chathak, as well as the internal evidence
in Daniel as to which meaning best to apply; I am not misguided by translators who impose their own
feeling upon the text without me seeing the internal evidence in support.
With that now being said, it is easy to see that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to "cut of" or "amputate" 490
years ("70 weeks" of prophetic years) from just 1150 or even 2300 literal days (as defended by the
preterists). It only possible to "cut off" 490 years from 2300 years, FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL. It is

40

therefore rock solid logic to see both periods having the same beginning point.
Now we can proceed to see when the "70 weeks" of years (Daniel 9) would begin, since the 2300
years period also begin the same time.
THE YEAR 457 B.C IS THE TRUE BEGINNING POINT!!
As was shown earlier (the previous post), some contend that the "70 weeks" of years in Daniel 9:24,25
should begin in 444 B.C because it was a clear year when Artaxerxes gave the final command to
"rebuild" Jerusalem; and not 457 B,C. when another type of command was given.
I have clearly shown how this would upset the Messiah prophecy (VERY UNTHINKABLE!!) and thus
we must enquire:

1. Was a command given in 457 B.C.?

2. What was this command all about?
*Please note that the double-dated "Kraeling 6" papyrus, and another found on the island of
Elephantine (in a Jewish garrison town) are proof enough of the accuracy of these two dates, 444 B.C
and 457 B.C. (instead of 445 and 458 B.C. respectively, given as alternate dates by some
commentators).
First, I must hasten to say that the prophetic words in Daniel 9:26 speak of TWO (2) things signalling
the beginning point of the time prophecy under consideration. Notice carefully that it is "the
commandment [or decree- SINGULAR!!] to [1] restore and [2] build Jerusalem" AS A WHOLE
(probably representative of the nation itself); NOT JUST THE TEMPLE BUILDING.
Since the words "restore" (shub) and "'build" (banah) are different in the Hebrew, then we realise that
we must look for two things to be commanded- [1] FIRST, A SOCIAL RESTORATION OF JEWISH
LIFE IN ALL ITS FORMS.
[1] AND ACCOMPANYING THAT, AN ARCHITCHTURAL REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM
(OBVIOUSLY INCLUDING THE TEMPLE ALSO).
This is so often overlooked. This is usually the first blunder of the opposition, when contending against
1844. The opposition usually totally ignore the first KEY word in Daniel 9:26, that is, "restore" ("shub"),
which is broader in meaning than the word "rebuild" ("banah"). And that is why both were used.
Rebuilding Jerusalem was just a part of the RESTORATION OF JEWISH LIFE after Babylonian exile.
That is a rock solid truth that no one can overturn.
AND THAT ALONE EFFECTIVELY SHOWS WHY EZRA 7 ALONG WITH EZRA 6:14, AND EZRA
9:9, ARE THE SIGNAL TEXTS TO SUGGEST WHEN DANIEL'S 9:26 TIME PROPHECY WAS TO
BEGIN. Why? Because Ezra 6:14 is the only place EXPLAINING the Providential threefold command
(seen by the Bible itself as one command from God) to rebuild the temple itself (the focus of the city),
and then Ezra 7:25 outlines the command FINALLY given to "restore" ("shub") full Jewish life under its
own government; and not just "rebuild" ("banah") Jerusalem. Why omit the most important parts of the
Ezra 7 decree, which is that the Jews got the right of autonomy (self-government), with judges and
magistrates to enforce their laws; FULL RESTORATION. Why hide this fact?
Notice that the Bible said "from the going forth of the command to RESTORE... Jerusalem", that is,
when first given as a unit (and when both the criteria of "restoring" Jewish life, and the "rebuilding" the
city would have been fully met) .
From what year and what decree (the decree "to restore and rebuild Jerusalem") are we to begin to

41

count the number of years until Messiah? There are four possibilities to consider.
First, it could not be Cyrus edict issued in 539 B.C. though his command referred to the rebuilding of
the temple and not literally to the city AS A WHOLE. But remember the temple is the heartthrob of the
city itself and signals the restoration of Israel itself, including Jerusalem. God Himself saw the matter
this way:
Quote:

Isa 44:28 [God] That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform
all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the
temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
So we see that even tough Cyrus did not complete the full threefold command, it BEGAN with him to
rebuild Jerusalem, by commanding the rebuilding of the temple foundations.
Second, it could not be the decree given by Tattenai, governor of Judah, who made a search for
Cyrus decree and then issued a decree himself about 519/18 B.C. (Ezra 5:3-17). His decree simply
confirmed Cyrus and again, while continuing the temple rebuilding, was, according to Ezra 6, just an
incomplete part of the threefold decree to rebuild even the temple itself.
The third decree was the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. (Ezra 6 and 7) to beautify the
temple already structurally complete under Darius (i.e. give it a "finish" as it were, in building
language) and to re-install judges and leaders, etc. Obviously this decree to re-install self-governance
needed also a restored and rebuilt capital to have this command realized, and thus is fraught with
profound implications for rebuilding the capital itself. No one can convince me otherwise.
The fourth decree was given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 B.C. to rebuild the city of Jerusalem,
and thus, by all appearances would seem to be the best clear reference to the "rebuilding" of the city
itself (according to some).
But why do I prefer 457 B.C.?

It is absolutely clear that despite the Persians could have commanded the rebuilding of Jerusalem in
444 B.C., but the restoration of full autonomy to the Jewish economy (re-installing of leaders, judges,
etc in Ezra 7:25,26) was ALSO needed to fulfil Daniel 9:26. This began to be fulfilled earlier in 457
B.C., as it would have been impossible for this command in Ezra 7:25, 26 (for instance) to have
excluded or prohibited an architectural restoration of Jerusalem itself. Also, why forget that the temple
is the centre and 'heart throb' of the city itself and thus its rebuilding is a signal start to restoring
Jerusalem itself?
Now it is absolutely clear from Ezra 6: 14, that IT IS THE BIBLE ITSELF which declares that three
Persian kings gave ONE "commandment" (or "decree"- singular), NOT seen as decrees (but a unit of
sorts), to rebuild Jerusalem's temple (the heartthrob and centre of Jerusalem) while Ezra 7 explains
the obvious allowing of the Jews to, more importantly, "restore" FULLY their former national life lost
under the Babylonians. That is why Ezra 6 and 7, and 9:9 are the answer to the whole matter.
Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9, if you remember, had the both the city, and more so the temple as the
MAIN focus of his prayer. Why? Both were important, but the temple was even more important than
the surrounding city, and that was why the Persians commanded that first and foremost the temple
was to be rebuilt. See why this Israel-friendly nation of Medo-Persia was represented favourably as a
sheep, the temple-related symbol of goodness, in Daniel 8 (since God chose Medo-Persia as his
restoring agent)?

42

Now it matters not if Artaxerxes (the last king connected to the command) gave two different types of
commands, one in 457 B.C. (to beautify/finish the temple and restore self-government) and one in 444
B.C. (to rebuild the city itself). We must start the prophecy at his earlier command (457 B.C.) because
(united with the two earlier commands before) it BOTH satisfies the beginning point of the prophecy in
Daniel 9, since it says "from the going forth of the command to [not just build, but also] ... restore
Jerusalem", and it also does not conflict with the Messiah coming on the scene in A.D 27 at 30 years
of age.
Why if Artaxerxes had to later renew the command to build the the city itself in 444 B.C. should this be
seen as a problem? His earlier command for restoration of social life is part and parcel of the "THE
GOING FORTH OF the commandment" to RESTORE Jerusalem/Israel (rebuilding architectural
structures to accommodate this social restoration was a natural part of this command).
The proclamation/renewal of the commandment (because of certain politics in Persia) to
architecturally build the city itself in the year 444 B.C. is well documented, but the use of this year as
the starting point of the "70 weeks" of 490 years does not allow for the Messiah prophecy to be spoton accurate. The answer lies in the use of the year 457 B.C.
PROBLEMS WITH 444 B.C.
Remember, first, that we count backwards in B.C., and forwards in A.D. (with no year 0). Also
remember that we must use the 360 day Biblical year in our calculations; not the 365.25 days of
modern times.
From 457 B.C. to the baptism ("anointing" and public arrival) of "Messiah the Prince" WOULD INDEED
BE 483 years (or "69 weeks" of years), in about A.D. 27. From 444 B.C. to "Messiah's" actual
historical arrival in public ministry in A.D. 27 would not be "69 weeks" of years), but 471 years. If you
count the full 483 years from 444 B.C to A.D. 39 then Jesus would have been, by the historical
records, back in Heaven before that date. Back in Heaven before He arrived as the Holy Ghost
anointed "Messiah"? Get the picture? Problems and more problems.
If 444 B.C. is used then it would have Jesus being "cut off" AFTER A.D. 40 (483 +3.5 years after). A
historically un-provable date, wouldn't it be? But if 457 B.C. is used the rest of the "70 weeks" of years
would end in A.D. 34 after the Messiah WAS INDEED "cut off" or killed, but in the middle of the last
"week" (of 7 years). THIS INDEED HAPPENED IN ABOUT A.D. 31. That is more historically provable
than a date after A.D. 40.
After A.D. 34 the "people of the prince" (the enemy anti-Christ Roman power) certainly then
subsequently desolated Israel and its temple after this event).
THE REST OF THE PERIOD OF 2300 YEARS, FROM WHICH THE 490 YEARS WERE
"AMPUTATED" FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL (THE SAME ISRAEL NOW LEFT "DESOLATE" BY
THEIR REJECTED MESSIAH, AND WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED THE TRUE "ABOMINATION OF
DESOLATION" UNDER ROME, IN THE WORDS OF JESUS), IS EASILY PROVEN TO END IN 1844
(CALCULATED FROM 457 B.C., WITH NO YEAR 0).
What would have happened in 1844, if it is now obvious that no earthly sanctuary then existed? The
answer is clear! Only the TRUE Heavenly sanctuary and the Church (another kind of temple) could be
focussed on as possible TRUE candidates (despite the Millerites first thought it meant the earth as the
"cleansed" sanctuary), and seen as "cleansed" and "vindicated" AFTER 1844.
But at this point I will take a break and allow the Holy Spirit to renew my spirit for the next post,
in which I will address more objections to this (evidently) God given truth which the Enemy will
do, and is doing all to block and eliminate. See you then. God bless.

43

Reply
Recommend
From:

Gilli2484

Delete

Message 13 of 34 in Discussion
Sent: 8/11/2004 5:33 AM

A REVIEW OF THE LIST OF

CHALLENGES/OBJECTIONS TO 1844
(Quick Re-cap).
Dear reader,
I do think that I have done justice so far to the "classic challenges" posed to this doctrine over the
years (AT THE END OF MY PRESENTATION I will deal with the rather weak ones posted by the
"naysayers" here so far in this thread). But before I bring this matter to a close, let me do a quick
recap. The challenges responded to so far, are as follows:
Quote:

1. He [the Adventist] must prove that 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices
equal 2,300 full days when there is no evidence from Daniel 8:14 -- or any
text of Scripture -- to show it.
This was already refuted, and proofs presented to show first a literal translation meaning 2300 days,
which then should be applied as 2300 years.
Quote:

2. He must prove that in prophecy a day equals a year, and that an

evening and a morning sacrifice equals one day which he can then turn
into one year.
Also proven sufficiently (the day/year principle in prophecy), based on several texts. It was also
pointed out (with clear evidence) that the word sacrifice is irrelevant here.

Quote:

3. The context [of Daniel 8:14] implies that the period began when the
daily sacrifice was suspended. He must show that it began in 457 BC; a
date having nothing to do with the daily sacrifice.

44

The above has already been proved to be an invalid question/ objection, and the relevance of the year
of 457 (B.C.) as the beginning point of ENTIRE the vision (and not just a suspension of sacrifices)
has been solidly established.
Quote:

4. He must assume the 490 years are cut off from the 2,300 year although
nothing is said of this in Daniel 8 or 9.
Already proven to be more than an assumption that 490 years were to be LOGICALLY amputated
from 2300 years, because of the intimate connection between Daniel 8:14 and 9: 20- 21, and the
meaning of, chatkak (cut off).
Quote:

5. He must assume that the 2,300 years and the 490 years begin together.
The response for the foregoing challenge (No.4) is also applicable here too. You can only logically
amputate 490 years from 2300 years if they begin the same time, AND ARE THE SAME UNITS OF
TIME (YEARS)!!. This too has been adequately proven based on the internal evidence in Daniel 8 and
9

Quote:

6. He must prove that the "word" (Daniel 9:25) was a kingly decree, and
that the king was Artaxerxes.
It has been sufficiently established (Ezra 6:14) that the threefold decree of Cyrus, Darius and
Artaxerxes were BIBLICALLY seen as ONE, and that God chose Persia as his good servant
(represented in symbol as a sheep) to restore Israel after Babylonian exile. It was also clearly shown
why 457 B.C. (and not 444 B.C.) is the best date for BOTH the going forth of the commandment to
restore and build Jerusalem, AND ALSO TO FURNISH THE MATHEMATICAL/HISTORICAL PROOF
OF THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS IN DANIEL 9.
Quote:

7. He must prove that the cleansing of the sanctuary merely "commenced"

(when Dan 8:14 says nothing about "commencing") in 1844.
8. He must prove that the "cleansing" of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is of
the kind typified in Leviticus 16.
9. He must then prove that the judgment, which began in 1844, was an
"investigative judgment" of God's professed people, not a judgment (as the
text implies) of the wicked.

45

Challenges No. 7- 9 (above) are best commented on together. It was clearly evidenced that the
Judgment simply commenced in 1844 by showing how the last stage of the Church on earth, called
Laodicea, signified judging, and covered a period logically terminated by the Second Advent.
In passing let me say however that Judgment could not be a continuous event

throughout all of the Christian era (as some here in this "NO SPIN" forum
mistake Rev. 14:6, 7 to mean), since God has "appointed a day in which He
*will [future tense] judge the world, by Christ Jesus"; as I said in my very first
paragraph, in my very first post. It is logical that an *"appointed time" is
specific, and was an upcoming event on John's day. It could not cover all
time during the Christian era since Jesus came, else the words "appointed
time" would make no senses whatsoever.
It was clearly demonstrated that the ONLY cleansing ceremony of the Jews that could
SIMULTANEOUSLY typify anti-typical Judgment was Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), despite
other purification ceremonies existed in Israels calendar. This had to be so because an investigative
type Judgment (as seen) in Daniel 7 directly preceded the Judgment upon the little horn power
(thus it most likely paralleled the same events of Judgment upon the same little horn power in Daniel
8).
It was also evidenced (in my first, and introductory post) that Judgment in Heaven (pre-Advent)
commenced as an event near the end, signalled by a period of unprecedented world wars
(nation were angry), and when God is about to destroy those who destroy the earth in the
modern age of pollution, population explosion, atomic bombs, destruction of the natural
environment, etc (Rev. 11:18,19); It did not cover the entire Christian era, as the church of
"Laodicea" ("judging") did not cover all of the Christian era, but just the last phase.
Finally it was clearly shown that Gods investigation into human lives (Eccl. 12:13, 14), and the later
execution of justice and rewards given to all (at Jesus Coming) is a matter that would logically also
include the little horn (anti-Christ power). This event would obviously vindicate Gods people
oppressed in all ages, but more so those oppressed in the most serious way by the little horn power
(Rome, pagan and papal), which ruled for the longest period in world history (first as pagan, then
papal Rome; a continuum), and also had the most abominable influence on global religion and politics.

Quote:

10. He must show that the Day of Atonement began in 1844, and he must
explain why Christ's *act* of Atonement is separated from the *Day* of
Atonement by 18 centuries.

The year 1844 has been the main burden of proof in this thread of discussion, and has been
adequately proven.
What must be additionally said here is that (in response to the above) the Jewish symbolic act of
atonement (daily lamb sacrifices), and the ritual Day of Atonement are separate BECAUSE GOD
HIMSELF CHOSE TO MAKE IT SO. If the daily sacrifices (offered in faith) were to atone for sin (See
Lev. 4:20, 31) and the people were deemed as forgiven, then why, you may ask, have another Day of
Atonement once a year (Lev. 16:15, 16) to atone for not just the people, BUT ALSO THE
SANCTUARY ITSELF? Because GOD SAID IT MUST BE SO. Who am I to question God? The same

46

is true about the events in the plan of salvation since the Cross. Who am I to ask God why separate
the cross act of atonement and anti-typical application of the shed blood of Christ in the Heavenly
sanctuary (not just during all of his Heavenly priesthood, but also during Judgment or the anti-typical
Day of Atonement)? NEED I SAY MORE?

Quote:

11. He must prove that confessed sins defile the sanctuary; an idea stated
nowhere in Scripture.
A question like this stems from failure to read carefully the Scriptures, and understand the language of
metaphors and symbols. One only has to read Lev.16: 16 and Heb. 9:22, 23 and the fallacy of this
objection will be made plain. I could also ask do we literally expect to be washed in the blood of the
Lamb (obviously a metaphor)? Certainly this will no more literally happen than the Jewish sanctuary
was literally defiled by the sins of the people, and thus demanded atonement for it. We are dealing
with metaphors here!! What is true however is that there is a literal record of our sins in heaven, and
will need to be blotted out once and for all. THE PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF
THAT IN THE ANTI-TYPICAL STYLE OF YOM KIPPUR!!

Quote:

12. He must prove that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" means cleansing it
from the confessed sins of the saints when the context refers to cleansing
it from pollution by the enemy of the saints.
13. He must maintain that the re-consecration of the sanctuary (Daniel
8:14) and the anointing of the sanctuary (Daniel 9:24) are not the same
thing, though they seem to.

I have already shown compelling evidence that it may just be that the prophecy of Daniel 8:14,
reaching in time way beyond the existence of the earthly Jewish sanctuary (destroyed in A.D 70), to
1844, might just have had BOTH the Heavenly sanctuary and the spiritual sanctuary (the Church) in
mind. Thus the cleansing and vindication may very well apply to both in different contexts at the
end of the 2300 days/years. No one can be so dogmatic as to say that only one sanctuary was in the
mind of the prophetic angel of Daniel 8. Heaven will reveal much more than we will ever know here
and now. May we all strive to be there, as well as warn the world that Judgment has come (Rev. 14: 6,
7 and Rev. 11:18, 19)?
Also, who is to say that (with reference to challenge No. 13 above) Daniel 9:24 did not mean that after
death of the Messiah, the Heavenly sanctuary (the most Holy) was metaphorically/figuratively
anointed by Jesus blood at the end of the 70 weeks or 490 years? This event was clearly a part of
the 70 weeks prophecy, and is evidently a different event from the sanctuary cleansing, which comes
at the end of the 2300 years from which the 70 weeks of 490 years were cut of.

47

Quote:

14. He must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable than the
Rabbinical, and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of Atonement in
October.
15. He must then show that there are two apartments in the heavenly
sanctuary and that Christ moved from the holy place to the Most Holy place
in 1844. He must also show that when the New Testament says Christ
entered God's presence (Hebrews 9:12), this means the *first* apartment.
I will close by saying that I will address the last of the challenges (Nos. 14 and 15), and one or to
other considerations, in my next post (which will probably be the last one in response to the
list of challenges/objections I presented). What I have said so far should me much food for
thought.

Reply
Recommend
From:

Gilli2484

Delete

Message 14 of 34 in Discussion
Sent: 8/11/2004 5:56 AM

Quote:

14. He [the SDA] must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable than
the Rabbinical, and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of Atonement in
October.
15. He must then show that there are two apartments in the heavenly
sanctuary and that Christ moved from the holy place to the Most Holy place
in 1844. He must also show that when the New Testament says Christ
entered God's presence (Hebrews 9:12), this means the *first* apartment.
I have purposefully left for last the above "challenges". I will, however, deal with only the second
challenge of the two (i.e. No. 15) in this post.

DID JESUS MOVE TO ANOTHER SANCTUARY

APARTMENT IN 1844? - My Past Divergent View!!
The reality that the Heavenly Sanctuary most evidently has two apartments is proven by the simple
fact that Moses was commissioned to build the earthly from the "pattern" of the Heavenly. Now I
simply accept the clear parallel between the designs of the Heavenly and the earthly, despite there will

48

obviously be greater glories in the Heavenly Sanctuary, whose builder and maker is God.
Now if Jesus entered into the presence of God the Father since His ascension then it is logical that
this means:
1. He is directly and physically where the Father's throne is located ever since his ascension
2. Jesus is presently, and has ever been, since his ascension, on the throne with the Father (Rev.
3:21)
3. The Father's Heavenly throne room was represented in the earthly sanctuary by the Most Holy
Place (innermost compartment), the ark, and the shekinah glory between the sculptured golden
cherubims (See for proof Psalm 80:1).
Now, the following is how I honestly thought AT ONE TIME (IN OPPOSITION TO MY SDA CHURCH).
I thought that the above logically means that, contrary to Adventism's settled teaching, Jesus was
indeed in the Most Holy Place since His ascension, even if the Father's moveable throne (wheel within
a wheel, according to Ezekiel) could be placed elsewhere. I thought that I honestly could not see it
otherwise, if I go by the Bible data. Of course this is not the strict mainstream Adventist view, since it is
taught that Jesus never entered the Most Holy Place before 1844 (which would also mean the
Father's throne must have been absent from there too until 1844). At that time (in the past) I then was
adamant that I begged to differ with my Church (and democratically so), despite I still support 1844; I
have no qualms about the right of individual conscience on doctrinal matters, but also the showing of
equal respect for maintaining Church unity. But I thought at the time that this was one area where the
Church needs to revise this aspect of the teaching on 1844 and the Heavenly Sanctuary.
I did think that Jesus could still have been on the throne in the Most Holy Place, BUT HIS MINISTRY
BEFORE 1844 WAS IN THE ANTI-TYPICAL FIRST PHASE, AND THUS HIS FOCUS WOULD ONLY
HAVE BEEN ON THE SERVICES REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST APARTMENT, THE HOLY
PLACE.
Why? Because I thought that this must be so since Jesus is BOTH God (in nature) and man (our
human High priest), and must function in both roles. As God his presence is everywhere, including in
the Most Holy Place even before 1844. But what is to prevent us seeing Him, IN 1844, TURNING
FULL ATTENTION TO HIS MINISTRY IN THE MOST HOLY PLACE AND THE ANTI-TYPICAL DAY
OF ATONEMENT PHASE, AND THUS HIS FOCUS SINCE 1844 WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ON
WHAT CONCERNS THE ACTIVITIES IN THAT APARTMENT- JUDGMENT DAY (PATTERNING
YOM KIPPUR)? There was little to prevent me seeing that as being the case (or so I thought).
So the "movement" of Jesus from one apartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary to another in 1844 is best
seen (I felt then) as a movement of focus. It is best illustrated by God being everywhere ALL AT
ONCE (omni-present), but is represented as "going down" to punish the sinners at the tower of Babel
(Gen. 11:7). Can God move into a place despite He is already there? Yes! Because the focus of his
attention on a matter there allows us to see it that way. Seen this way (I thought), this viewpoint does
not overturn the SDA teaching (endorsed in vision by E.G. White), it just simply amplifies it, and it also
accepts the full teaching of the Bible on the matter of Jesus' location on the throne of the universe with
His Father (in the Most Holy Place). I further reasoned (then) that in Daniel 7:9-10, the putting of
"thrones" (plural) in place could have been BOTH the angelic seats, as well as that of the Father's, or
just that of the angels (since God's throne would usually be in the throne room - the Most Holy Place).
God is obviously probably not always on the throne literally sitting (since most earthly kings are not),
thus for Him to be pictured as coming in (as in a ceremony), and taking his royal seat (Jesus later
coming in too) does not necessarily mean his throne was elsewhere (although the language does
allow for this). So I try not to be dogmatic about this particular matter, since we just can't be sure.
But please note that in the next post I will be looking WHY I CHANGED MY HONESTLY HELD
DIVERGENT VIEW IN SOME THINGS (as described above), and I am NOW fully 'on board' with

49

the SDA Church's teaching on this matter.

The foregoing was my speculations at one point IN JUST ONE AREA OF THIS DOCTRINE, but what
is clear however (I still think so today, as that has always been crystal clear to me)) is that the antitypical ceremony of Yom Kippur, in the Jewish tradition of earthly types and ceremonies, MUST BE
ONE OF JUDGMENT, IN WHICH BOOKS ARE EXAMINED AND CASES DECIDED BY THE
SUPREME JUDGE OF ALL, BUT LOCATED IN THE MOST HOLY PLACE. I have no doubt this
started to happen since 1844, whether the world is ready or not, or whether the detractors here in "NO
SPIN" or elsewhere believe so or not. And remember that it is Jesus who is really the Judge of all
(John 5:22) and also our Advocate, as pre-determined by the Father, even if the symbol in Daniel 7
pictures the "Ancient of Days" examining the books and the Son of Man coming in after to receive the
kingdom. Never forget that we are dealing with symbols here, and that "the son of man" or Jesus
arriving in Daniel 7:13,14 could also symbolically represent the saints receiving the kingdom from the
Godhead after the Investigative Judgment is complete).
See you in the next post, where I will wrap things up, by looking WHY I CHANGED MY
HONESTLY HELD DIVERGENT VIEW (as described above), and also I will look at the
comparative advantages/disadvantages of the calendars used (Karaite and Rabbinical) to
determine the ending of the time prophecy of 1844.

Reply
Recommend
From:

Delete

Message 15 of 34 in Discussion
Sent: 8/11/2004 6:14 AM

Gilli2484

DID JESUS MOVE TO ANOTHER SANCTUARY APARTMENT IN 1844? -Part 2

*My Divergent Views Corrected!!!

In my last post I said that AT

ONE TIME I had reasoned, in part:

"Now if Jesus entered into the presence of God the Father since His
ascension then it is logical that this means:
1. He is directly and physically where the Father's throne is located ever
since his ascension
2. Jesus is presently, and has ever been since his ascension on the
throne with the Father (Rev. 3:21)
3. The Father's Heavenly throne room was represented in the earthly
sanctuary by the Most Holy Place (innermost compartment), the ark,
and the shekinah glory between the sculptured golden cherubims (See
for proof Psalm 80:1).
This logically means that, contrary to Adventism's settled teaching,
Jesus was indeed in the Most Holy Place since His ascension, even if the
Father's moveable throne (wheel within a wheel, according to Ezekiel)
could be placed elsewhere. I honestly cannot see it otherwise, if I go by

50

the Bible data. Of course this is not the strict mainstream Adventist
view, since it is taught that Jesus never entered the Most Holy Place
before 1844 (which would also mean the Father's throne must have
been absent from there too until 1844). I beg to differ (and
democratically so), despite I still support 1844...
I do think that Jesus could still have been on the throne in the Most Holy
Place, BUT HIS MINISTRY BEFORE 1844 WAS IN THE ANTI-TYPICAL
FIRST PHASE, AND THUS HIS FOCUS WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ON THE
SERVICES REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST APARTMENT, THE HOLY PLACE.
"
I will be honest to admit that I have gone back to review the established Adventist viewpoint
ON THIS PARTICLUAR ISSUE as it concerns "1844", and found that it is indeed compelling
when one takes the time to carefully study the arguments that have been presented since the
time of the SDA pioneers. And so I have deemed it necessary to review my points of contention (I
described earlier) in order to be a little more objective as I discuss and review the issue from both
sides.
First let me start by saying that I found out that it certainly not evidenced in the literal words of New
Testament Scripture that Jesus ascended directly to the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies), but this
theory must be assumed based on the argument that the Bible seem to suggest it. This assumption
must be based on reading it into (eisogesis) either Rev. 3:21 or Psalm 80:1. However I have found
that that is not conclusive since the Father's throne is indeed MOVEABLE (Ezekiel, chapters 1 and
10), and that God's shekinah glory did appear in the Old Testament sanctuary in other areas apart
from the Most Holy place (e.g. by the door), and the cherubims followed.
Therefore Psalm 80:1 is, by all intent and purposes it seems, a poetic expression of God "dwelling"
between the cherubims, but not a literal statement of Him always being immovably fixed above the ark
itself. GOD IS TOO BIG FOR THAT RESTRICTION!! Even in Heaven He is presented as not always
sitting on His throne, but can come in from elsewhere, as in Daniel 7: 9,10, to take up His position in a
ceremony, AFTER HIS THRONE IS PUT IN PLACE.
Also, since the Greek expression complex for the Most Holy Place (the Holy of Holies), "hagia hagion",
was used only once in the entire New Testament (in Heb. 9:3), then we can easily track the use of the
terms "hagion", used for the entire sanctuary itself or just a holy place like Heaven, and the use of
"hagia", used only for the first apartment of the sanctuary.
Now, interestingly, I found out (by doing a careful review of the Greek), that all places where it is
claimed that Jesus entered into the Most Holy Place into the presence of the Father is based on
speculation, because THE EXPRESSION COMPLEX, "HAGIA HAGION" IS MISSING!! The
expression used about Christ in the sanctuary in the presence of the Father is always "hagion" or "ta
hagia", which means simply either Heaven itself, or just the sanctuary on a whole (e.g. Heb. 9:8, and
Heb. 10:19).
Also, since the much debated expression, "the [temple] veil" needed a qualifying term "after [within]
the SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3) so as to clinch a more specific meaning, since there were two veils
to the temple, it is therefore not conclusive that Heb. 6:19 was referring specifically to behind the
"veil" of the Most Holy Place when it was written. It is obvious that to be in the Temple demanded that
one pass through, and is behind or within the first "veil" to the door of the Temple. Thus the expression

51

in Heb. 6:19 could be referring to any of the two veils, since Jesus was not a High Priest BEFORE his
incarnation, as He must have been made human to even minister in the Heavenly sanctuary in the
first place (Heb. 5). So his incarnation, obedience, and crucifixion opened the way, or gave Him the
right to His ministry in the Heavenly sanctuary, that is, He earned the right to be minister "within the
veil" or just simply the sanctuary itself. There is no evidence in the expression itself, "within the veil", in
Heb. 6:19 that this meant SPECIFICALLY, The Most Holy Place, and not just within the sanctuary
itself!!
It is quite interesting that in Rev. 8:3, Rev. 1:4 and 4:5 the presence of the altar as well as the
symbolic seven branched lamp (representing the Holy Spirit) are seen directly BEFORE (literally 'in
front of') the Throne of God and the Lamb (the same throne as in Rev. 3:21). ON EARTH (A
PATTERN OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY) THIS "LAMP" WAS IN THE FIRST APARTMENT OF
THE SANCTUARY, and this is compelling evidence that John's visions of Heaven before the arrival of
the Judgment scene (of Daniel 7:9, 10, and Rev. 11:18, 19) seem to place God's throne in the first
apartment of the Heavenly sanctuary.
I also find it very gripping that only when the Judgment "TIME" was introduced in Rev. 11:18, 19 ("the
TIME HAS COME") that John made reference to the Ark of the Covenant FOUND IN THE INNER
APARTMENT, thus strongly indicating that this apartment was opened ONLY when Judgment arrived
(which did not cover the whole Christian era).

All the above described, along with the fact that the Godhead's 'Presence' can ALSO be represented
by the showbread in the first apartment, makes compelling the established SDA viewpoint that prior to
the Investigative Judgment of 1844 God probably moved His throne to the first apartment (probably
since the incarnation, who knows?) to accommodate the proper sequencing of the work of Jesus the
true High Priest in the Heavenly sanctuary. Thus the signal of it being probably put back in place in the
Most Holy Place only at the fulfilled time of the Judgment scene in Daniel 7:9 does seem to have
merit.
Another possibility is that His throne was never in this second apartment of the Heavenly, until the
arrival of the Judgment scene, since the sanctuary was built around the salvation plan. Who knows?
Remember that after salvation is complete there is no longer the need for the temple? John
said in the New Earth he saw no temple!!!
Think long and hard on that point, and consider that God needs no "Most Holy Place" at all times to fix
His throne room.
The writings of the 'inspired' writer (by SDA understanding), E.G. White, describes the movement as
literally from one apartment to another in 1844, and because the Biblical evidence to FULLY disprove
this possibility is just not there, and because the SDA argumentation to this effect is indeed
compelling, then I will choose to believe that it may just have been so as 'SOP' writings described.
Whos to say too that (as I personally thought a while back) this description of movement from one
room/apartment to another is not visionary or symbolic language of movement of focus by Jesus, as
he enters upon a new phase in his ministry above?
But there is safety in surrendering one's divergent viewpoint when such viewpoint is not VERY
conclusive, and when it cuts across the grain of inspiration in the 'SOP' writings, and the collective
wisdom of the brethren.
If when I get to Heaven I discover that my take on this PARTICULAR ISSUE of 1844 was right all
along, I don't think I would have lost out on anything for not militantly pushing it, but I would have been
blessed for striving to maintain Church unity even though I had personal doubts.
See you in the next post, where I will wrap things up, and then will proceed THEREAFTER to

52

respond DIRECTLY to the "naysayers" here in "NO SPIN".

Reply
Recommend
From:

Gilli2484

Delete

Message 16 of 34 in Discussion
Sent: 8/11/2004 6:25 AM

CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND SUMMARY.

Before I close on the last point under consideration (see below), you may have realized that this
discourse leaned heavily on dispelling the erroneous view that Antiochus Epiphanes was the
TRUE little horn of Daniel 8. Why is this such a most relevant matter? It is a most relevant
matter because, if Antiochus was this horn, then the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14 (whether
interpreted as approximately 3.5, or over 6 years literally; depending on the preteristic school
of interpretation) this TIME prophecy then would have had no REAL further application beyond
his time. However, if the little horn was Rome, and the 2300 days were indeed to be
interpreted as years, then this is the only road on which anyone can travel in arriving at, and
understanding the relevance of 1844. I think SOLID AS A ROCK is the evidence of Rome being
the little horn (of Daniel 7 and 8), and the evidence that the entire vision of Daniel 8 (Daniel
8:13,14 and expanded on in Daniel 9) was to cover a period starting in the Medo-Persian period
and extending beyond Jesus time as far as 1844 (including along the way the arrival of the
TRUE abomination of desolation of the persecuting Roman power in A.D. 70, as Jesus made
plain in Matt. 24:15). And this, more than anything else convinces me of the relevance of 1844.
Now let me close by addressing the final point of contention I referred to in a list of challenges earlier
in this thread.
Quote:

He [the SDA believer] must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable
than the Rabbinical, and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of
Atonement in October.
It may come as a surprise to many that I do not have very much to say about this matter. Why? Simply
because I have learnt that it is prudent to determine at all times which battles are worth fighting;
considering the perceived outcome, and what purpose will be served in the first place. I have felt
strongly that I do not need to prove which calendar was better to fix the dating of Yom Kippur in 1844
(even though that knowledge is indeed attainable). That is so because the Investigative Judgment, by
all evidence, would cover, and is covering a PERIOD in these closing days of earths history (Rev.
11:18, 19 and Rev. 14:6, 7). Daniel 7: 9, 10 CLEARLY suggests that it comes just before the setting
up of the eternal kingdom of God and the execution of the little horn power, and near the end of the
tenure of the little horn power of the Roman Papacy (i.e. while that power is still literally in existence).
All evidence points to the time in which we live as that PERIOD.
Now, the Millerite Movement (pre-dating the formation of the SDA Church in 1863) made the
mistake of thinking that the event that would have occurred in October of 1844 was the
cleansing of the EARTH by fire (instead of the spiritual "cleansing" and re-establishment of
the spiritual and earthly temple of the TRUE Church, as well as the "cleansing" of the sin

53

record in the Heavenly sanctuary). Hence their belief that Jesus was to come in 1844 to
"cleanse" the earth with fire. It was not the SDA Church which made this 1844 mistake, but the
MULTI-DENOMINATIONAL MILERITE MOVEMENT!!! The SDA Church was officially formed in
1863!!! Never forget that.
But be that as it may, I still have no real difficulty with this matter of the Millerite mistake, simply
because if the Jews (Gods chosen people) could have made so many mistakes about the nature of
the true Messiah, and the disciples (Jesus closest followers) themselves were misguided themselves
(even while being physically with Jesus) about the nature of Jesus' spiritual kingdom on his first
arrival, then it is indeed understandable that sincere people can indeed be wrong in some areas
connected to a matter in theology, DESPITE THEY HAVE MUCH TRUTH IN OTHER AREAS!! The
Millerite mistake was about the nature of the event to take place in 1844; not the prophetic year itself!!
This whole thread clearly indicate that I do believe the Millerites had it right in their general calculation
of the "2300 year" prophecy of Daniel 8:14 (as expanded on in Daniel 9), but since Oct. 1844 WAS
more seriously relevant TO THE MILLERITES THEN (if it really was to point to the second Advent of
Jesus then), then my belief is that whether Yom Kippur it took place in September or October of the
year 1844 in the Jewish calendar is not a matter for me to fight over today. Nothing much is served by
straining at this proverbial gnat, because it is the YEAR, and the PERIOD we are now in that is most
important to prove or disprove, not the exact beginning date of the event.
I have no doubt that if I wanted I could sufficiently establish whether the opposition has a case in their
cry that Yom Kippur did occur in September, and not October in 1844, and I could also establish
whether the SDA Church has it right in stating that it was in October of that year, BUT I WILL LEAVE
THAT MATTER TO OTHERS TO DISPUTE OVER. The burden of proof for me in this thread was the
YEAR 1844, and the NATURE OF THE JUDGMENT EVENT, and I have been open and honest in my
treatment of this matter, where it matters.
I may have been seen as "impolite" to have so far ignored those who responded to me in this thread,
but I have striven to avoid undue controversy, so that the 'weightier' matters could be laid out without
too much controversial gaps along the way. Whosoever disliked that approach of mine, I apologize,
but I had my reasons, which you are free to assume for yourself (whether in the positive or negative
light), and even bring to judgment those reasons. I am not bothered in the least by that. My main
objective was to INFORM!! If this thread helps even ONE person to see the weightier matters more
clearly, then I would have not wasted my time. Those opposed to this thread, and wanted to pick away
at it in an endless round of battles, sorry if your aims were not served. BUT I WILL STILL RESPOND
TO YOU BRIEFLY HEREAFTER!!
P.S. If you wish to explore the matter of the calendars (Karaite and Rabbinite) the following take on
the issue might help:
Quote:

IS OCTOBER 22 [1844] THE CORRECT DATE?

Quoted from:
V. Ferrel's- A Biblical Defense Defending our Historic Beliefs about the Sanctuary in Daniel and
Hebrews (2003)

"Another charge of certain critics is that 1844 may have been the right
terminal year, but October 22 is the wrong ending date in that year. Can
we defend our position on this?
Was October 22 the correct Gregorian calendar equivalent to the day of
atonement on 10 Tisri in 1844? (10 Tisri, in the ancient Jewish calendar,

54

would be the tenth day of the seventh month. That was the date on which
Yom Kippur-the day of atonement-fell.) The Millerite believers unanimously
found that the Jewish day of atonement (Yom Kippur) in 1844 would occur
on October 22. None of their opponents at the time disagreed with this
view-and they had many opponents back then! But today, there are those
among us who question the date for one or the other of two reasons:
The first objectionIn a lengthy study presented at one of our important theological gatherings
of selected workers, quotations from modern Jewish rabbis were presented
stating that the Karaite and Rabbinite dating systems would not permit
Yom Kippur to fall on a Friday, Sunday, Monday, or Wednesday. The
impression was given that, therefore, in 1844 an October date would be
impossible.
The reply to that objection is quite simple: October 22 fell on a Tuesday
that year.
The second objectionThe other objection is this: Because the spring new moon might have
occurred on two different dates, it could have resulted in a September 23
or October 22 date. How can we today know which was right?
Frankly, they are questioning whether God correctly guided His people back
then to select the right date. But do we have further facts on this?
The Karaites knewFortunately, the Karaite sect of Jews, living in 1844, had continued the
ancient Jewish practice of carefully ascertaining the beginning of each year,
so they could religiously observe the correct Hebrew calendar.
In figuring the day of atonement in 1844, Miller and his associates relied on
the Karaite method of determining calendar dates, not the Rabbinite
system which was quite liberal. The Karaites were more concerned than
any other Jewish group to calculate by the ancient system. Yet some today
question whether the Karaites may have been correct that year.
Greater accuracy now-Fortunately, we now have a far more accurate
method of determining Jewish dates for 1844.
We can bypass the Karaite calendar and go to materials that have been
derived directly from contemporary texts of the ancient world. What we
want to know is when (in terms of the Babylonian system of intercalation,

55

which we know was the same system the Jews anciently used) did the
month of Tisri start in 458 and 457 BC. Those are the dates which
demarcated the fall-to-fall year during which Artaxerxes I issued his decree
and Ezra returned to Jerusalem with his fellow exiles.
These dates can be determined simply by looking them up in Parker and
Dubbersteins tables in their book, Babylonian Chronology (first published
in 1956). We are helped by the fact that 235 lunar months have the same
number of days as 19 solar years.
Therefore we do not need to be concerned with the specific years within
this intercalary cycle. We can simply divide the 19 years of the cycle into
the 2300 days of the prophecy. Every 19 years repeat themselves, so any
multiple of 19 years later would give the same date for 1 Tisri. Nineteen
goes into 2300 a total of 121 times with one left over.
If 19 had divided evenly into 2300, then 1 Tisri would have fallen on the
same Babylonian day in 1844 that it did in 458 BC. In order to deal with
that leftover year, we must consult the tables. They reveal variations from
year to year, depending on when the moon came up in the spring of the
year (something astronomers now can determine for every year in the
past).
Millerites correctFrom this we learn that, in the fall of 1844, it fell on October 22.
The Millerites only had to make a choice between one new moon or the
other in 1844 (an early Tisri or a late Tisri). They chose the late one-the
one recommended by the Karaites-and that was the correct one
when it is figured from the Babylonian lunar year of 458/457 BC.
It is true that the Karaites could have made a mistake. But we now know
from the reckoning of the tables that they were correct. So the Millerites
did have the right date. This has now been established as definitively as it
can be through the study of ancient mathematics and astronomy."