The Year-Day Principle Reexamined Short Version

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 1

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT)

Eduard C. Hanganu

B.A., M.A., Linguistics

Lecturer in English, UE

[email protected]

Draft 11

December 28, 2013

© 2013

Abstract

The traditional interpretation of the time prophecies in Daniel (chapters 7-12) and Revelation (chapters 9-13) has

been done from the theological perspective of the three main hermeneutical schools, – preterist, historicist, and

futurist. Preterists interpret these prophecies to refer to the prophet’s time, historicists as a Historical Time Outline,

and futurists as predictions of future events. Heirs of the Millerites, the Seventh-day Adventists [SDA] have adopted

both the historicist method of prophetic interpretation and its time hermeneutic, the Year-Day Principle [YDP] –

“the principle that a ‘prophetic day’ stands for a ‘year’ of actual calendrical time extending through the historical

events in which they were fulfilled.” The YDP, though, is a theological assumption, not a linguistic rule or biblical

principle. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the YDP has no linguistic basis or Biblical support and

cannot be used to interpret the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, which should be interpreted, instead, on a

case-by-case basis. The problems with the YDP start at its multiple and inconsistent labels and restrictive definition

which is based on an incorrect sample generalization. Almost all historicist textual support for the principle comes

from texts that belong to (1) historical narratives, (2) poetical texts, (3) agrarian laws, (4) Jubilee laws, and (5)

classical prophecies, and yet the principle’s definition restricts the YDP to symbolic and apocalyptic prophecies.

One main defense argument for the YDP is based on an apparent relationship pattern between the terms “day” and

“year,” that is claimed to precede a qualitative rule, but this relationship proves to be due to Hebrew idioms and

translation parallelism. Poetical parallelism is also claimed to precede the YDP, although no empirical evidence

could be provided to support the claim, as poetical parallelism is a rhetorical device that has an impact on the

immediate context, and does not extend its linguistic effect into other contexts. Agrarian and Jubilee legislations are

also assumed to support the time rule, but the historical evidence is that the Hebrews used a septenary time scale that

pervaded almost all aspects of the Hebrew religious and secular life, but there is no evidence that the heptadic time

model ever evolved into a pattern that could be generalized later into a linguistic rule. Numbers 14:34 and Exekiel

4:6, texts that have been considered fundamental in the defense of the YDP, contain literal time expressions, include

no general time rule, and have a local application to the narratives in which they are embedded. The apocalyptic

prophecies in Daniel and Revelation support the YDP only when they are used backwards – first interpreted through

the historicist filter, and then claimed as supporting the principle. The last historicist defense seems to be a

traditional application of the YDP, but tradition is never evidence for correctness and authenticity. The computation

of time expressions in the Bible indicates that the historicist time formula has been applied in a selective and

inconsistent manner to the biblical text, and this makes the historicist formula unscientific and unreliable. The

comparison between the Apotelesmatic Principle [APP] and the YDP indicates that both suffer from the same

methodological issues – selective and inconsistent applications – and neither can be considered scientific, empirical,

and reliable. The unavoidable conclusion is that the YDP is not a divine law, biblical principle, or scientific method,

but a theological assumption that has no linguistic support, is not grounded in the Bible, and cannot be defended

with the Bible. The time principle is illogical, unsound, and unreliable, should be discarded as a tool of prophetic

interpretation, and the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.


The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT)

The traditional interpretation of certain time prophecies in Daniel (chapters 7-12) and

Revelation (chapters 9-13) has been done from the theological perspective of the three main

hermeneutical schools, – preterist, futurist, and historicist. The difference between the three

schools, claims Shea, is that while preterism “focuses upon the past,” that is, “on the reign of

Antiochus IV Epiphanes” in Daniel and “especially on the reign of the emperor Nero”1 in

Revelation, and futurism “places the major emphasis of these two books in the future,”2

historicism “sees these prophecies as being fulfilled through the course of human history

beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them.”3 As historicists, the Seventh-day

Adventists [SDA] have adopted both the historicist method and its computation tool for the time

expressions in Daniel and Revelation – the Year-Day Principle [YDP] – that is, “the principle

that a ‘prophetic day’ stands for a ‘year’ of actual calendrical time extending through the

historical events in which they were fulfilled.”4

The YDP, though, is a theological assumption

and not a linguistic rule or biblical principle, in spite of Shea’s claim that “the application of the

year-day principle to the time periods in the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation has

been established through reasonable interpretations of Scripture.”5

The purpose of this paper is to show that the YDP has no linguistic basis or Biblical

support and cannot be used to interpret the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. This

outdated and obscurantist time method should be discarded and replaced with a discourse

approach to biblical exegesis. This change in time hermeneutics will also require the reevaluation

of the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation in order to align them with the new approach to

Biblical interpretation.

Labels and Parameters Problems

The problems with the YDP start at its multiple and inconsistent labels and restrictive

definitions.6 There are quite a few, and rather dissimilar, labels for the YDP, depending on the

SDA historicists who have proposed them. The “year-day principle”7 is called a “prophetic

scale,”8

“apocalyptic rule,”9

“year-day tool,”10

“biblical hermeneutic,”11

“method of

interpretation,”12

“year-day relationship,”13

“key to the historicist interpretation,”14

“year-day

equation,”15

“biblical datum,”16

etc. These labels are not equivalent. While “tool,”

“hermeneutic,” “method” and “relationship” are qualitative and rather vague, “scale,” “rule” and

“equation” are quantitative, specific, indicate generalization, and suggest a linguistic event with

high statistical average. The term “scale” requires special mention. The mathematical concept

designates a calibrated proportion with universal application whose value remains constant at all

times through all its applications. This numerical ratio is far from the SDA historicist “scale”

which, as will be further shown in this document, is applied at random and as an exception.

The YPD application parameters, or how the principle should be applied and to which

texts it should be applied, are also formulated in an imprecise manner. Here again, the multiple

and diverse SDA historicist statements about the YDP’s application appear to propose an uneven

and therefore inconsistent application range. Some of the most common SDA historicist claims

about the YDP’s application parameters are: “the year-day principle which says that a day in

apocalyptic time prophecies represents a year,”17

“the apocalyptic rule of a symbolic and

prophetic day equaling a historical year (Ezekiel 4:6; Numbers 14:34),”18

“according to the year-


day principle, a symbolic day in prophecy stands for a literal year,”19

“by the year-day principle,

as illustrated in Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6, a day in symbolic prophecy stands for a literal year,”20

“calculating prophetic days into literal years,”21

“according to the two principal texts …Numbers

14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6…a day is representative of a year and a year is representative of a day,”22

“historicists hold that in certain time prophecies, a ‘prophetic day’ represents an entire year of

actual calendrical time,”23

and “Ezekiel, then, has the day-for-a-year principle, while Numbers

has the year-for-a-day principle.” 24

These SDA historicist definitions suggest, then, that the YDP should be applied to: (1)

“prophecy” (unspecified), (2) “certain time prophecies” (unspecified), (3) “symbolic prophecy,”

and (4) “apocalyptic time prophecies.” Moon does not limit the YDP’s application to the

apocalyptic prophecies, but states that the principle should be applied to “certain time prophecies

[emphasis added],” which makes his YDP definition vague enough to be impractical because the

reader has no clear idea what kind of prophecies (classical, symbolic, or apocalyptic) would

require the YDP application.

Some theologians in the historicist tradition, such as Mede, were explicit in the extended

use of the YDP. Barnes comments that “He [Mede] maintained that, ‘alike in Daniel, and for

aught he knew, in all the other prophets, times of things prophesied, expressed by days, are to be

understood of years [emphasis added].’”25

In other words, Mede claimed that the YDP should be

applied without restrictions or qualifications to all prophetic passages in the Bible.

This extended YDP application to “all the other prophets,” that Mede seems to embrace

does not appear so eccentric when one consider the applications some SDA theologians have

proposed for the YDP in the Old Testament [OT]. The Glacier View scholars, for example, claim

that Laban used the YDP “computation” formula when he made the marriage deal with Jacob.26

Shea also contends that the YDP has been applied to (1) certain historical narrative texts where

the English “yearly” reads in Hebrew “from days to days” and other passages where the term

“day” stands for “year,” (2) certain poetical passages where “day” and “year” are parallel, (3)

some agricultural law texts which describe the weeks of years, (4) the Jubilee law texts where the

Jubilee years are calculated, (5) Daniel 9:24-25, the passage in which historicists claim that

prophetic weeks are used, and (6) some classical prophecy or symbolic action texts such as

Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 – that have been described for a long time as the main biblical

passages in the support and defense of the YDP.27

These texts reveal the major issue with the YDP’s definition – an incorrect sample

generalization.28

The examination of Shea’s list of time expressions to which the YDP has been

applied shows that almost all YDP support data comes from texts that belong to (1) historical

narratives, (2) poetical texts, (3) agrarian laws, (4) jubilee laws, and (5) classical prophecies. No

biblical text examples are proposed from apocalyptic prophecies due to the fact that “in the

apocalyptic texts this [‘one day stands for one year’] is never stated, it is an underlying principle

[emphasis added].”29

Data for the YDP generalization, then, is from texts that do not belong to

symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies, and yet the YDP definition restricts the principle’s application

to symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies! To limit the YDP application to symbolic, apocalyptic

prophecies, then, means to ignore the sample data, and that makes the principle invalid.


The Glacier View scholars also interpret Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 to refer to two

distinct principles of prophetic time calculation that should be applied to the prophetic passages

in Daniel and Revelation: “Ezekiel, then, has the day-for-a-year principle, while Numbers has

the year-for-a-day principle [emphasis added].”30

In Joreteg’s perspective, this ambiguous

situation needs prompt clarification because it is impossible to decide when each principle

should be applied and when not, and to which texts.31

Neufeld sees no textual evidence that Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 contain a “general

statement” that would require a universal application to the time expressions in the Bible as

“there is no indication in the prophecies themselves that any scale measure ought to be applied to

the ‘days,’ ‘months,’ or ‘times,’” and “there is no general statement in these passages suggesting

that a universal principle is set forth.”32

From his perspective, then, the YDP does not need to be

defined because there is no Scriptural evidence that the “general statement” exists.

Historicist Support for the YDP

The SDA historicist support and defense for the YDP comes from six categories of texts:

(1) historical narratives, (2) poetical passages, (3) agrarian legislation, (4) jubilee legislation, (5)

classical prophecies, and (6) apocalyptic prophecies.

(1). Historical Narratives

Shea claims that certain OT narratives contain texts that show a relationship pattern

between the terms “day” and “year,” and interprets this concurrence as the linguistic precursor to

the YDP.33

One such passage is Genesis 5 where the phrase “And all the days that X lived were

…years” repeats throughout the chapter. Moon refers to this repeated phrase as a “formula” that

together with the “equivalent parallelism” in the OT poetic texts creates the “linguistic

background of the year-day principle.”34

Genesis 29:27 is also claimed to show that “Jacob’s

period of service to Laban in return for his coveted bride Rachel must have been computed on

the year-day principle.”35

Shea mentions other OT narratives that seem to indicate that “there is

[in them] a recognition of a particular kind of relationship between ‘days’ and ‘years,’” as “in

these instances the word ‘days’ (always in the plural form) was actually used to stand for

‘years.’”36, 37

While it is true that “day” and “year” often occur together in certain OT narratives, the

claim that this “day-year” concurrence is due to a “Hebrew thought pattern” is a theological

assumption that Barr discards as philosophical speculation.38

Moreover, Shea never defines the

linguistic nature (morphological, syntactic, lexical, semantic, discursive, or idiomatic) of the

claimed “relationship.” Greswell contends that the “day-year” concurrence in the historical

narratives is idiomatic in nature, expressed in Hebrew idiomatic expressions,39, 40

and cannot be

accepted as a universal linguistic rule.

(2). Poetical Passages

The second group of texts where Shea claims to notice the YDP application is poetical

passages “in which these two units of time [‘year’ and ‘day’] are side by side in a particularly

close relationship.”41

This is due to the use of the rhetorical device known as parallelism. Shea


argues that the “year-day” poetical pairs that indicate a “close and particular relationship

between ‘days’ and ‘years’” are a linguistic device that “provides a background for more specific

application of this type of thought in apocalyptic time prophecies,”42, 43

but recognizes that, “the

poetic literature of the OT does not provide us with a year-for-a-day principle with which to

interpret time periods in prophecy [emphasis added].”44

Moon makes also an attempt to connect

the YDP with parallelism,45

but his exercise fails because there is no empirical evidence that a

rhetorical device used in a particular section of the Bible could evolve into a rule that would

govern time expressions all through the biblical text.

The OT poetical passages are interlaced with parallel rhetorical expressions because

parallelism is a common linguistic device in poetical texts, used to enhance the inspired

messages in the Hebrew poetical books. Lowth describes it as “the correspondence of one verse,

or line with another,”46

while Buchanan Gray states that the presence or absence of parallelism in

the OT books divides them into two classes.47,48

Poetical parallelism, though, is not a

hermeneutical “scale.” As a rhetorical device, it remains a figure of speech that has an impact on

the immediate context, and does not extend its linguistic effect into other contexts.

(3). Agrarian Legislation

The texts that deal with Hebrew agrarian legislation regulate labor and sacred time

celebration. Shea claims that Leviticus 25:1-7 is “the earliest biblical text in which the year-day

principle is reflected,”49

that “the sabbatical year [in Leviticus 25] is modeled from the sabbatical

day,” and that this shows “a direct relationship between the ‘day’ and the ‘year’ since the same

terminology was applied to both.”50

This relationship seems to lead to a quantitative modification

in Leviticus 25:8, in which “the day-year principle operates the same way here as it does in

Daniel – the use of ‘days’ (extended into the future) to mark off the ‘years’ of the future.”51

It

also seems that “here [in Leviticus 25:8] terminology for a one-week or seven-day period is

applied to a seven-year period. This is the day-for-a-year method of reckoning.”52

Moon shares

the same perspective,53

but both scholars fail to explain what it means that “the year-day

principle is reflected” in Leviticus 25:1-7 and how the sabbatical heptads have generalized into

the universal quantitative rule that is the YDP.

Tregelles examines Leviticus 25 from a less speculative position and sees it as part of the

Hebrew time model, the “septenary scale,” used “just as habitually as we should reckon by tens;

the sabbatical years, the jubilee, all tended to give this thought a permanent place in their

mind.”54

Terry concurs, and provides multiple examples of the number seven used in almost all

aspects of the Hebrew religious life.55

This heptadic time model, though, never evolved into a

pattern that could be generalized later into a linguistic “rule” or mathematical “equation.”

(4). Jubilee Legislation

The “reflection” of the YDP in Leviticus 25 appears to extend, in Shea’s perspective,

from the agrarian laws that are described in the first part of the chapter (verses 1-7) to the Jubilee

legislation included in the second part of the same chapter (verses 8-55). Both sections in

Leviticus 25 are written in literal language, and, according to the YDP definition, the historicist

principle should not be applied to them. Still, Shea claims that the YDP applies to both sections


of the chapter, and that “the day-year principle operates the same way here [in Leviticus 25:8-55]

as it does in Daniel [9:24-27],”56, 57 which he considers to be “established through reasonable

interpretations of Scripture.”58, 59

The application of the YDP to the prophetic message in Daniel 9:24-27 requires, though,

the translation of sabu’im as “weeks” and not as the alternative “sevens.”60 The

second option

would not be acceptable to Shea because it would weaken the current SDA historicist position on

the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, “blunt the implications of the year-day principle

advocated by the historicist system of interpretation,” and make the YDP application to Daniel

9:24-27 questionable,61 an action that would be nothing less than the Dragon’s attack on the

“remnant.”62

Pfandl concurs with Shea on the issue, but notes that Ford and the revised Seventh-day

Adventist Bible Commentary [SDABC] scholars hold the view that “the year-day principle is not

involved in Daniel 9 [24-27].”63, 64

Other SDA scholars who favor the rendition “sevens” instead

of “weeks” are Heppenstall,65

LaRondelle,66, 67, 68, 69 and Hasel, who warns the readers that

“Daniel 9:24-27 is a crux interpretum in OT studies” (a biblical passage that eludes

interpretation)70

and notes that the Septuaginta and Theodotion, the translations of the Hebrew

OT into Greek, use the word “hebdomads” to render the Hebrew term sabu’im into English,71

while in post-biblical Hebrew “the meaning of ‘week’ in the sense of ‘weeks of years’ occurs

hundreds of times.”72

The theologian also mentions several non-SDA scholars (such as E. J.

Young, H. C. Leupold, and Carl F. Keil) who favor the reading “sevens” instead of “weeks.”73, 74

Hasel reviews the possible arguments for the rendition of sabu’im as “sevens” and which are (1)

lexical,75

(2) morphological,76, 77, 78

(3) syntactical,79

(4) rhetorical,80

and (5) translation, but he

doesn’t consider them adequate for a definitive conclusion in the matter.81 Numerous

theologians and Hebraists favor the translation “sevens” over “weeks” for sabu’im in Daniel

9:24-27. Among them are Lurie,82, 83 Tregelles,

84, 85, 86 Terry,

87 Barnes,

88 Stuart,89

Walvoord,90, 91,

92 Leupold,

93, 94 and Young.95, 96

(5). Classical Prophecies

The Glacier View scholars claim that “the two principal texts that support the year-day

method of interpretation [are] Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6,”97

and argue that Numbers 14:34

is a prophecy because it is “a punitive declaration made in advance.”98

Shea concurs, links

Numbers 14:34 with Leviticus 25, and mentions that Numbers 14:34 includes “the third specific

use of the year principle.”99

Tregelles contends that “there is nothing [in Numbers 14:34] that

implies a principle of interpretation,” and that “in the prophetic part of the verse, years are literal

years, and not the symbol of anything else,”100

while Stuart insists that the time periods in both

Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 are literal and not figurative and that there is in both texts an

“express mention and appointment, that days should correspond with years” that prevents

misunderstanding about the time units involved.101 Terry concurs with Tregelles and Stuart that

there is no support in Numbers 14:34 for the claim that the text defines a general principle

because the text is written in literal language, and notes that the “judgment was pronounced on

that generation,” and not formulated as a perpetual religious law.102

The second main text used to support the YDP is Ezekiel 4:6, and the SDA theologians

claim that the text also contains a universal linguistic rule,103

but ignore the fact that the


punishment in Numbers 14:34 was for unbelief and rebellion, while the acted parable104

in

Ezekiel 4:6 was intended to bring God’s people to repentance. Shea sees the YDP “reflected”

both in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6,105

while the Glacier View scholars see a different

principle in each texts. 106

Shea, though, interprets the different “formulas” in Numbers 14:34 and

Ezekiel 4:6 as normal YDP application variants.107

Terry objects that in both biblical passages

the text is literal, and that, therefore, no universal application could be drawn from them,108

while

Stuart and Tregelles concur with him.109, 110

(6). Apocalyptic Prophecies

This group includes texts the SDA historicists have claimed to be apocalyptic prophecies

and have interpreted from a historicist perspective. Because their prophetic message was

assumed prior to exegesis, though, these texts have been misinterpreted. This interpretation

approach, known as petitio principii, or “assuming the initial point” is fallacious because it is

based on an alleged or assumed fact,111

and not on empirical confirmation. Some texts in the

group are claimed to have passed the “pragmatic test,” which the Glacier View scholars consider

to be “the final arbiter in determining whether the time periods are literal or symbolic.”112, 113

Shea expands on the same claim and mentions two kinds of evidence under the “pragmatic test:”

(1) “historical fulfillment,” and (2) the “predictive use.” His first example is the fulfillment of the

“70 [prophetic] weeks of Daniel 9:24-27,”114

while the second is Cressener’s calculation on the

fulfillment of the 1260 days in Revelation 11-13, which, claims the SDA historicist, was fulfilled

with “extraordinary chronological accuracy.”115

To link prophetic fulfillment with the YDP, though, is to commit the non sequitur116

and

the post hoc117

fallacies. The first occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the evidence,

and the second when a false cause is claimed for an event. For instance, Daniel 9:24-27 could

confirm the YDP only if sabu’im means “weeks.” If sabu’im is read as “sevens” the YDP is not

needed and is not validated in the interpretation of the prophetic passage. Certain prophecies in

Daniel and Revelation seem to fulfill fictitious historicist events while actual historical events are

dismissed as irrelevant. For example, the SDA historicists ignore the historical evidence that the

horn in Daniel 8:9-14 is Antiochus Epiphanes and claim that only the Papacy meets the little

horn criteria. Also, some time prophecies were reinterpreted after the erroneous predictions

failed in order to protect the SDA historicists from the embarrassment that would follow the

acknowledgement that their time interpretations were incorrect.

The most difficult issue the SDA historicists face in their defense of the YDP is that their

support texts have nothing to do with symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies, while their YDP

definitions limit its application to symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies. This creates a fundamental

contradiction between the definition, support, and application of the YDP. From this perspective,

Tregelles argues that, “a distinction has, indeed, been drawn between symbolic and literal

prophecies,” and that “if this distinction be good, no literal prophecies ought to be brought

forward amongst the supposed proofs.”118

YDP Support from Tradition

Shea argues in “Year-Day Principle – Part 2”119

that “the year-day principle was known

and applied by Jewish interpreters during the second century down to the post-Qumran period,”


and that “it is no longer tenable to hold that the principle was a ninth century A. D.

phenomenon.”120

Pfandl echoes the claim, and states that “the historicist method of interpretation

is not a Johnny-come-lately on the theological scene, rather it rests on a solid biblical and

historical foundation.”121

His claim is a non sequitur122

because an appeal to tradition123

or

argumentum ad antiquitatem, is a fallacious argument that does not count as evidence.124

Shea

himself cautions his readers that tradition is no evidence that Daniel applied the YDP or that the

historicist principle is correct,125

while Ellen G. White’s warns often against the use of tradition

to defend beliefs.126, 127

The “evidence” Shea presents is from second century Jewish interpreters who “were first

and foremost in the application of the year-day principle to the prophecies.”128

His sources are

the Hellenistic Jewish Literature,129, 130, 131

written in the Jubilee language (but the conclusion

that these texts support the YDP is a non sequitur), 132

the Qumran Literature133, 134, 135, 136

that

adds Daniel’s “70 weeks” to the previous topic, and the Post-Qumran Interpreters137

such as

Josephus who “applied the ‘little horn’ of Daniel 8 to Antiochus Epiphanes” and “took the time

element of the prophecy as literal time,”138

but whose historical statements have been distorted to

appear that he “understood the 2300 evening-mornings as longer, not shorter than the 1290

days,” and that he “interpreted the 70 weeks as symbolic.”139

Among the Post-Qumran

Interpreters, the Early Rabbinical Interpreters, 140, 141, 142

use Leviticus 25 language that deals

with labor and the Jubilee. None of this literature can support the YDP, and appears to fall under

fallacious manufactured evidence,143

that is, text distortion and misinterpretation aimed to protect

the historicist assumed principle.

Shea’s claims that the YDP was used in the first centuries are contradicted by scholars

such as Tregelles who argues that Daniel “understood seventy years to mean seventy years, and

not twenty-five thousand two hundred years [emphasis in the original],”144

Maitland, who

expands on Tregelles’s position and states that the YDP “was altogether unknown by the Jewish

church before the Christian era—by the Apostles of our Lord—by the primitive church—by the

Fathers,”145

and Elliot, who confirms Maitland’s assertion and states that “for the first four

centuries, the days mentioned in Daniel’s and the Apocalyptic prophecies respecting Antichrist

were interpreted literally as days, not as years, by the Fathers of the Christian church.”146

Burgh

and Tregelles confirm and expand on Elliot’s contentions.147, 148

Maitland argues that Josephus provides definitive evidence that, indeed, the Jews and the

Christians in the first centuries were not familiar with the YDP and never used the historicist

principle as a hermeneutical tool because the Jewish historian “understood the times of Daniel to

mean literal years,” and applied the desecration of the temple to Antiochus Epiphanes.149

Barnes

states that there is no evidence that Martin Luther used the YDP in his biblical interpretation,150

while Stuart explains that the first knowledge of the YDP came from Mede’s published book on

Revelation.151

Douty takes the position, supported with undeniable evidence, that the earliest

time theologians used the YDP in the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation was in the ninth

century, and that there is no evidence for the use of the YDP in the first centuries.152

The data submitted above shows that the SDA historicist claim that the YDP was used

during OT times and in the first centuries is not supported with facts. Even if the evidence from

tradition were genuine and empirical, though, that still does not change the fact that such


documentation “does not ‘prove’ that this [YDP] method of prophetic interpretation was applied

by Daniel, nor does it ‘prove’ the correctness of such a method.”153

Historicist Application of the YDP

The traditional application of the YDP has been, as Moon puts it, not to all prophecies in

Daniel and Revelation, but to “certain time prophecies [emphasis added]”154

because the

principle’s application has been limited and selective. This becomes obvious when one considers

the total number of biblical texts to which the YDP has been applied, and which are, notes

Tregelles, not more than ten. The texts he mentions are Daniel 7:25; 8:14; 12:7, 11, 12 and

Revelation 9:5, 10, 15; 11:9, 10.155

The SDA historicists have followed, for the most part, the

application tradition and have also applied the YDP to a small and selected number of texts, less

than 20 in all, although the specific applications of the principle differ to a certain degree from

theologian to theologian.

Some texts claimed to “reflect” the application of the YDP have been discussed earlier in

the paper, and the conclusion has been that the claims did not survive the investigation. Among

such texts are Genesis 29:27,156

Leviticus 25:1-7,157, 158

Leviticus 25:8-55, 159, 160

Numbers

14:34,161

Ezekiel 4:6,162

and Daniel 9:24. Concerning this last text Shea affirms that “all

commentators on Daniel agree that the events prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27 could not have been

completed within a literal 70 weeks or one year and five months.”163

While this is true, it is also

true that Daniel 9:24 does not seem to need the YDP in order to be interpreted when sabu’im is

rendered in English as “sevens” or “heptads.” Numerous theologians and Hebraists hold this

perspective, among whom are Heppenstall164

and the SDA historicist scholars who contributed to

the revised SDABC.165

Daniel 8:14 deserves special mention among the texts the SDA historicists interpret with

the YDP because it seems to be a crucial passage in connection with the “sanctuary doctrine” and

the teaching that “the heavenly sanctuary is to be cleansed from the sins of the professed people

of God.”166

The context of Daniel 8:14, though, indicates that the verse is not part of the

apocalyptic prophecy but part of the literal explanation of the vision in Daniel 8:1-12, as

Tregelles has argued.167

This means that according to the YDP definition that restricts its

application to apocalyptic prophecies, the application of the YDP to Daniel 8:14 is not correct

and legitimate.

Even if Daniel 8:14 was an apocalyptic text, its SDA historicist interpretation remains

questionable because it does not appear to be based in true historical facts. Most theologians

have applied the verse to Antiochus Epiphanes and to his suppression of the Jewish religion.

Stuart shows the evidence when he summarizes the historical events that are the factual basis for

the prophetic vision in Daniel chapter 8.168

McHarg writes a detailed and effective 12-point case

based on Jewish historical evidence that Antiochus Epiphanes IV is the little horn in Daniel 8,169

and demonstrates that Antiochus meets the prophetic narrative criteria for the little horn. In order

to provide more factual support for his arguments, McHarg also includes a dramatic quote from

William Barclay about what the Jews suffered at Antiochus Epiphanes IV’s hand.170

The application of the YDP to Daniel 8:14 is also problematic when one considers that

the traditional SDA historicist translation of nitzdaq as “cleansed” has no historical and

contextual basis. The arguments intended to defend this rendition, such as those in the paper


Davidson wrote171, 172

are not credible. The scholar attempts to superimpose on the Hebrew term

a semantic range that includes “cleansed,” “restored,” and “vindicated.” That his exegetical

approach does not work is obvious when one tries to extend it to all Daniel 8, the entire prophetic

book, or the entire text of the Bible. Under such exegetical parameters – each Hebrew term

assigned multiple “meanings” – the interpretation of Daniel or the Bible would generate absurd

results. The evidence from historical and linguistic data appears to indicate, therefore, that the

best English translation for the Hebrew term nitzdaq in Daniel 8:14 is “restored [to its rightful

state (RSV)].”

The application of the YDP to Daniel and Revelation has also generated some odd results

among which is the “prophetic year,” a theoretical, calculated time period that runs for 360 days

and not for 365 days as the natural astronomic year does.173

The biblical passage used in this

calculation is Daniel 7:25 in connection with Revelation 11:2, 3174 and 12:6.

175 Similar to Daniel

8:14, though, Daniel 7:25 is part of the literal explanation the angel delivers to Daniel about the

vision, and not part of the apocalyptic prophecy, and this makes the historicist YDP application

to Daniel 7:25 incorrect.

Time Expressions and YDP Application

In 2003, Adventist Today published a critical paper on the YDP176

in which I included the

quantitative tabulation of all time expressions in the KJV Bible, including Daniel and Revelation,

and evidence that the SDA historicists have applied the YDP only to a selected fraction of those

time expressions. Fisel stated that the count I had submitted was “less than accurate,” because I

had included “many passages in which time periods refer to ongoing historical events, and would

not normally be subject to the application of the formula.”177

The fact, though, is that the

tabulated data on the time expressions in the KJV Bible that I had submitted has been important

in order to assess whether or not the YDP has been applied in a consistent manner to biblical

texts. Ouro contends in his paper on the Apolesmatic Principle [APP] that “if [the APP] is indeed

a fundamental principle of interpretation and a scientific methodology, then it should apply to

prophetic texts throughout the Bible.”178

This criterion also applies to the YDP. The historicist

“rule” is either applied to all the time expressions in the Bible or it is not applied at all. A

selective application of a rule is no application at all.

In order to obtain a count of all the time expressions in the Bible, I performed a search on

the KJV Bible text with the Bible Works179

search engine. The search showed 4138 time

expressions in the entire KJV Bible, with 98 time expressions in Daniel, and 55 time expressions

in Revelation. The count included both the multiples and submultiples of the “day” as standard

chronological time mentioned in the Bible.180

A more accurate computation is obtained from the

original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was written. Because the examination

of all the time expression in the Bible is time and space intensive, this paper will limit the

investigation to Daniel and Revelation.

The detailed examination of the manner in which the YDP is applied to Daniel shows that

this application is irregular and selective. For instance, the principle is not applied to narrative

passages, although it is applied to Genesis 5:1-32181

and 29:27.182

The YDP is applied to the term

iddan (time) in Daniel 7:25, but it is not applied to the same Hebrew term in Daniel 3:5 and 7,183

or in Daniel 4, although the time periods are expressed in uncommon units in the chapter.184


Daniel 10 is stated to be “given largely in literal language,”185

and for this reason the YDP is not

applied there, although it has been applied to other literal passages in the same book. In Daniel

12, the principle is also applied to verse 7 (the 1290 days), but no verifiable historical event

could be linked to the date 186

Out of the 63 texts that contain time expressions, the YDP has

been applied to 8 texts. The application rate is about 11%, or 1 in 9 texts, and that makes the

texts to which the YDP has been applied the exception, and not the rule in the application of the

principle.

The SDA historicists have applied the YDP in the same irregular and selective manner to

Revelation. Kairos (time) is interpreted as a vague time reference in 1:3,187

and the same happens

with emera (day) in 2:13, although the YDP is applied to the same term in 2:10.188

Hora (hour)

in Revelation 3 is interpreted as vague,189

and so is chronos (time) in chapter 6.190

In chapter 8,

hemiorion (half an hour) is interpreted with the YDP,191

although perspectives are divided in the

matter. Verses 5 and 10 in chapter 9 have been considered for a while as evidence for the

“pragmatic test”192

as both William Miller and Josiah Litch have applied the YDP to it, but when

the prediction failed the claim was abandoned.193

No YDP application is made for emera (“day”)

in Revelation 6:7 but chronos (time) in verse 6 is interpreted as a reference to the end of the

“2300 day prophecy.”194, 195

Chapters 11 (the 42 months in verse 2, the 1260 days in verse 3, and

the 3 ½ days in verses 9 and 11),196, 197, 198, 199

12 (the 1260 days in verse 6 and 3 ½ times in verse

14),200

and 13 (the 42 months in verse 5) are considered essential to the SDA historicist

interpretation of Revelation, and the YDP has been applied to them, but ora (hour) in chapter

14:7 and 15 has been interpreted as nonspecific historical time.201

The same is the case with ora

(hour) in chapter 17,202

and emera (day) in chapter 18. 203 The YDP is also not applied to the

“1000 years” in Revelation 20.204

Out of the 45 texts that contain time expressions, the YDP has

been applied to 13 texts. The application rate is about 28.9 %, or 1 in 3.5 texts, and as with the

YDP application to Daniel this makes the texts to which the YDP has been applied the exception,

and not the rule in the application of the principle.

The facts also indicate that an unrestricted application of the principle to all the time

expressions in the Bible would generate strange results in numerous cases. This is the conclusion

drawn by Terry,205, 206, 207, 208

Tregelles,209, 210, 211, 212, 213

and Stuart,214, 215, 216, 217

who consider

such results evidence against the YDP. Some dedicated historicists, such as Elliot, have applied

the YDP even to biblical passages that the more tempered SDA historicists have never

considered for an application,218, 219, 220

and the results have been bizarre. This information is

relevant because the scholar has applied the principle to those texts from the perspective that the

YDP should be applicable to all the time expressions in the Bible and not only to a few selected

ones as the principle has been applied in the historicist tradition.

In his arguments against the YDP, De Burgh disputes the historicist school’s position that

interprets all the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation “as being fulfilled through the

course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them,”221

and “intended

by its ancient author[s] to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span

between his day and the eschaton [emphasis in the original].”222

De Burgh’s contention is that

the historicist school places an artificial and unbiblical restriction on the fulfillment of those

prophecies and schedules Christ’s Second Coming at the convenience of the historicist

theologians.223

That the Second Coming could not have occurred before the “2300 day” SDA

historicist prophetic period had ended is an unacceptable idea even to some SDA theologians


such as Neufeld. He contends that “if certain conditions have been met, Jesus would have come

earlier, seemingly as early as the generation specified in Matthew 24:24,”224

and that “at

whatever time the fulfillment would have come, the Holy Spirit could have provided the

appropriate scale”225

for the prophecies.

The APP and YDP Compared

In his article on the APP, Ouro describes it as unscientific and inconsistent, and denies

the claim that the principle is a legitimate hermeneutical method.226

The same criticism applies to

the YDP, the hermeneutical “rule” or “equation”227

which the SDA theologians consider

indispensable for the interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.228

The APP is the solution Ford has proposed in his manuscript, Daniel 8:14,229

for the multiple

theological issues that have confronted the SDA historicists because of their questionable

prophetic interpretations due in part to their selective YDP application.

Both Ford and the SDA historicists interpret the Bible as a “roadmap” that covers the

historical time from the creation to the end of the world and includes reference points or

“historical landmarks.” 230, 231 Embedded in the definitions for both the APP

232 and YDP233 is the

inconsistent and selective manner in which the two “principles” will be applied – that not all the

Bible, but some prophecies in Daniel and Revelation might be interpreted with these

hermeneutical tools. Such selective applications of the APP and the YDP are inconsistent and

unscientific – application failures – because scientific rules must be universal in their application

ranges and effects.234

Ford and the SDA historicists also accept and use the APP in their interpretation of the

Scriptures – Daniel and Revelation included. Their disagreement is about application details, that

is, to which texts should the APP be applied, and to which it should not be applied. Both the

SDA historicists and Ford make dual applications to some OT prophecies. For this reason Ford

supports and defends the APP with numerous quotations from the SDABC in order to

demonstrate that the difference between him and the SDA theologians is in the selection of the

biblical texts for the APP application and nothing else.235

Ouro argued that if the APP were “a fundamental principle of interpretation and scientific

methodology,” then it would be applied “to prophetic texts throughout the Bible, and not only to

a few selected biblical passages.”236, 237

The same inconsistent and selective hermeneutical

approach is evident in the SDA application of the APP to various biblical texts. For instance, the

SDA historicists have applied the principle to the seven churches in Revelation from the

perspective that the seven local churches also represent the “seven consecutive periods of church

history.”238, 239, 240

The SDA theologians, though, do not recognize a dual application to the

vision in Daniel 8:8-14 that would allow both Antiochus Epiphanes IV and Rome as candidates

for the little horn role. This interpretation would not be acceptable because “the only consistent

method of interpreting the prophetic chapters of Daniel is that suggested by the historicist

school,” and “since the little horn of chapter 7 cannot be Antiochus IV the little horn in chapter 8

should not represent him either.”241, 242


Ouro’s criticism of the APP has been focused on two issues that are essential for a correct

rule application: 1. text pool (the texts to which the APP will be applied), and 2. application

parameters (how the APP will be applied to the texts). His research on the APP provided

evidence that the principle suffers from (1) limited application (the application range is too

small), and (2) selective application (the application is limited to selected texts).243, 244

Neufeld

makes his case against the YDP as a hermeneutical principle and shows that the SDA traditional

application of the method to the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation has always been

inconsistent and selective, and that some Bible texts have been arbitrarily excluded from the

YDP application pool.245

The two application issues confront both the APP and the YDP. In

response to Ouro’s criticism that Ford (1) has not applied the APP throughout the Bible, and that

Ford (2) has applied the APP in a selective manner to biblical texts, we have also shown that the

SDA historicists have applied the YDP in the same irregular and selective manner to Daniel and

Revelation.

Conclusion

The factual data submitted in this paper has provided ample evidence for the unavoidable

conclusion that the YDP, as an SDA historicist prophetic time computation method, is not a

divine law, biblical principle, or scientific method, but a theological assumption that has no

linguistic support, is not grounded in the Bible, and cannot be defended with the Bible. This

conclusion is based on the evidence derived from (1) the unscientific definition, (2) the

questionable support (3) the irregular and selective application of the principle, (4) the bizarre

and even absurd interpretations, and (5) the absence of a true linguistic background. The

principle is illogical, unsound, and unreliable, and should be discarded as a hermeneutical

method of prophetic interpretation and replaced with the discourse approach – a verified

scientific method for Biblical interpretation.


References

1William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm (Spring

2003), 22:2. 2Ibid., 22:3.

3Ibid., 22:4.

4William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series

volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.

Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 67. 5Ibid., 104.

6John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

7Gerhard Pfandl, “The Year-Day Principle,” Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April

2007, 1.

8Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Review

and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Ezekiel 4:6.

9William H. Shea, “Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the

2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (Spring

2001), 89.

10

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special

Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 21.

11

Ibid., 30.

12

Ibid., 44:2.

13

Ibid., 44:1.

14

Ibid., 44:3.

15

William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series


Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 103.

16




17

Gerhard Pfandl, “The Year-Day Principle,” Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April

2007, 1.

18

William H. Shea, “Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the

2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (Spring

2001), 89.

19

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Review and

Herald Publishing Association,1978), Year-Day Principle.

20

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Review

and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 7:25.

21


Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 44:1.

22

Ibid., 44:3.

23

Jerry Moon, “The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days,” Adventist Today, volume 10,

number 4, July-August 2002, 14-15.

24



25

Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Explanatory and Practical (London: Blackie &

Son, 1851), xxiii.

26



27



Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 79-95.

28

John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

29

Gerhard Pfandl, “In Defense of the Year-day Principle, Journal of the Adventist Theological

Society, 23/1 (2012), 9.

30



31

Toby Joreteg, “Reexamining the Year-Day Principle in Prophetic Interpretation,” Adventist

Today, volume 10, number 3, May-June 2002, 19.


32

Don F. Neufeld, “This Generation Shall Not Pass,” Adventist Review, April 5 1979, 6.

33

William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1 and 2,” Daniel and Revelation Committee

Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.


34


number 4, July-August 2002, 14.

35

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” Ministry, Special


36




37

Ibid., 79-80.

38

James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: SCM Press, 1961), 8-20.

39

Edward Greswell, Fasti Tempores Catholici and Origines Kalendriae (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1852), 151-152.

40

Ibid., 152.

41




42

Ibid., 81.

43

Ibid., 81-82.

44

Ibid., 81.

45



46

Robert Lowth, Isaiah, A New Translation with A Preliminary Dissertation and Notes (Boston:

William Hilliard, 1834), ix, 1-2.

47

George Buchanan Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (New York: Hodder and Stoughton,

1915), 37-38.

48

Ibid., 38.


49



Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 83. 50

Ibid., 84-85.

51

Ibid., 85. 52


Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46. 53


number 4, July-August 2002, 14. 54

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel

Bagster and Sons, 1866), 95.

55

Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 382.

56William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series


Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 85. 57

Ibid., 85. 58

Ibid., 104. 59

Ibid., 85-86. 60

Ibid., 89:2. 61

Ibid., 89:3. 62

Jack J. Blanco, “The Historicist Interpretation of Prophecy: Its Present Relevance in the Light

of the Holy Spirit,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 2/2 (1991): 67-80.

63Gerhard Pfandl, “In Defense of the Year-day Principle,” Journal of the Adventist Theological

Society, 23/1 (2012), 10. 64

Ibid., 10-11. 65

Edward Heppenstall, “The Year-Day Principle in Prophecy,” Ministry, October 1981, 18. 66

J. Hans K. LaRondelle “Christ or antichrist: The mysterious gap in Daniel 9,” Ministry, May

1982, 14-15. 67

Ibid., 15:2.

68

Ibid., 15:3.


69

Ibid., Ministry, July 1982, 12.

70

Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27,” Ministry, May 1976, 5 D.

71Ibid., 5 D.

72Ibid., 6 D.

73Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Hebrew Masculine Plural for “weeks” in the Expression “seventy

weeks” in Daniel 9:24,” Andrews University Studies, Summer 1993, No. 2, 105.

74

Ibid., 106:1.

75

Ibid.,106:2.

76

Ibid., 105.

77

Ibid., 107:2.

78

Ibid., 107:3.

79

Ibid., 107:4.

80

Ibid., 107-108.

81

Ibid., 105-106.

82

David H. Lurie, “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘sevens’ and the Chronology of the Seventy

‘sevens,’” JETS 33/3 (September 1990), 304.

83

Ibid., 306.

84



85

Ibid., 95.

86

Ibid., 115-117.

87


88

Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (London: Blackie & Son, 1851), xxx.

89

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M. H. Newman, 1845), 462.

90

John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Publishers,

1971), 216.


91

Ibid., 217.

92

Ibid., 219.

93

H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1949), 406.

94

Ibid., 409.

95

Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: W. M. B. Berdmans Publishing

Co., 1949), 191.

96

Ibid., 195.

97



98

Ibid., 45.

99




100



101

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M. H. Newman, 1845), 461.

102Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 386-

387.

103J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special


104




105

Ibid., 88.

106



107





108

Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 387

up.

109

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 461.

110



111

Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 260.

112J. Robert Spangler (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special


113

Ibid., 46.

114




115

Ibid., 101.

116



117

Ibid., 263.

118


Bagster and Sons, 1866), 118-119.

119




120

Ibid., 105.

121


2007, 3.

122



123


2007, 3.

124




125




126

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association,

1950), 107.

127

Ibid., 122.

128




129

Ibid., 106:2.

130

Ibid., 106:3.

131

Ibid., 107.

132



133




134

Ibid., 107.

135

Ibid., 108:2.

136

Ibid., 108:3.

137

Ibid., 109:2.

138

Ibid., 109:3.

139

Ibid., 109:2.

140

Ibid., 109-110.

141

Ibid., 110:2.

142

Ibid., 110:2.

143


Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261-265.


144


Bagster and Sons, 1866), 123-124.

145

S. R. Maitland, Second Inquiry (London: C. & J. Rivington, 1829), 77.

146

E. B. Elliot, Horae Apocalypticae (London: Seeley, Burnside, & Seeley, 1847), 232-233.

147

William De Burgh, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, & Co.,

1857), 417.

148



149

S. R. Maitland, An Inquiry (London: C. & J. Rivington, 1829), 45-46.

150

Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (London: Blackie & Son, 1851).

151


152

Norman F. Douty, Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book

House, 1962), 1962.

153




154



155



156



157




158

Ibid., 84-85.

159

Ibid., 85:2.

160

Ibid., 85:3.

161

Ibid., 86.


162

Ibid., 87.

163

Ibid., 89.

164

Edward Heppenstall, “The Year-Day Principle in Prophecy,” Ministry, October 1981, 18.

165

Gerhard Pfandl, “In Defense of the Year-day Principle,” Journal of the Adventist Theological

Society, 23/1 (2012), 10.

166



167



168


169

Winston McHarg, “Why the Little Horn of Daniel 8 Must Be Antiochus Epiphanes,” at Good

News For Adventists.com: http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/why-the-little-horn-of-daniel-

8-must-be-antiochus-epiphanes/

170

William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible: The Revelation (St. Andrews Press, 1975), 73.

171

Richard M. Davidson, “The Meaning of NisΩdaq in Daniel 8:14,” Journal of the Adventist

Theological Society, 7/1 (Spring 1996): 107-119.

172

Ibid., 118.

173

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:

Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 7:25.

174



175


Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 12:6.

176

Eduard Hanganu, “A Linguist examines the ‘Year Day Principle’,” Adventist Today, Sept.-

Oct. 2003, www.atoday.com/160.0.html.

177

Fernand Fisel, “Adventism’s Last Stand in the Battle for the Year-Day Formula,” at

http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=433658756&url=f1bbae2ba6653f0fe24e5245c0784093.

178

Roberto Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” Journal of the

Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337.


179

Michael S. Bushell and Michael D. Tan. Bible Works 5.0.00, Bible Works, 2002.

180



181




182

J. Robert Spangler (Editor) “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” in Ministry, Special

Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46-47.

183



184




185



186

Ibid., Daniel 12:11.

187

Ibid., Revelation 1:3.

188


189


190


191


192




193


Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 12:5, 15.

194


195


196



197

Ibid., Daniel 7:25.

198


199

Ibid., Revelation 11:9,11.

200

Ibid., Revelation 12:6, 14.

201


202


203


204


205


206

Ibid., 387-388.

207

Ibid., 388.

208

Ibid., 389-390.

209



210

Ibid., 123.

211

Ibid., 123-124.

212

Ibid., 124:1.

213

Ibid., 124:2.

214

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845).

215

Ibid., 460:2.

216

Ibid., 460:3.

217

Ibid., 460-461.

218




219

E. B. Elliot, Horae Apocalypticae, third edition (London: Seeley, Burnside, & Seeley, 1847),

226 footnote 3.

220

Ibid., 227, footnote 3.

221

William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm

(Spring 2003), 22, cited in Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method

for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall

2003), 2.

222

Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting

Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7.

223

William De Burgh, An Exposition of the Book of the Revelation (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, &

Co, 1857), 416. 224


225Ibid., 6.

226


Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 326-342.

227




228


Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 328.

229Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment

(Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980).

230William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm

(Spring 2003), 22, cited in Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method

for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall

2003), 2.

231

Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting

Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7.

232

Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment

(Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), 319.

233




234


Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337-338.

235Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, D.C.: Review

and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 1:1017-1019 cited in Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14,

320.

236

Robert Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” Journal of the Adventist

Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 337.

237Ibid., 337-339.

238Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:

Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 2:1.

239


240

Ibid., Additional note on Revelation Chapter 2.

241

Arthur J. Ferch, Daniel on Solid Ground (Washington: Review and Herald, 1988), 83-84, 85-

86, cited in Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting

Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 2,

footnote 4.

242

William H. Shea, “Why Antiochus IV Is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8” in Daniel and

Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised

Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing

Association, 1992), 64.

243


Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337.

244

Ibid., 337-338.

245


Documents

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined Short Version