The end time investigative judgment is a theam you can find in the Bible and ancient middle eastern religions. Apperently there is a strong argument using the Sabbatical and Jublee years that support 1844 which is even stronger than using the 2300 days, so I do not see the principle of the investigative judgment changing, and the fact that God was pointing his people to this in the Adventist movement. I have not heard the Jublee arguments, and therefore can not explain them, accept nor reject them. I only know that there is a movement out there using the sabbatical years and jublees for arriving at 1844. I'm not positive, but I believe that Dr. Waterhouse from Andrews university is the expert in this field. But this paragraph is only me reporting on rumers that I've heard and not looked into.

As for the day-year and day-day, it depends on the context of the verse. Yes, we have wrongly applied it as a universal principle when ever we see the word day. The books "Before Philosophy" (Henri Frankfort and others, copyright around or in 1946, University of Chicago Press) teaches about the propper understanding and interpetation and application of the ancient cycles, such as the day-year principle. The fact that we are not studying this book, that it has been in our libaries since the 1940s is so sad. Had we read this book as we had, Desmond Ford would have looked like a fool when he said that there was no evidence for the day-year principle. But we need to look at the context of the text, and how it fits with cyclic thought, to know if we should apply the year-day principle to the text.

For example, there is Revelation 18:8-10 which says that the plages will come upon Babylon in a day, so it has become Adventist tradition for the last days to become one year. In the same text their is also the phrase of it happening in an hour, so others have said "Satan is hoping that the last days will be a year, but that it will only be two weeks." However if you were to study the context in Greek wrtitings when ever they have day and hour together in this parrelism it does not give a specific time but indicates only a short time. Thus we are incorrect to try to force the year-day principle on Revelation 18:8-10.

The principle that I've come to understand is that you first look for local application, then seeing how it can be re-applied through analogy and the ancient cycles. The original context of the 2300 days was the third year of Belshazzar. While we don't know the exact day with in Belshazzar's third year, if you add 2300 litteral days to that year you will come to either the last days of Babylon with Persia breathing down it's neck, the fall of Babylon, and the early days of Persia.

Deuteronomy placed THE LAST DAYS in the exile. In the Old Testament the "exile" brought to mind the same thing that the words "Sunday Law" does the the typical Seventh-day Adventist. Daniel was trying to get God's people to shaire the gospel so that it would be spread and thus fulfill the conditions for the Deuteronomic prophecy to come true. The gospel was not spread. the exile did not usher in the last days, but words were not see as dead, and cycles around again.

Daniel 9's 70 weeks of years were a reapplication of the 70 weeks of years from David to the exile, since by Daniel 9 the exile was not going to usher in the last days. Daniel 9-12 teaches what COULD have happened had Jesus been accpeted. Some of the things were fulfilled, others were not due to the rejection and will cycle around again.

(The doctrine of Type and Antitype was an attempt by the Middle Ages scholars to see these re-applicaitons. We can clearify what they were going after with type and antitype by studying "Before Philosophy" and learning about the Cycles.) Another book for studying the cycles is "The Myth of the Eternal Return" but I give a stronger endorcement to "Before Philosophy"

Getting back to you question about the 28, Mrs. White only has a small list of old landmarks, and leaves the rest open for change and modification, that we will all have to learn and unlearn things.

MM, the reasons for the negative response regarding the SDA/non-SDA question involve a long story and an even longer journey. (I'd be quite happy to tell the story, which I find most interesting and most others find completely tedious. ) Suffice it to say that I consider myself a Christian who chooses to fellowship with Seventh-day Adventists.

About the -Behold. Now that is another matter. You'll have to figure that one out on your own The clues are all there.

Darius: My theory is not based on that premise. Where did you get that from?

Rob: From these posts:

Nov. 6 [The objective standard is] The one that has proven to be perfect in every other area of life; the scientific method. Start with what you know or think you know then test it to see if it stands up to reality.

Nov. 7 "The scientific discipline involved is history."

From these posts I concluded that in your opinion history is a scientific discipline, and an objective standard by which to test the Scriptures. I agree that Scripture is tested by history (and future "history" in the form of prophecy) but I disagree that history falls in the "scientific discipline" category.

Darius: My thesis is that science is knowledge.

I shall also split hairs on this one. "Science" is actually a systematic method of pursueing knowledge. We may apply this systematic method to gain knowledge of history, but history itself is not science anymore than cells or oceans are.

[ November 10, 2005, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Rob ]

Rob, the reference to history was in response to your query about Lazarus. That is a fact that is either historical or not. That is all that was about.

Agreed. Either it happened or it did not. Why it happend and what the significance is is open to endless debate and opinion.

That question is answered by whether such will have the “love of truth” ... or ... crucify Christ to defend their doctrines (founded on the word of God) because it is not possible that they are wrong.

Kevin, I see what you mean. The historical application of prophecy is valid and, based on inherent principles, it is sometimes possible to reapply them to future eras and arrive at truth. I happen to agree with this insight, to a degree, but do not place much confidence in studies based primarily on feast days.

Rob, I would happy to hear your story. It would, no doubt, provide more clues. I can only assume you were present one time when I spoke about “behold” and meeting my wife for the first time. When and where, I cannot say. Email me your story. Thank you.

Thomas, your analogy assumes the prophet who speaks against the 28 fundamental beliefs is from God, and that any SDA refusing to listen and learn is no better than wicked King Zedekiah.

There is a difference between truth and doctrine, and rightly so. Kevin pointed this out very nicely: "Doctrine is our current understanding and application of the truth, and modifiable as we learn more about the truth. "

The question we have to ask is the one Darius alluded to: "Are we more interested in finding the truth or defending our doctrines?" If our main goal is to know the truth, then we must always hold open the possibility of changeing, modifying, or completely throwing out the doctrines currently held. (Including certain of the 28.)