NJK,

Your view about prophecies is a corolary of your view about the omniscience of God - the open view. God cannot know beforehand exactly how things will play out, so prophecies may or may not be fulfilled.

I consider there are two kinds of prophecies in the Bible:

1) Conditional "prophecies" - they are not revelations of the future, but promises/threats that may or may not be fulfilled according to the behavior of the people involved (in purposes of mercy, as you pointed out).

2) Unconditional prophecies - they are revelations of the future and don't depend on the human factors for their fulfillment (these are already taken into account beforehand). These are mainly the prophecies involving the plan of salvation - the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ.

Conditional prophecies are directed to a particular group of people (individual people or a nation). This is clear in Jer. 18: "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it" (v. 7).

Apocaliptic prophecies, however, involve a vast segment of humanity or the whole of it, and are not conditional, but are a description of the future according to God's foreknowledge. Thus, Daniel's prophecies involve the four world empires and what would come after them, and Revelation's prophecies involve a major political-religious power which "all the world ... followed" (Rev. 13:3).

You said the prophecies related to the 1st coming of Christ are not conditional, but the same is true about the prophecies related to His second coming.

Let's see if I understood.
A fundamental aspect of the Historicist method of prophetic interpretation is the day/year principle. This principle is applied to eschatological prophecies in Daniel and Revelation (it is important to note that this refers to prophecies whose scope is within human history on this earth, so the millennium is excluded).
So it doesn't matter which numbers are used, there must be a consistent pattern. For the Historicist view, the pattern is a day for a year - always; for the Preterist and Futurist views, it is a day for a day - always. If you apply a mixed pattern, you are trying to use an ecletic approach which does not have a consistent basis.
So, if the numbers used in Daniel 12 were 1040, 1492, 872, I'd try to find a historical fulfillment for the events involved - which would have taken 1040 years, 1492 years, 872 years.

As I have found my understanding of God and the Future to be Biblical, I have seen that the conditional aspect of prophecy to perfectly compliment it. Indeed it very well resolved many, even major, issues that Classical Foreknowledge subscribers, who believe that the future is known exactly, and that from Eternity, just have no satisfactory explanation for and/or just deliberately overlook. Perhaps you have a better answer for this. That is, if you believe as it can be easily seen, e.g., in Christ’s Olivet discourse, that pointedly these statements had fulfillments around 70 A.D., then how do you explain that not all elements, most of which were quite linear, were not fulfilled then?



I consider all prophecies to be conditional, some in a more Theologically implicit sense/indication then others. That also includes prophecies in regards to the Second Coming Case in point, how, in terms of “Apocalyptic” prophecies, which you don’t see as conditional, how do you explain the many EGW revelations in which she was given an inclusive view involving her and her generation of SDA about Final Events and the Second Coming, which did not come to pass as revealed?

[It has been such ‘indifferent silence’ in especially SDA circles for such “elephant in the room’ Spiritual/Theological/Prophetic/Biblical issues that has led me on my journey of deeper Scholarly Biblical studies and I have continued to be surprised by how conclusively these issues are resolved through simply that more thorough effort, something that SDA Scholars could and should have done, and that a long time ago.]

By the way, I see God’s prophecies as an optional guide for the faithful, “optional” in that it serves to confirm righteous behavior. Indeed most prophecies were only discovered after the fact, i.e., after people had chosen to do the right thing in regards to God’s will. Whne this initial step is done, and it is discovered that all along they had been fulfilling prophecies, then other not yet fulfilled prophecies, even remaining parts of those initial prophecies, are understood and now serve as a guide. (I have experienced this process with my understanding of the Eschatological Wave of the prophecies of the Bible, including prophecies for OT Israel, all stemming from the resolute endeavor to seek to fully do, as it is actually quit feasible, what Christ actually, fully expects from His Gospel commission (e.g,. Matt 25:31-46)).

What you consider to be “unconditional” prophecies depend on human behavior. That is explicitly copiously seen in the prophetic ministry of EGW in e.g., comments like:





I don’t see a specific nation/people vs. many nations/peoples, the whole world as being the determinative, or even inherent, parameter that differentiate “conditional vs. unconditional” prophecies. Specific prophecies are just smaller elements in the larger general prophecy which makes that larger general prophecy to be fulfillable. So if these smaller specific prophecies are more explicitly stated/revealed as conditional, then the larger and general prophecy that they contribute towards its fulfillment is inevitably, dependently conditional. E.g., had Israel not done anything at all to warrant God fulfilling any of His promises towards them, which indeed would require Divine favor and assistance to come to pass, given the very real and present physical odds that Israel had to overcome, then the larger prophecies of e.g., the First Coming of Christ would not have been fulfilled. That is indeed why God at the utter low point of the Babylonian Captivity had to act despite not really having a worthy people who were worthy of any further blessings and favor. (Ezek 36:22-38) It was really only the intercessory work of Ezekiel, God’s obedient “Son of Man” that made the Restoration and continued unfolding of the plan of Salvation possible.

Again here, you have to explain especially the delayed Second Coming for first the generation of SDA, as God had explicitly led them to fully believe. Indeed EGW never had in mind ‘160+ years in the future’. Indeed as she awarely, said in regards to a manifest, even evident, effectuated delay:





Technically, the 4 empires in Daniel only are those that would involve/affect Israel. They had great sway in the world, however there were many nations, peoples and kingdoms that were not under their rule. They were only the equivalent of our “Western World” today.

By the way, my studies have shown that the prophecy of Dan 2 which SDA like to hold up as the ‘“prime” proof that God knows the Future’ is actually the perfect demonstration of how God plans the future and then, by assisting power, when needed, bring out that Wise plan when the time for it has come. All of the 4 major empires then, (as well as the “10" unnamed barbaric tribes and peoples) were in some form of formal and nationally organized existence by its ca. 604 B.C. year (Dan 1:1 & 2:1). So it was all like God looking at a world map today and declaring that, e.g., The Current USA will continue to be the World’s lone Superpower for a little while more, then a coalition between the United Kingdom and Canada, then Russia and then China, but then China’s power will be taken away by an uprising of now more powerful and developed African countries.

God’s selection of these four world empires to rule the world in which Israel was to function and advance in was indeed pointedly in relation to the success He aimed for the Gospel to have. Babylon was used to punish Israel, though less thoroughly than Assyria would have, as seen with what they had done to the 10 northern tribes, Medo-Persia’s religous tolerance was key to a full restoration of Israel, Greece advance knowledge and education was key to the Gospel proclamation as seen in the place that e.g., the Greek language had, as did their democratic principles). The Roman’s Law and Order ways was key to ensure that no unjust/lawless act towards the Messiah, the NT Church and even the unbelieving Jewish nation would be done. Whenever these had “outlived” the Gospel usefulness, God moved to have then replaced by his next choice. Then this form of centralized world governance was to be broken up ultimately providing at some point some protections for the advanced of the Christian Church, particularly from the time of the Reformation and the Remnant, indeed as culminatingly seen in the establishment of the USA.



I actually more precisely see that it was the Plan of Salvation that was the most likely to occur, by it actually being dependent on the faithfulness of Jesus. Yet it took much restraint on His part for it to be done (Luke 12:49, 50). Indeed God would work to protect the life of Christ until all was fulfilled, and that exactly according to the Plan of e.g., the Seventy Weeks. Again given as a guiding sign for righteous and faithful people who would come to obey Christ’s righteous Gospel mandate.

On the other hand, as I said above, the Second Coming is dependent on how faithful the Church is in finishing the work. That is why no time element is to be attached to its fulfillement as it will occur whenever the work is done. Indeed even “Final Events” will not begin to unflinchingly unravel until God supernaturally acts to allow the Four Winds to blow upon the Earth. That God will one day wrap things up by Christ appearance is the non-changing ultimate plan, however there is nothing written in stone as to when, or in which generation of “Believers” it will occur. That is all dependent on when the require Gospel Work is actually completed, and that, inherently, as it thoroughly should be.

I seem to still be having problems.

I asked, "Ok, let's hold on here so that we are talking about the same thing.
I asked why can't 1260 be two different time frames."

How does your response about day-years address this?

Something that happens on this earth before the millennium doesn't necessarily have to be in our past does it?

These aspects were already covered in the thread How can a person know if a prophecy is conditional or unconditional?
Christ didn’t tell the disciples clearly that He wouldn’t come at the destruction of Jerusalem because they wouldn't have endured this revelation at that time. So He mingled the description of the destruction of Jerusalem with the description of His coming.

"Christ's words had been spoken in the hearing of a large number of people; but when He was alone, Peter, John, James, and Andrew came to Him as He sat upon the Mount of Olives. 'Tell us,' they said, 'when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?' Jesus did not answer His disciples by taking up separately the destruction of Jerusalem and the great day of His coming. He mingled the description of these two events. Had He opened to His disciples future events as He beheld them [notice that He already knew the future events], they would have been unable to endure the sight. In mercy to them He blended the description of the two great crises, leaving the disciples to study out the meaning for themselves. When He referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, His prophetic words reached beyond that event to the final conflagration in that day when the Lord shall rise out of His place to punish the world for their iniquity, when the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. This entire discourse was given, not for the disciples only, but for those who should live in the last scenes of this earth's history" (DA 627).


By “apocalyptic prophecies” I mean those of the Bible – the great prophetic framework which delineates the history of the world so far as it is intertwined with the history of His people.
So, on the basis of an unconditional prophecy – that of Christ’s coming – EGW made a conditional prophecy – that Christ would come in her days.
It should be remembered that the prophecy of Christ’s coming doesn’t have a time element attached to it – so, after the fulfillment of the 2300-day prophecy, its fulfillment could occur at any time.


The fulfillment of all prophecies depends on the human response. But, as I said in my previous post, unconditional prophecies don't depend on human factors for their fulfillment in the sense that these are already taken into account beforehand.
For instance (this was discussed in the thread mentioned), although men can hasten or delay Christ's coming by their behavior, God already knows the day and the hour of Christ's coming (Mark 13:32).
If the members of the church had chosen to dedicate themselves entirely to God, Christ could have come earlier. Today, if the majority of the members choose to dedicate themselves entirely to God, the church may be ready in a few months. But suppose the majority of the members don’t make this decision; then the church will be ready only in 10 years. It could be 5 years, or 25 years, or 100 years – this depends on several factors and is related to the free will of the members. But God knows when the church will finally be ready, and He fixed the date (which only He knows) having this human response in view.


No, per the reasons discussed above (that is, the main prophecy is not dependent of the smaller prophecies; it's the other way around).


No, you invert things. God didn’t choose these world empires to rule the world. He knew beforehand they would arise, worked with them through His people, and dealt with them according to their response and for the good of His people.

kland,
Let's go by parts.
This is how I'm interpreting your question:

Why can't 1260 be interpreted in a passage as 1260 years and in another one as 1260 days?

Is this what you asked?

I started reading through that thread, however I don’t have the time to go through its 103 pages. If and/or since you are familiar with it, I think you can present the best arguments from it against the Biblical View I have on this issue, from my God and the Future View as summarized on my blog’s post. That is, summarily, that God plans/“fashions” the future, I.e., how He sees that it should occur to triumphantly resolve this GC, and then when the time comes He summons/elects/employs/entrusts whatever participant He needs, mostly from People faithful to Him, in order to accomplish what He had said, even long ago, what would occur, indeed as it should if the goal indeed is that Truth will normatively triumph over evil. (Cf. Isa 46:9-11). Of course you don’t have this view so I indeed can only expect that you will respond to issues here as you believe it to be true. I also do the same. (This issue of “God and the Future” is discussed in this active thread, though the sub-issue of freewill is currently on the “front burner”).



Given the paramount Biblical evidence towards my Foreplanning View, and knowing that EGW believed in the Classical Foreknowledge view, despite evidence to the contrary from her visions, including the “Plan of Salvation” one discussed in this thread which you started, I give the Biblical testimony, and those EGW direct revelations preeminence over what may simply be EGW’s adherence to the Classical Foreknowledge View. Indeed, as a case in point, when EGW did not think that oysters were unclean, even ca. 20 years after her health reform vision, she had no qualm about “endorsing” the eating of it, and that moreover, even with it being meat. She indeed took time fully understand the “present truth” of Health Reform for these last days.

Priorly I would have questioned if this was a statement of commission by EGW or one of permission, however I now do see how Christ indeed did this, but not for a 70 A.D. vs. 2011+ A.D. distinction between the Jerusalem destruction and His Return, but actually, for the reasons I had stated in this above post, but a 70 A.D. destruction of the Jewish nation followed by ca. 11-21 years during which events leading up to Christ’s return within that first century could have been allowed, and aided to, unravel by God. However, as I believe upon evidence in the Bible and SOP, the Church proved to not be ready for this to come to pass and thus, the Second Coming part of that Prophetic Discourse was postponed, and a Historical Age, involving now this New Israel was allowed to unfold. It is now wonder that many elements found in Ancient Israel’s History were made to be involved in this New Israel. E.g., as Reformers understood, “(Spiritual) Babylon” among many others.

Christ conscientious mingling action is all typologically similar to how when God judge the Universal Christian Church in 1798 and raised up a Remnant, He allowed believers to believe the Second Coming would occur soon after that, i.e., 1843/44 (cf. 1335 days), as it actually could have. That indeed follows the Spiritually-aiding principle of Christ in His Olivet discourse.

As you had said later, (which I however see applies, in terms of the associated time element, only in the Historical Wave of Prophecy):





I still don’t see a validation for conditional vs. unconditional prophecy here. As I read EGW writings on the prophecies, she does not say, indeed if ever, e.g., ‘I saw (that if we were faithful, then) We all entered the cloud together, and were seven days ascending to the sea of glass, when Jesus brought the crowns,’ (EW 16.2). Indeed unlike John with the prophecies of Revelation, she and those from her generation were defaulty always depicted as the people in whom these events would be fully fulfilled. John was an outside observer to these similar revelations, and only was a spiritual present one to “visit” certain aspects of Heaven, as was EGW, but he was not shown to be a participant in, e.g., the The Loud Cry, The Sealing, The Time of Trouble, The Second Coming, etc. EGW was. That is all because John had to, in that newly unfolded “Historical Wave”, wait for now all time prophecies to first be fulfilled as the (Church) History for God New Israel unfolded, EGW and her generation did not have that time limitation, and the Second Coming could occur whenever they Finished the Gospel Work.

I view EGW’s prophecies, i.e., those from direct revelations to be identical in nature and theme to those of the Bible, and so I do not make a distinction here, indeed seeing them as what you consider “Apocalyptic prophecies.” Indeed just like the Book of Revelation expanded for the NT Church, particularly in details, the prior prophecies of Daniel, the prophecies given to EGW did the exact same thing for the prophecies of Revelation, and not only in explanatory details, but also in adding new dimensions that help us to better understand the book of Revelation. E.g., see the “cross-sectional” dimension mentioned in this post from EGW’s Shaking vision.



I rather see these more precisely as certain (but not “unconditional” events. I.e., these must occur. And not surprisingly, I think we can agree that only the Plan of Salvation and the Second Coming fall into this category. As I explained before, with Jesus being responsible for the Plan of Salvation it was more than less a sure thing, though as I understand it from EW 149-153, not a given. In regards to the Second Coming, from the time that the first pardoned and righteous person died, the promise to raise them up when this GC ends and take them to Heaven, at least for a while, which is what the Second Coming is all about, was by this necessity, set in stone as an event that certainly will take place sometime in the future. Even if in the end no righteous persons are on the Earth (cf. Luke 18:8 i.e., ‘will there be enough faith on the Earth for Christ to make a swift end in Justice), then Christ will then wait until evil has done its inevitable work of total death, and come to raise up the righteous dead.



I had seen that discussion early in that thread, from Tom’s comments, and though I did not see how/if it was further discussed later in the thread, I believe that God’s knowledge here is “qualitatively” vs. “quantitatively”. I.e., God knows what He is looking for in order to order that the Second Coming takes place vs. an actual time. I rather see that the expression “day and the hour” (Matt 24:36) is hierarchally, thematically synonymous/parallel to “times and epochs/seasons” (Acts 1:6, 7). And when the ‘times and epochs/seasons’ aspect will first be met (Gospel Work being actually Finished, then, God will allow Final Events to irreversibly begin to unravel, (i.e., with His releasing of the Four Winds), which will then be followed by His setting of a specific ‘day and hour’, even perhaps only in that final month, even week. This is not because He cannot do so long before that, indeed He can set any date He wants. However He allows this date to be determined by actual developments on Earth, and with the open possibility of a change of curse due to man’s freewill, hence the utterly “uncertain” (Greek imperative mood), thus greatly exhortational statement in Rev 22:11, which the SOP sees as being said just before the Final Great Time of Trouble (GC 613.2), for especially the righteous to remain faithful, indeed with Satan now acting with all His allowed power to spoil this.



I agree with your understanding of the Church’s responsibility here, but this is an example of where I see that the Classical Foreknowledge view becomes incongruous, but that is really a topic for another thread. I don’t see that God know with certainty the future freewill choice of men. As seen with e.g., Abraham, God has to test man to make such an ascertainment (Gen 22:12; cf. Deut 8:2; cf. Exod 15:25; 16:4; 2 Chr 32:31). Again, on this issue, I let the Bible determine what the Truth is. This is all how I best harmonize the two seemingly opposing points of ‘not knowing what man will do’ and ‘knowing the “day and the hour”’. Indeed as I see it, it is only after God has seen a generation pass the test by Finishing the work during the Little Time of Trouble, that He will then know for certain that this is the Faithful generation upon which He can wrap up this GC and thus then set a specific day and hour, even later reveal this to this group, just before He returns.



I see this as inevitable in terms of dependence and particularly in terms of timeliness. The sum is not greater than its parts. E.g., Ancient Israel failed in having many conditions of obedience to the law to be met for many promises to be fulfilled, that thus resulted in several prophecies to be postponed, if not fail, in terms of the literal fulfillment that they should have had. That in turn, delayed the Second Coming, as I see it first around 70-90 A.D. The same thing was repeated later with a possible ca. 1844 Second Coming and then a later one around 1888. Again the event of the Second Coming is a given. But timing is incontrovertibly dependent upon lessor prophecies and responses to Divine requirements. To say that it is the other way around, if I understand you correctly here, is to say that the Second will occur even if those conditions and smaller prophecies are not met. I think that is easily refuted by the known delays of the Second Coming in EGW’s time. As I said above, the only way I see that the Second Coming will irrespectively occur, is in a utter evil outplaying scenario where/when, there at least, is no righteous person left on earth and thus no one left for God to be able to work to save the remaining wicked. Then only judgement can only occur and the sooner the better.



It is solely according to your Classical Foreknowledge view that you believe I have inverted things here. I don’t see that view as Biblical and what I have expressed here is indeed what is viewed by what I understand to be the Biblical Foreplanning View. This “selecting of existing Kingdoms’ is perfect harmony with the “summoning & calling” notion in Isa 46:11 (cf. Dan 2:21) so that His counsel, plans and will can be accomplished as planned. I indeed see that God elected and sustained the best world kingdom available then to rule the world where, and so that, Israel would prosper. That is the understanding that best harmonizes with the Bible’s Foreplanning view that I ascribe to. Interestingly enough, all of the godly elements that were found in those first four world powers were already present in the National and Religious Economy of Israel. So God, with His People not having made themselves ready/worthy as they could and should have found in these nations, (if He actually did not suggestively implant it Himself), the Divine traits that He could use to fill the position that Israel itself should have had and been in.

Didn't Christ and the prophets speak mainly for the benefit of this generation, the final one? Christ combined two periods when He unfolded earth’s final events in Matthew 24 – the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of human history. But you say, ‘that’s different’. OK.

What about Ellen White? She believed that Miller's and Smith's views on the past fulfillment of the trumpets was correct. She endorsed the teaching of Josiah Litch on the fulfillment of the sixth trumpet in The Great Controversy. But she saw no inconsistency in urging a future application to the trumpets. But will this convince you Roseangela? “He who has ears to hear, let him/her hear.”

By definition, futurism is inconsistent with historicism, but these are human labels and human terms. We need divine principles of study. The ones recommended by Ellen White were used by ‘Father Miller’. The one I’m thinking of from his recommended principles that applies here is that a prophecy is not completely fulfilled until all of it’s particulars have been met.

NJK, I wouldn’t paint myself in a corner by saying there are no future time elements. Ellen White’s statements you referenced on this aren’t as sweeping as that. For example, saying that the people will not have another time-based message is not the same as saying there are no future time prophecies period.

Given that EGW statements on this are both, from: “I was shown” revelation, and, to me, quite clear in their pointed meaning: e.g.,:



I really cannot see where you are finding any Biblical support for your belief. And I don’t mind at all being “painted” in that solid Biblical corner. Moreoverly, it save one from much false time setting embarrassments and detrimental false messages. God’s Second Coming after the fulfillment of the longest time prophecy in 1844, is more than ever imminent, i.e., whenever it may be “necessary” (against a sudden, all out, deadly assault against the Remnant People) and/or possible “with an actual Finishing of the Work”.

As I said, I see, and that attestedly, the contributions of these time elements in the present Eschatological Wave of Bible Prophecies as being Spiritually indicative of what type of development to expect (i.e., to the Historical fulfillment when a present time element had been chronologically fulfilled. In prophecy especially, history does repeat itself in the Eschatological phase, however involving descendant and/or different forms of the previous actors.)

No.

That may be a question I'll ask, but what I am asking now is, can the 1260 be two different time frames. By frames, I intend it to mean times, periods, eras. That is, can one occurrence of a number (which happens to be the same number as somewhere else) be for one time period, and can another number (which happens to be the same number) used elsewhere be for another time period. Can one occurrence of the number be used for the past, and another occurrence of the number be used for the future? I'm running out of permutations of asking the same thing. The reason I asked, what if the number in Daniel 12 was different than 1260, is because I think you are seeing that they just happen to be the same number and therefore must refer to the same time period of the past. If the numbers were different, would you then consider they may refer to different time periods.