Indeed -- you come to strange conclusions to what I wrote, even after I wrote further posts to explain it.


Don't you believe in the day/year principle?

Don't you believe the 1260 years, 2300 years etc. held a significant place in history and the development of both the false religious movement and God's work in dealing with sin and salvation?

I am thoroughly convinced that we will miss the true meaning of the last day crises if we throw out the foundation that was solidly built. The historicist framework on which the church bases its understanding of these things is the right framework, and the message that has resulted from such study is the right message. We have spent years studying it, it's not just something we heard.


-----------------
OK -- to try and explain ---


[*]That prophetic time is symbolic time.

The timelines (1260, 1290, 1335, 2300) contained in the visions are based on the day for a year principle, as is clearly established from Daniel nine. I'm not getting into a semantics debate.
Most prophecies in scripture dealing with more local or immediate events are not stated in symbolic time --
Jeremiah predicts 70 years of exile (of course that is 70 years, not 70X360 years.

Daniel and Revelation are not dealing with local time, they are dealing with time that spans great era's in of earth's history in the Great Conflict between sin and salvation.

[*]That since the prophecy of Daniel 4 is concerning an individual, it is not prophetic.

Of course it is prophetic, its prophecying an event that would happen in the immediate future, but it's not in the same category as the visions outlining earth's history.

[*]That relating future events is not prophetic.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion?
The word "prophetic" has wide meaning --
It's more than relating to future events, it's concerning the message of the prophet.

Getting into semantics over the use of the word "prophetic time" vs "literal time" just goes around in circles as your comments only too well illustrate. It becomes a game of linguistics instead looking at the principles of interpretation.


[*]That time prophecies only cover times when evil reigns upon earth.

Time prophecies and "timelines" aren't necessarily the same thing.
There are a host of prophecies in scripture, dealing with time, that aren't timelines.

The timelines in Daniel and Revelation span the great time periods in earth's history leading up to the "time of the end".

Then the angel in Revelation 10 declares "time shall be no longer" announcing that the longer periods of time have come to an end. This isn't announcing that time stops for the very next verse speaks of the "days of the seventh angel" and that "the mystery of God" is yet to be finished. And we know the command to "prophecy again" comes AFTER the announcement.

The "prophecy again" is NOT about timelines for they are declared finished! What timelines are finished -- obviously those in Daniel and Revelation reaching to that point.


[*]That we can only conclude that there is no more time prophecies since evil no longer reigns upon the earth.

The timelines we are speaking about are all about how long evil will last before Christ steps in -- they spanned times prior to the preadvent judgement.
Daniel seven gives the HIGH POINT, when the beasts have played their "king of mountain" role, and the little horn has made its presence, then -- after the 1260 years, at the end of the 2300 years, Christ goes before the Father to claim the kingdom!
Daniel says the Kingdoms and dominions are given him, as He stands as the SON OF MAN representing the human race.
Rev. 3:4 and 5, says He presents the names of those overcomers clothed in white, before the Father and the angels.

And Daniel seven shows that these will inherit the earth with Christ, and the beast will be destroyed.

So -- yes, the timelines point to the judgment because it is then that Christ receives the kingdom and the citizen list is finalized. THEN He will come and claim it.

That is the MOST important thing to look to --
No matter how wild and terrible the beast and his cohorts rage and try to take absolute control of the earth in the time of the end, we need to keep focused on WHO will inherit it.

Actually this is illustrated by Jewish wedding.
A couple is betrothed -- promised to each other.
The groom goes away to prepare a home for his bride.
This usually takes a year or so. The father, not the groom has the final say when everything is ready. After the Father gives his approval, the groom prepares himself, gathers his friends and goes to get his bride. The bride does not know when the groom will come. Yes, as the allotted time passes and signs show things are getting ready she can know it will be SOON. But she must be ready at all time for she doesn't KNOW when her groom will come. As the groom and his party approach her house, he blows on a sofar to announce his arrival, then he claims his bride.

I'm sorry for confusing you. I was transitioning from the Chaldean word to related words, the latter one of "yowm" being a Hebrew word. In the prophetic time formula of Ezekiel 4:6, the word "day" is from the Hebrew "yowm" which can mean either "day" or "year." I didn't fully clarify that, and I apologize.

EDIT: For clarification, BOTH of the day-year formulas (Numbers 14:34 & Ezekiel 4:6) use the Hebrew "yowm" for the "day" side of the formula.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Dedication,

I am in agreement with you that the 1260, 2300, etc. timelines use the prophetic day-year formula. I simply think that it is somewhat irresponsible scholarship on our part to apply that formula to every other prophecy except for the one in which it is initially given. I think we as Adventists should be greatly desirous of building a solid case, being able to explain the prophetic times from the first building blocks onward.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

I didn't come to my understanding from the Adventist Bible Commentary, but from reading the text itself.

If you are referring to Jerusalems destruction in 70 AD, yes, the disciples asked concerning that destruction and the end of the world, and Jesus combined the two in his answer.

In that sense the destruction of Jerusalem was a foreshadowing of the endtime destruction of the world.

But verses 30 and 31 are clearly speaking of Christ coming in power and glory, the trumpet sounding, the angels gathering the elect.
It fits right in with 1 Thess. 4

How could this NOT be?










How is verse 28 "symbolic"? It sounds quite plain to me? -- I've used Luke 17 many times to show the fallacy of the rapture doctrine.
Matt. 24, Luke 17 and Rev. 19 show the wicked are destroyed, at Christ's second coming.

SYMBOLIC means the language used isn't literal but stands for something else.
Rev. 17 --A woman sitting on a seven headed beast is SYMBOLIC.
It's not about a literal woman sitting on a literal seven headed animal.

Matt. 24:28 isn't symbolic, it's talking about people being dead carcases, food for the scavengers.
Sadly that will be literal.


I suppose people could get into seeing the two men or two women as symbolic, but they can just as easily be seen as simply people all over the world who have worked together, possibly even related to each other, one dies in the destruction the other meets Jesus in the air.

The emphasis being -- be ready to meet Jesus, we don't want to be dead carcases that won't even be buried, while eternity is given to those who accepted the Savior and lived for Him in this life and will then live with Him throughout all eternity.

That's encouraging to know!

However, I'm having a very hard time seeing how Daniel 4 initially gives the day for a year formula.





A word can have multiple meanings depending on how it is used. The term "time" when used in prophetic talk meant a year.


The 1260 days are mention in Dan. 7:25, 12:7 and Rev. 12:6 as

a time
times
half a time.

That is translated as 1 year, 2 years and half a year which equals three and half years.
From that we have 360 days plus 720 days, plus 180 days = 1260 days.

Confirmation comes when scripture itself says it's 1260 days.

Rev. 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Rev. 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Thus far we haven't yet applied the day for a year principle. The next step is to apply it and instead of 1260 days we say 1260 years.


Your explanation would mean the day/year principle would have to be applied TWICE to the "time,times, half a time" to reach 1260 years.








Can I respectfully remind you that this is your understanding of scripture, not necessarily the scripture.

Yes, I do see you establishing a third formula. Here are the formulas I see you presenting:

Formula one: In certain prophecies a day is to be recognized as a year.

Formula two: A day could be recognized as a thousand years, as well as a thousand years recognized as a day.

Formula three: A year could be recognized a thousand years.

Now you've explained why you believe a "time" is actually a day, not a year. So you don't agree with me that you've presented the third formula.
But doesn't this then throw off the
"time, times, and half a time" formula we see in both Daniel and Revelation? Won't "time, times, half a time" then mean three and a half days which are transformed by the day year principle to only three and a half years?

Where would we find the authority to apply a double dose of day/year principle on that time period.


Thus from the example of the 1260 days, derived from a time, times and half a time, which are then transformed by the day for year principle to 1260 years, I would say a "TIME" used in this manner = a year.





If by "formula given" you mean a concise statement "a day for year", no it is not stated as such.

But the example of it's use is set in Daniel 9.
Ezekiel's use could easily be waved as unique to Ezekiel's enacted parable, but when we see it in ACTION in the book of Daniel itself, the formula for interpreting Daniel's timelines is set.

Sorry! If I ever said "Daniel 4" gives the formula, I meant to say "Ezekiel 4." Did I really make that mistake?

Daniel 4 is a separate prophecy, unrelated to Ezekiel 4. I'm sorry if I've confused you.

(Still reading through your post...)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok. I've read a bit more.

Without addressing all of the "opinion" versus "scripture" type questions here, I'll go right to the heart of the issue.

I tried to explain this earlier, but apparently I'm on a roll of late with saying confusing things. Here's another try.

The "day" in Numbers 14:34 and in Ezekiel 4:6 means one of three things:

1) day
2) year
3) time

Look it up in your Hebrew lexicon, and I think you will find this to be true. It is the Hebrew word "yowm," #3117, I believe, in the Strong's Concordance. That word "day" upon which we base our prophetic day-year time formula has been translated to English from the Hebrew in each of the following forms: day, time, chronicles, daily, ever, year, continually, when, as, while, full, always, whole, alway, [plus a few more].

As you can see, it could easily mean "year" and not just "day." It was translated, in the KJV, as "year" at least 14 times. It was more frequently translated as "day" or as "time," but it can have any one of these meanings.

Now, "times, time, and the dividing of times".... As the Chaldean word that this is, it ONLY occurs in the book of Daniel, and only in 11 verses. It seems to me, however, to correspond with the Hebrew word "yowm." Daniel certainly was fluent in Hebrew, and his mind is likely to have been influenced by the word "yowm" which he had grown up with. It must have been a cultural thing to relate "day" and "year," if truly their Hebrew word overlapped the two concepts. It would be a bit like the Chinese thinking that the number 4 is terribly unlucky because the word for "4" sounds like the word for "death" in their language--only in this case, it's not just a "sound alike." The Hebrew "yowm" actually could mean either day or year.

So when we consider that "time" in the Chaldean here could mean time or year, it is easy to accept that as years, each "time" would be composed of 360 individual days.

The fact that we have corroboration for this interpretation in the book of Revelation is what solidifies this reasoning. Without that, we would be lacking something that we really need in order to be sure of the interpretation.

In other words, there is no need for a #3 time formula. We don't need to interpret the day as a year before re-interpreting the year's days as 360 years. We skip the "day" and go straight to "year" from the original word, which could have either meaning.

I hope I'm not coming across so confusingly as before.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think I understand what you are saying --

"times" can mean either day or year.
Thus for the "time, times and half a time" we are to read
the meaning of time as equal to a year, and we break the year into days and apply the day for a year formula.

But for Daniel 4 we are to read the meaning of "time" directly as a "day"
and apply the day for a 1000 year formula.

Is that correct?

I agree one could make a compelling sermon out of the seven years in Daniel 4, yet I am hesitant to use it as a "day for a year" proof text, due to the lack of consistance with the way we understand the meaning of the "time" in the 1260 days.

Just seems when a word is used in a symbolic way it should be understood in a consistant manner throughout the authors message.


You asked earlier about Ezekiel 4 --
It's been a while since I studied that one but the general concept was that Israel and Judah, as God's people had been woefully negligent of the things of God, and more interested in following their own sinful ways.

Their guilt is figuratively laid on Ezekiel who has to lay on his side for the same number of days, as the years Israel had lived in sin.

I'm sorry, but don't see how any thing I've said has negated either of those two things. And yes I do believe in them.

But first:

What is prophetic time.
What is symbolic time.
What is literal time.
How do they relate to each other.

Yes.

I'm NOT using it as a day-for-year proof text. It isn't such a text. The day for year texts are not in Daniel. They are in Ezekiel and in Numbers. There is not a single reference in Daniel that I have found which gives us the day-year formula.

Regarding the day-millennium concept applied to Daniel 4, the context is what gives us that determination, just as the context of later prophecies in the book help us know that those are not literal days but representative of years according to Ezekiel's formula.


That would seem logical, but Jesus said both that Lazarus was asleep and dead. One was figurative the other literal. Right? I've found that it is unsafe to "pigeonhole" scripture into narrow molds of interpretation. For example, one of my "pet peeves" with regard to prophecy is to hear people speak of the "prophetic books," meaning "Daniel and Revelation." I firmly believe there are more prophecies to be found in Genesis than in the book of Daniel. So far, I've found close to eighty prophecies in Genesis. Every book of the Bible is "prophetic" and contains potential prophecies and/or present truths for our time.


The prophecy of Ezekiel 4 is as "figurative" as the 1260-day prophecy. That is, the years are precise and have a literal fulfillment. But I do not know of any of our leaders promoting its interpretation. They do not have it.

If you have access to the "New Light" section of this forum, I have expounded this prophecy there. Here is the link.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.