Overview of issues involved in the time setting of 1335

A number of Adventists across the globe are trying to find alternative answers for 1335. First of all, what is alternative? An overview is necessary:

All the Millerites were Date-setters and their dates were set by a combo approach which made all long periods, 2300, 1290 and 1335 end in 1843. This is how Josiah Litch made his diagram and the diagram is online. See 1335 on the right bottom of his diagram.

All Advent (Second Coming of Christ) hopeful in those days set the date of the Second Coming as a result of calculating the long periods 2300 years (with the cleansing of the sanctuary on earth) and 1335 with the “blessed” statement in combo at the same time. Combo because when the Lord Comes, the sanctuary is cleansed and blessed is the resurrection. But then…

설명: D:\1335 overview of issues.jpeg

Then the Lord did not come in 1843 and Hiram Edson saw the insight that the sanctuary is in heaven and Jesus entered his Highpriestly role on the Yom Kippur theology of the tabernacle, this time in heaven though according to the book of Hebrews. And He did.

So what happened to the combo? It remained combo with the pioneers. In fact, some of the Advent faithful kept setting dates every year as one can see them putting their views forward in The Bible Advocate of 1846-1847 which is also online. First they said 1843, then 1844, then 1845 then 1846 then 1847 all in The Bible Advocate.

What does this mean?

It means they are Date-Shifters. It became a great guess-work of “maybe next year”. It also had the recipe for datesetting, namely the combo 2300 same time as 1335 concept. If people were saying that the 1335 will be later, and R. Hewit did in 1850, then it meant in effect that the 2300 is also later. So Ellen White reprimand R. Hewit that the 1335 will not be later, meaning maybe that the 2300 will not be later?

None of the datesetters separated the combo. None of them de-comboized the combo of 2300 at the same time as 1335.

That is where current thinking or wondering comes in.

There are some, including myself before, who was wondering whether one should not separate 2300 from 1335. After all, the argument will go, did Litch not do the same by throwing 1290 and 1335 just as “marginal annotations” on the right side of his diagram?

But, does it stand to treat them separate?

It could be because then one can find out clearly more about the tamid of the 1290 years beginning and also more about the blessed of the 1335 as a) Resurrection or b) Latter Rain before the Resurrection or some other meaning.

But here is the problem: Ellen White definitely told brother Hewit that Josiah Litch had it correct. His pegs cannot be moved. 2300 years and 1843 are pegs. But is the marginal annotation 1335 also a peg or a scooping up to a peg by Litch? However one sees it, the question must be asked about Ellen White statement to Hewit. Literally she was saying to him in his attempt to push up the 1335 that the 1335 is in the past. She used the word past and that was in 1850 according to 6MR 291 and there are many similar references on this.

Anyone who is going to talk about 1335, has to explain EGW and either she was a prophetess of the Lord or not. If she was, then abiding to her view is the safest way to go.

What if she was actually meaning do not push up the 1843 based on 2300 years since that is passed viewed in combo as Litch had it, but her true focus was not on 1335 which she explicit mention to brother Hewit since he, like all of them in The Bible Advocate and non-SDA Second Advent Movement material and authors were Date-Shifters using the Combo 2300=1335 method?

The date 538 A.D. is well established for the 1260 years prophecy and well documented in Adventism.

H. Heick and others since the pioneers, and one can see it in The Bible Advocate of 1846-1847 very clearly, connected 508 A.D. to the Frenchman who paved the way for Pope Symmachus of those days.

Let me put it this way. I am currently searching very strongly to find a meaning for 508 A.D. What I found so far is the following: 508 is exactly 1260/1261 [both because of calendrical overlaps of two Roman years in a Julian year some part touching and some part not] years back to the birth of Rome in 753 BCE. The birth of Rome was in 753 BCE and from that time to 508 A.D. is exactly 1260 years.

It this the meaning of 1260 years? No. But, it seems that heaven thinks mathematically in sets of 1260 years but did not include this starting date elucidation in the Holy Writings of the Word of God. Is it just coincidence? I do not think so. If not, then 508 A.D. do have an important meaning. So starting the date at 508 A.D. is important.


Yes. What is the tamid and this is still something that I have to work out or find evidence of Pope Symmachus that took over the heavenly “daily” salvation work of Christ on earth with his VFD or vicarius filii dei function as the only holder of salvation on earth.

Lord help us all to research and find more on this subject. In Jesus name, Amen.