The 1290 and 1335 years prophecies in
historicism reviewed
A proper discussion on the 1290 and 1335 years
prophecies in biblical historicist interpretation, will first have to present a
proper midrash of Ellen White’s 1850 statement in Present Truth, Hiram Edson’s
reflection in 1856 and Uriah Smith scooping under the same rug of these numbers
with the 2300 years statement in 1867. If these three statements are cleared or
providing a possible license for difference of the 1843 chart, then one can
continue with the interpretation of the biblical text in historicist manner
utilizing still the year-day principle. Ellen White is cited by many scholars to say
that she was shown that after 1844 there would be no longer longterm prophetic
periods. The midrash to this is that it may mean that
Ellen White means that after 1844 there will be no long period starting, but
she did not include the possibility that a period would end starting some time
under the umbrella of the 2300 years? This is my midrash on it. Ellen White’s 1850 statement is interesting. She
said that the 1843 prophetic chart was accurate and that all the figures were
correct. God’s Hand however was over “some mistakes in the figures”. Well, some
will say quickly, it is the 1843 that was supposed to be 1844, the year between
BC and AD. And it was. However, midrash of Ellen White’s statement demands to
we have to point to the plural in “figures”. To change 1843 to 1844 is only one
figure. Some may argue that one should not be so literal in hermeneutics here. The
intention is not to throw out Ellen White. If there is a license here to think
different, by all means different thinking can be investigated. In no manner
can anyone end up with a result opposed to the divine light that was given to
Ellen White. This is a rule. In the liberal scholarship of Adventism there is
always the call for creative work. New paradigms. New hermeneutics. A change
from hermeneutics of affirmation to hermeneutics of difference. Critical
investigation. Challenging of traditional views. This spirit is wrong. Anyone
citing George Knight on this call for new views or park Ellen White truth still
to be discovered statement with their endeavor outlined here, is wrong. Ellen
White’s statement has nothing to do with challenging the inspiration of her
works or the biblical text. They do. Noteworthy is it that many persons working
with liberalism in Adventism are questioning her authority, inspiration and
constantly pleading for a looseness to live, work, operate, publish and comment
in. They call it present truth and progressive thinking. I love the way Peter Kreeft talked about
progressivism: “Worst of all, Progressivism clearly contradicts
the very idea of a divine revelation. If there is such a revelation,
Progressivism corrects it, corrects God Himself, and arrogates to itself the
right to edit rather than deliver the divine mail, evaluating it by dating its
postmark. Even religions that do not claim a direct divine revelation, like
Confucianism, Taoism, or Buddhism, get their teachings from their past, from
their founders. Progressivists make it up as they go along.’ Peter Kreeft, Progressivism: The Snobbery of
Chronology http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Progressivism-The-Snobbery-of-Chronology.html Of course, one must be careful with Kreeft as
well. He was a Calvinist who converted to Catholicism and worship Thomas
Aquinas. George R. Knight maintained that the concept of
“present truth” as an identifying mark of Adventist theology involves a rejection
of “creedal rigidity” as well as an acceptance of “progressive understanding”
of the biblical doctrine.( George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The
Development of Seventh-day Adventist Belief (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
2000), 21-26). In the same vein also Roberto Badenas said “for Adventist
Christianity, the very word ‘truth’ ought to mean discovery and
growth.”(Roberto Badenas, “Dealing with ‘Present Truth:’ 2 Peter 1:12
Revisited,” in Exploring the Frontiers of Faith, eds. Børge Schantz and Reinder
Bruinsma (Lüneburg, Germany: Advent-Verlag, 2009), 211). These two sources are
your identifiers for a liberal researcher. It shows that they argue for a hermeneutics
of cynicism or hermeneutics of difference. They normally go one step further to
scoop Ellen White up for a prooftext: “There is no excuse for anyone in taking
the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our
expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have
been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas
are infallible . . . No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation”
(Ellen G. White, Councils to Writers and Editors (Hagerstown, MD:
Pacific Press, 1993), 35). A good rebuttal of this of course is pointing to the
warning of Ellen White against new ideas at the end time: ““the great deceiver
has many agents to present any and every kind of errors to ensnare
souls–heresies, prepared to suit the varied tastes and capacities of those whom
he would ruin.” Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy Ended . . . A Glimpse
into Eternity (Silver Spring, MD: Better Living Pub., 2002), 292. The subject of the 1290 years and 1335 years has
been the study by various scholars and three or four camps were identified:
traditional which is the 1843 chart by the two men honored by Ellen White in an
1850 Present Truth statement regarding the correctness of the figures in this
chart, the 1856 statement of Hiram Edson about this chart and the Uriah Smith
statement about it in 1867. Those who kept to this view is called the
traditional interpreters. If one should accept the 1260 years and the 2300
years interpretation of this chart and the year-day principle for all these
periods, can one in the words of Ellen White sideline the 1290 and 1335 periods
for “mistakes in figures (plural)” to be reconsidered? I will take the position here that one can. For
now. So the Traditional view is that of W.
Shea also. But then there is the Preteristic view of R. Cottrell in 1997
who waited for Hasel to die to come out of the preteristic closet where he was
hiding and show his true colors in the open. He completely rejected the 2300 years
prophecy and made in days, by making the 2300 days half. A number of scholars
followed him. Then there is the view of Desmond Ford which is
a fusion of preterism, historicism and futurism plus. Multiplicity approach.
The Idealist view of R. Stefanovich is also
listed here. He does not want to commit to the historicist view and wish to
remain vague. He is looking either for a then application when the book was
written or a now application in our lives. My own view is none of these. It is rather an
offshoot of the Traditional view. It claims that the reading of Daniel 12:11 is
about the building of the Dome of the Rock over the mount Moriah rock of
Abraham’s offer. The abomination is not in heaven or considered so in heaven
but on earth as a sign. When was it built. That is the terminus ad quo
for the beginning period. 684-691 A.D. Arabic scholars said. So that places
1974 as the end of the 1290 years and 2019 as the end of the 1335 years. But it
is a sliding calculation since scholars are not sure which year exactly it was
started. So until 2024, we may not know what is to happen at the end of the 1335
years. Source: A. F. Hernandez (2015), Adventist Eschatological
Identity and the Interpretation of the Time Periods of Daniel 12:11-12. AUSS
Vol. 1, No. 1, 65-84. Downloaded from Academia.edu on the 26th of August 2019.