Greetings,

Every Christian is under obligation to accept truth on the basis of the Bible only. Because there has never yet been a corporate group of believers who have achieved doctrinal inerrancy the search for the whole truth remains incomplete. The fact is, this generation is largely the inheritor of other people’s interpretations. The issue of later generations inheriting doctrine brings us to the question; did the Adventist pioneer’s pass on to us a complete or inerrant understanding of truth? Not according to Ellen White. She wrote,

“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 an 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. “(CW 35.2)

“We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and Heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.” (R&H July 26, 1892)

If these statements are saying anything they are saying that some “cherished views” of nineteenth century Adventism were faulty. They are also saying that there is no basis for the claim that “all our expositions of Scripture are without an error.“ The words "those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed" leave no room for an inflexible fundamentalism.

In my personal research I follow the principle of the Bible only with rigorous determination. I have not allowed the pioneers or Ellen White or any other source to influence my interpretation of Scripture at any point or in any way. Yet after thirty years of constant study that includes hundreds of hours of closely analysing criticism of Adventist teachings I remain by doctrinal definition an orthodox Seventh-day Adventist. However, while I support Adventist doctrine there is evidence some historical exegesis of individual texts is flawed and needs correcting.

I have read most of Desmond Ford’s criticism of Adventist teachings on the Internet. I have researched his two commentaries on Daniel and his commentary on Revelation. I speak without malice, if our brother has discovered an unanswerable argument that could destroy Adventism he is keeping it to himself for he has not yet published it.

The pioneers embraced the year/day principle and 457 B.C.E. as the starting point for the 2300 days prophecy while part of the Millerite movement but they endorsed these interpretations on the basis of their own independent research. They came to believe that the 2300 prophetic days of Daniel 8:14 terminated in late 1844. The evidence shows their acceptance of the1844 timeframe has solid biblical support.

As many others have done on the weight of evidence the pioneers identified the seventh year of Artaxerxes with 457 BC as the starting point for the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. Bevan, a non-Adventist scholar says, “it is now admitted by everyone that Artaxerxes 1 began to reign in 465 or 464 B.C.” (A. Bevan A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Cambridge University Press, 1892 p.147.) Bevan’s observations provide us with only a two-year margin for genuine dispute, either 458 or 457. Jacques Doukhan has shown that the biblical calculations involving the implementation of Artaxerxes decree are based on a calendar that started the Jewish New Year in the autumn. That fact validates 457 as a starting point and excludes the use of the Babylonian calendar. Doukhan writes,

"The date which the biblical account provides for the decree of Artaxerxes is pinpointed in Ezra 7:8. It is the moment when Ezra arrives in Jerusalem and finally announced to Israel the terms of the decree, and this became effective from that time on. This brings us “to the fifth month of the seventh year of Artaxerxes”.

"History informs us that Artaxerxes began to reign from the year 465 B.C.E. That is the year of his ascension to the throne. Now, for the Bible, the first year of a reign is actually counted from THE BEGINNING OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR (see Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1, 2 Kings 18:1,9,10.)"

"Moreover, the years of the reign were counted in the Bible BEGINNING WITH THE AUTUMN (month of Tishri), following the practice of the Persian system then in force. This explains why, for example, in Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 the month of Nisan (the first month), is preceded by Kislev (ninth month), all the time referring to the same twentieth year of the reign Artaxerxes. ..."

"For the Mishna as well as the Talmud, the year of reign in the Bible must begin in Tishri. ... And since Artaxerxes acceded to the throne in 465, it is necessary to place his first regnal year FROM THE AUTUMN OF 464 TO THE AUTUMN OF 463. It is precisely in the fifth month, Ezra tells us, that the decree was promulgated. The first month was that of Nisan (month of the Passover, see Ezra 6:19) so the fifth month takes us to Ab: it is the end of the summer of 457 B.C." (Jacques Doukhan, Drinking at the Sources, Pacific Press. 1981, pp.134, 135.)

After extensive research into biblical chronology Horn and Wood state; “the biblical statements of Nehemiah and Ezra, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the decree of Artaxerxes 1 went into effect, after Ezra’s return from Babylon, in the late summer or early fall of 457 B.C.” James Montgomery Boice says the decree recorded in Ezra 7:12-26 “was issued in 457 B.C.” Merril Tenny says Artaxerxes “granted the request of Ezra (7:6) in 457 B.C.” (See Siegfried Horn and Lynn Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, Review and Herald 1953 p.115 James Montgomery Boice, Daniel, Ministry resources 1989 p.109, Merril Tenny The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Zondervan Publishing House 1967 p.74)

For some sad reason Desmond Ford has elected to make himself Adventists most entrenched critic. However in a moment of genuine enlightenment even he admitted in 1972 “most commentators over the centuries have fixed 457 BC as the date here intended”. (See Desmond Ford, Daniel, Southern Publishing Association, 1978 p.189)

The central dispute between scholars concerning 458 and 457 is over which calendar to use. Those whose reckoning is based on a Babylonian calendar, which identified the beginning of each New Year with the spring, identify the seventh year of Artaxerxes with 458. Those who use Jewish reckoning, which identified the beginning of each year with the month of Tishri, or the autumn, identify the seventh year of Artaxerxes with 457.

Since there are really only two options each based on a different calendar the question is, which calendar is the correct one to be used in biblical calculations? Building on Jacques Doukhan’s contribution there is more evidence.

In Nehemiah 1:1 the twentieth year of Artaxerxes reign is identified with the Jewish month of Kislev, which occurred during September–October by our reckoning. In Nehemiah 2:1 the same twentieth year of Artaxerxes reign is identified with the month of Nisan, which was March-April of the following year. The Babylonian calendar, which started the New Year six months earlier than the Jewish calendar would have identified the month of Nisan for that year with Artaxerxes twenty-first year. It is clear therefore that the reference in Nehemiah 2:1 to Artaxerxes "twentieth year" (which was the twenty-first according to the Babylonian calendar) shows that Nehemiah was using the Jewish autumn-to-autumn calendar. This proves the pioneers were correct in their biblical calculations.

Those who take the time to study the matter will see that the early Adventists actually engaged in some impressive biblical exegesis and they employed more than one line of evidence to establish their point. J N Andrews wrote;

"It is by the Canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period of seventy weeks is fixed. This Canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B.C. 457; and the accuracy of the Canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses” (J N Andrews, The Sanctuary and the 2300 Days, Battle Creek, 1872 p.20)

Ellen White wrote,

“There is to be no change in the general features of our work. It is to stand as clear and distinct as prophecy has made it. … If any stand in the way, to hinder the advancement of the work in the lines that God has appointed, they will displease God. No line of truth that has made the Seventh-day Adventist people what they are is to be weakened.” (6T.017.002)

Adventist eschatology is not about trick interpretations of prophecy or understanding esoteric meanings of sanctuary symbolism. It is about recognizing that God has a timetable for earth history that has a fixed point beyond which human suffering will not be allowed to continue. That is the essential teaching of time prophecy.

From a biblical perspective the intuitive sense that the end is near is identified as a mark of discipleship. Paul spoke of the end as coming “soon” (Romans 16:20), he said “the appointed time has grown very short (1 Corinthians 7:29), and that “the Lord is near.” (Philippians 4:5) Peter declared, “The end of all things is at hand.” (1 Peter 4:7) In Revelation 1:1 contrary to all rationalistic thinking even Jesus referred to “the things that must shortly come to pass.” One of the fruits of the Spirit is the motivating instinct that the end has already begun. If you do not have a sense of urgency you are lacking something vital in your experience and you are not yet ready for what, as Ellen White tells it, “is soon to break upon the world as an overwhelming surprise.” (8T 28)

Because He can prevent it and endures a hellish suffering on account of it God will tolerate only so much human tragedy before He says, “enough is enough”. Each day brings an escalating rate of horror for God to endure. Every human emotion with its depression, bottomless loneliness, sense of pain, torment and fear and sense of cruelty is registered in His mind as if it was His own. That is what it means for God to bear the sins of the world. The end is tied to the question, just how much more suffering will God continue to permit? Ellen White wrote,

“Those who think of the result of hastening or hindering the gospel think of it in relation to themselves and to the world. Few think of its relation to God. Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him. When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God,--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death, --it is said that "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction He was afflicted: . . . and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old." Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9. (Ed 263.1)

Grace is not based on endless time. The exact date for the last of the last days is set in concrete. We can be certain of this for that is exactly what is written: “He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

Because the precise time of the end has been set as an immovable point in history and the exact day of it already been marked we are more than stupid if we are not controlled by the expectation that our days are numbered.

If you think that the return of Christ is far off in the future that is because you have lost faith and you are experiencing moral failure. "While people are saying, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as labour pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape." (1 Thess. 5:3)