The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 1

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT)

Eduard C. Hanganu
B.A., M.A., Linguistics
Lecturer in English, UE
ecxhanganu@gmail.com
Draft 11
December 28, 2013
2013

Abstract
The traditional interpretation of the time prophecies in Daniel (chapters 7-12) and Revelation (chapters 9-13) has
been done from the theological perspective of the three main hermeneutical schools, preterist, historicist, and
futurist. Preterists interpret these prophecies to refer to the prophets time, historicists as a Historical Time Outline,
and futurists as predictions of future events. Heirs of the Millerites, the Seventh-day Adventists [SDA] have adopted
both the historicist method of prophetic interpretation and its time hermeneutic, the Year-Day Principle [YDP]
the principle that a prophetic day stands for a year of actual calendrical time extending through the historical
events in which they were fulfilled. The YDP, though, is a theological assumption, not a linguistic rule or biblical
principle. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the YDP has no linguistic basis or Biblical support and
cannot be used to interpret the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, which should be interpreted, instead, on a
case-by-case basis. The problems with the YDP start at its multiple and inconsistent labels and restrictive definition
which is based on an incorrect sample generalization. Almost all historicist textual support for the principle comes
from texts that belong to (1) historical narratives, (2) poetical texts, (3) agrarian laws, (4) Jubilee laws, and (5)
classical prophecies, and yet the principles definition restricts the YDP to symbolic and apocalyptic prophecies.
One main defense argument for the YDP is based on an apparent relationship pattern between the terms day and
year, that is claimed to precede a qualitative rule, but this relationship proves to be due to Hebrew idioms and
translation parallelism. Poetical parallelism is also claimed to precede the YDP, although no empirical evidence
could be provided to support the claim, as poetical parallelism is a rhetorical device that has an impact on the
immediate context, and does not extend its linguistic effect into other contexts. Agrarian and Jubilee legislations are
also assumed to support the time rule, but the historical evidence is that the Hebrews used a septenary time scale that
pervaded almost all aspects of the Hebrew religious and secular life, but there is no evidence that the heptadic time
model ever evolved into a pattern that could be generalized later into a linguistic rule. Numbers 14:34 and Exekiel
4:6, texts that have been considered fundamental in the defense of the YDP, contain literal time expressions, include
no general time rule, and have a local application to the narratives in which they are embedded. The apocalyptic
prophecies in Daniel and Revelation support the YDP only when they are used backwards first interpreted through
the historicist filter, and then claimed as supporting the principle. The last historicist defense seems to be a
traditional application of the YDP, but tradition is never evidence for correctness and authenticity. The computation
of time expressions in the Bible indicates that the historicist time formula has been applied in a selective and
inconsistent manner to the biblical text, and this makes the historicist formula unscientific and unreliable. The
comparison between the Apotelesmatic Principle [APP] and the YDP indicates that both suffer from the same
methodological issues selective and inconsistent applications and neither can be considered scientific, empirical,
and reliable. The unavoidable conclusion is that the YDP is not a divine law, biblical principle, or scientific method,
but a theological assumption that has no linguistic support, is not grounded in the Bible, and cannot be defended
with the Bible. The time principle is illogical, unsound, and unreliable, should be discarded as a tool of prophetic
interpretation, and the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 2

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT)

The traditional interpretation of certain time prophecies in Daniel (chapters 7-12) and
Revelation (chapters 9-13) has been done from the theological perspective of the three main
hermeneutical schools, preterist, futurist, and historicist. The difference between the three
schools, claims Shea, is that while preterism focuses upon the past, that is, on the reign of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel and especially on the reign of the emperor Nero1 in
Revelation, and futurism places the major emphasis of these two books in the future,2
historicism sees these prophecies as being fulfilled through the course of human history
beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them.3 As historicists, the Seventh-day
Adventists [SDA] have adopted both the historicist method and its computation tool for the time
expressions in Daniel and Revelation the Year-Day Principle [YDP] that is, the principle
that a prophetic day stands for a year of actual calendrical time extending through the
historical events in which they were fulfilled.4 The YDP, though, is a theological assumption
and not a linguistic rule or biblical principle, in spite of Sheas claim that the application of the
year-day principle to the time periods in the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation has
been established through reasonable interpretations of Scripture.5
The purpose of this paper is to show that the YDP has no linguistic basis or Biblical
support and cannot be used to interpret the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. This
outdated and obscurantist time method should be discarded and replaced with a discourse
approach to biblical exegesis. This change in time hermeneutics will also require the reevaluation
of the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation in order to align them with the new approach to
Biblical interpretation.
Labels and Parameters Problems
The problems with the YDP start at its multiple and inconsistent labels and restrictive
definitions.6 There are quite a few, and rather dissimilar, labels for the YDP, depending on the
SDA historicists who have proposed them. The year-day principle7 is called a prophetic
scale,8 apocalyptic rule,9 year-day tool,10 biblical hermeneutic,11 method of
interpretation,12 year-day relationship,13 key to the historicist interpretation,14 year-day
equation,15 biblical datum,16 etc. These labels are not equivalent. While tool,
hermeneutic, method and relationship are qualitative and rather vague, scale, rule and
equation are quantitative, specific, indicate generalization, and suggest a linguistic event with
high statistical average. The term scale requires special mention. The mathematical concept
designates a calibrated proportion with universal application whose value remains constant at all
times through all its applications. This numerical ratio is far from the SDA historicist scale
which, as will be further shown in this document, is applied at random and as an exception.
The YPD application parameters, or how the principle should be applied and to which
texts it should be applied, are also formulated in an imprecise manner. Here again, the multiple
and diverse SDA historicist statements about the YDPs application appear to propose an uneven
and therefore inconsistent application range. Some of the most common SDA historicist claims
about the YDPs application parameters are: the year-day principle which says that a day in
apocalyptic time prophecies represents a year,17 the apocalyptic rule of a symbolic and
prophetic day equaling a historical year (Ezekiel 4:6; Numbers 14:34),18 according to the year-

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 3

day principle, a symbolic day in prophecy stands for a literal year,19 by the year-day principle,
as illustrated in Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6, a day in symbolic prophecy stands for a literal year,20
calculating prophetic days into literal years,21 according to the two principal texts Numbers
14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6a day is representative of a year and a year is representative of a day,22
historicists hold that in certain time prophecies, a prophetic day represents an entire year of
actual calendrical time,23 and Ezekiel, then, has the day-for-a-year principle, while Numbers
has the year-for-a-day principle. 24
These SDA historicist definitions suggest, then, that the YDP should be applied to: (1)
prophecy (unspecified), (2) certain time prophecies (unspecified), (3) symbolic prophecy,
and (4) apocalyptic time prophecies. Moon does not limit the YDPs application to the
apocalyptic prophecies, but states that the principle should be applied to certain time prophecies
[emphasis added], which makes his YDP definition vague enough to be impractical because the
reader has no clear idea what kind of prophecies (classical, symbolic, or apocalyptic) would
require the YDP application.
Some theologians in the historicist tradition, such as Mede, were explicit in the extended
use of the YDP. Barnes comments that He [Mede] maintained that, alike in Daniel, and for
aught he knew, in all the other prophets, times of things prophesied, expressed by days, are to be
understood of years [emphasis added].25 In other words, Mede claimed that the YDP should be
applied without restrictions or qualifications to all prophetic passages in the Bible.
This extended YDP application to all the other prophets, that Mede seems to embrace
does not appear so eccentric when one consider the applications some SDA theologians have
proposed for the YDP in the Old Testament [OT]. The Glacier View scholars, for example, claim
that Laban used the YDP computation formula when he made the marriage deal with Jacob.26
Shea also contends that the YDP has been applied to (1) certain historical narrative texts where
the English yearly reads in Hebrew from days to days and other passages where the term
day stands for year, (2) certain poetical passages where day and year are parallel, (3)
some agricultural law texts which describe the weeks of years, (4) the Jubilee law texts where the
Jubilee years are calculated, (5) Daniel 9:24-25, the passage in which historicists claim that
prophetic weeks are used, and (6) some classical prophecy or symbolic action texts such as
Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 that have been described for a long time as the main biblical
passages in the support and defense of the YDP.27
These texts reveal the major issue with the YDPs definition an incorrect sample
generalization.28 The examination of Sheas list of time expressions to which the YDP has been
applied shows that almost all YDP support data comes from texts that belong to (1) historical
narratives, (2) poetical texts, (3) agrarian laws, (4) jubilee laws, and (5) classical prophecies. No
biblical text examples are proposed from apocalyptic prophecies due to the fact that in the
apocalyptic texts this [one day stands for one year] is never stated, it is an underlying principle
[emphasis added].29 Data for the YDP generalization, then, is from texts that do not belong to
symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies, and yet the YDP definition restricts the principles application
to symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies! To limit the YDP application to symbolic, apocalyptic
prophecies, then, means to ignore the sample data, and that makes the principle invalid.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 4

The Glacier View scholars also interpret Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 to refer to two
distinct principles of prophetic time calculation that should be applied to the prophetic passages
in Daniel and Revelation: Ezekiel, then, has the day-for-a-year principle, while Numbers has
the year-for-a-day principle [emphasis added].30 In Joretegs perspective, this ambiguous
situation needs prompt clarification because it is impossible to decide when each principle
should be applied and when not, and to which texts.31
Neufeld sees no textual evidence that Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 contain a general
statement that would require a universal application to the time expressions in the Bible as
there is no indication in the prophecies themselves that any scale measure ought to be applied to
the days, months, or times, and there is no general statement in these passages suggesting
that a universal principle is set forth.32 From his perspective, then, the YDP does not need to be
defined because there is no Scriptural evidence that the general statement exists.
Historicist Support for the YDP
The SDA historicist support and defense for the YDP comes from six categories of texts:
(1) historical narratives, (2) poetical passages, (3) agrarian legislation, (4) jubilee legislation, (5)
classical prophecies, and (6) apocalyptic prophecies.
(1). Historical Narratives
Shea claims that certain OT narratives contain texts that show a relationship pattern
between the terms day and year, and interprets this concurrence as the linguistic precursor to
the YDP.33 One such passage is Genesis 5 where the phrase And all the days that X lived were
years repeats throughout the chapter. Moon refers to this repeated phrase as a formula that
together with the equivalent parallelism in the OT poetic texts creates the linguistic
background of the year-day principle.34 Genesis 29:27 is also claimed to show that Jacobs
period of service to Laban in return for his coveted bride Rachel must have been computed on
the year-day principle.35 Shea mentions other OT narratives that seem to indicate that there is
[in them] a recognition of a particular kind of relationship between days and years, as in
these instances the word days (always in the plural form) was actually used to stand for
years.36, 37
While it is true that day and year often occur together in certain OT narratives, the
claim that this day-year concurrence is due to a Hebrew thought pattern is a theological
assumption that Barr discards as philosophical speculation.38 Moreover, Shea never defines the
linguistic nature (morphological, syntactic, lexical, semantic, discursive, or idiomatic) of the
claimed relationship. Greswell contends that the day-year concurrence in the historical
narratives is idiomatic in nature, expressed in Hebrew idiomatic expressions,39, 40 and cannot be
accepted as a universal linguistic rule.
(2). Poetical Passages
The second group of texts where Shea claims to notice the YDP application is poetical
passages in which these two units of time [year and day] are side by side in a particularly
close relationship.41 This is due to the use of the rhetorical device known as parallelism. Shea

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 5

argues that the year-day poetical pairs that indicate a close and particular relationship
between days and years are a linguistic device that provides a background for more specific
application of this type of thought in apocalyptic time prophecies,42, 43 but recognizes that, the
poetic literature of the OT does not provide us with a year-for-a-day principle with which to
interpret time periods in prophecy [emphasis added].44 Moon makes also an attempt to connect
the YDP with parallelism,45 but his exercise fails because there is no empirical evidence that a
rhetorical device used in a particular section of the Bible could evolve into a rule that would
govern time expressions all through the biblical text.
The OT poetical passages are interlaced with parallel rhetorical expressions because
parallelism is a common linguistic device in poetical texts, used to enhance the inspired
messages in the Hebrew poetical books. Lowth describes it as the correspondence of one verse,
or line with another,46 while Buchanan Gray states that the presence or absence of parallelism in
the OT books divides them into two classes.47,48 Poetical parallelism, though, is not a
hermeneutical scale. As a rhetorical device, it remains a figure of speech that has an impact on
the immediate context, and does not extend its linguistic effect into other contexts.
(3). Agrarian Legislation
The texts that deal with Hebrew agrarian legislation regulate labor and sacred time
celebration. Shea claims that Leviticus 25:1-7 is the earliest biblical text in which the year-day
principle is reflected,49 that the sabbatical year [in Leviticus 25] is modeled from the sabbatical
day, and that this shows a direct relationship between the day and the year since the same
terminology was applied to both.50 This relationship seems to lead to a quantitative modification
in Leviticus 25:8, in which the day-year principle operates the same way here as it does in
Daniel the use of days (extended into the future) to mark off the years of the future.51 It
also seems that here [in Leviticus 25:8] terminology for a one-week or seven-day period is
applied to a seven-year period. This is the day-for-a-year method of reckoning.52 Moon shares
the same perspective,53 but both scholars fail to explain what it means that the year-day
principle is reflected in Leviticus 25:1-7 and how the sabbatical heptads have generalized into
the universal quantitative rule that is the YDP.
Tregelles examines Leviticus 25 from a less speculative position and sees it as part of the
Hebrew time model, the septenary scale, used just as habitually as we should reckon by tens;
the sabbatical years, the jubilee, all tended to give this thought a permanent place in their
mind.54 Terry concurs, and provides multiple examples of the number seven used in almost all
aspects of the Hebrew religious life.55 This heptadic time model, though, never evolved into a
pattern that could be generalized later into a linguistic rule or mathematical equation.
(4). Jubilee Legislation
The reflection of the YDP in Leviticus 25 appears to extend, in Sheas perspective,
from the agrarian laws that are described in the first part of the chapter (verses 1-7) to the Jubilee
legislation included in the second part of the same chapter (verses 8-55). Both sections in
Leviticus 25 are written in literal language, and, according to the YDP definition, the historicist
principle should not be applied to them. Still, Shea claims that the YDP applies to both sections

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 6

of the chapter, and that the day-year principle operates the same way here [in Leviticus 25:8-55]
as it does in Daniel [9:24-27],56, 57 which he considers to be established through reasonable
interpretations of Scripture.58, 59
The application of the YDP to the prophetic message in Daniel 9:24-27 requires, though,
the translation of sabuim as weeks and not as the alternative sevens.60 The second option
would not be acceptable to Shea because it would weaken the current SDA historicist position on
the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, blunt the implications of the year-day principle
advocated by the historicist system of interpretation, and make the YDP application to Daniel
9:24-27 questionable,61 an action that would be nothing less than the Dragons attack on the
remnant.62
Pfandl concurs with Shea on the issue, but notes that Ford and the revised Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Commentary [SDABC] scholars hold the view that the year-day principle is not
involved in Daniel 9 [24-27].63, 64 Other SDA scholars who favor the rendition sevens instead
of weeks are Heppenstall,65 LaRondelle,66, 67, 68, 69 and Hasel, who warns the readers that
Daniel 9:24-27 is a crux interpretum in OT studies (a biblical passage that eludes
interpretation)70 and notes that the Septuaginta and Theodotion, the translations of the Hebrew
OT into Greek, use the word hebdomads to render the Hebrew term sabuim into English,71
while in post-biblical Hebrew the meaning of week in the sense of weeks of years occurs
hundreds of times.72 The theologian also mentions several non-SDA scholars (such as E. J.
Young, H. C. Leupold, and Carl F. Keil) who favor the reading sevens instead of weeks.73, 74
Hasel reviews the possible arguments for the rendition of sabuim as sevens and which are (1)
lexical,75 (2) morphological,76, 77, 78 (3) syntactical,79 (4) rhetorical,80 and (5) translation, but he
doesnt consider them adequate for a definitive conclusion in the matter.81 Numerous
theologians and Hebraists favor the translation sevens over weeks for sabuim in Daniel
9:24-27. Among them are Lurie,82, 83 Tregelles,84, 85, 86 Terry,87 Barnes,88 Stuart,89 Walvoord,90, 91,
92
Leupold,93, 94 and Young.95, 96
(5). Classical Prophecies
The Glacier View scholars claim that the two principal texts that support the year-day
method of interpretation [are] Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6,97 and argue that Numbers 14:34
is a prophecy because it is a punitive declaration made in advance.98 Shea concurs, links
Numbers 14:34 with Leviticus 25, and mentions that Numbers 14:34 includes the third specific
use of the year principle.99 Tregelles contends that there is nothing [in Numbers 14:34] that
implies a principle of interpretation, and that in the prophetic part of the verse, years are literal
years, and not the symbol of anything else,100 while Stuart insists that the time periods in both
Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 are literal and not figurative and that there is in both texts an
express mention and appointment, that days should correspond with years that prevents
misunderstanding about the time units involved.101 Terry concurs with Tregelles and Stuart that
there is no support in Numbers 14:34 for the claim that the text defines a general principle
because the text is written in literal language, and notes that the judgment was pronounced on
that generation, and not formulated as a perpetual religious law.102
The second main text used to support the YDP is Ezekiel 4:6, and the SDA theologians
claim that the text also contains a universal linguistic rule,103 but ignore the fact that the

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 7

punishment in Numbers 14:34 was for unbelief and rebellion, while the acted parable104 in
Ezekiel 4:6 was intended to bring Gods people to repentance. Shea sees the YDP reflected
both in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6,105 while the Glacier View scholars see a different
principle in each texts. 106 Shea, though, interprets the different formulas in Numbers 14:34 and
Ezekiel 4:6 as normal YDP application variants.107 Terry objects that in both biblical passages
the text is literal, and that, therefore, no universal application could be drawn from them,108 while
Stuart and Tregelles concur with him.109, 110
(6). Apocalyptic Prophecies
This group includes texts the SDA historicists have claimed to be apocalyptic prophecies
and have interpreted from a historicist perspective. Because their prophetic message was
assumed prior to exegesis, though, these texts have been misinterpreted. This interpretation
approach, known as petitio principii, or assuming the initial point is fallacious because it is
based on an alleged or assumed fact,111 and not on empirical confirmation. Some texts in the
group are claimed to have passed the pragmatic test, which the Glacier View scholars consider
to be the final arbiter in determining whether the time periods are literal or symbolic.112, 113
Shea expands on the same claim and mentions two kinds of evidence under the pragmatic test:
(1) historical fulfillment, and (2) the predictive use. His first example is the fulfillment of the
70 [prophetic] weeks of Daniel 9:24-27,114 while the second is Cresseners calculation on the
fulfillment of the 1260 days in Revelation 11-13, which, claims the SDA historicist, was fulfilled
with extraordinary chronological accuracy.115
To link prophetic fulfillment with the YDP, though, is to commit the non sequitur116 and
the post hoc117 fallacies. The first occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the evidence,
and the second when a false cause is claimed for an event. For instance, Daniel 9:24-27 could
confirm the YDP only if sabuim means weeks. If sabuim is read as sevens the YDP is not
needed and is not validated in the interpretation of the prophetic passage. Certain prophecies in
Daniel and Revelation seem to fulfill fictitious historicist events while actual historical events are
dismissed as irrelevant. For example, the SDA historicists ignore the historical evidence that the
horn in Daniel 8:9-14 is Antiochus Epiphanes and claim that only the Papacy meets the little
horn criteria. Also, some time prophecies were reinterpreted after the erroneous predictions
failed in order to protect the SDA historicists from the embarrassment that would follow the
acknowledgement that their time interpretations were incorrect.
The most difficult issue the SDA historicists face in their defense of the YDP is that their
support texts have nothing to do with symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies, while their YDP
definitions limit its application to symbolic, apocalyptic prophecies. This creates a fundamental
contradiction between the definition, support, and application of the YDP. From this perspective,
Tregelles argues that, a distinction has, indeed, been drawn between symbolic and literal
prophecies, and that if this distinction be good, no literal prophecies ought to be brought
forward amongst the supposed proofs.118
YDP Support from Tradition
Shea argues in Year-Day Principle Part 2119 that the year-day principle was known
and applied by Jewish interpreters during the second century down to the post-Qumran period,

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 8

and that it is no longer tenable to hold that the principle was a ninth century A. D.
phenomenon.120 Pfandl echoes the claim, and states that the historicist method of interpretation
is not a Johnny-come-lately on the theological scene, rather it rests on a solid biblical and
historical foundation.121 His claim is a non sequitur122 because an appeal to tradition123 or
argumentum ad antiquitatem, is a fallacious argument that does not count as evidence.124 Shea
himself cautions his readers that tradition is no evidence that Daniel applied the YDP or that the
historicist principle is correct,125 while Ellen G. Whites warns often against the use of tradition
to defend beliefs.126, 127
The evidence Shea presents is from second century Jewish interpreters who were first
and foremost in the application of the year-day principle to the prophecies.128 His sources are
the Hellenistic Jewish Literature,129, 130, 131 written in the Jubilee language (but the conclusion
that these texts support the YDP is a non sequitur), 132 the Qumran Literature133, 134, 135, 136 that
adds Daniels 70 weeks to the previous topic, and the Post-Qumran Interpreters137 such as
Josephus who applied the little horn of Daniel 8 to Antiochus Epiphanes and took the time
element of the prophecy as literal time,138 but whose historical statements have been distorted to
appear that he understood the 2300 evening-mornings as longer, not shorter than the 1290
days, and that he interpreted the 70 weeks as symbolic.139 Among the Post-Qumran
Interpreters, the Early Rabbinical Interpreters, 140, 141, 142 use Leviticus 25 language that deals
with labor and the Jubilee. None of this literature can support the YDP, and appears to fall under
fallacious manufactured evidence,143 that is, text distortion and misinterpretation aimed to protect
the historicist assumed principle.
Sheas claims that the YDP was used in the first centuries are contradicted by scholars
such as Tregelles who argues that Daniel understood seventy years to mean seventy years, and
not twenty-five thousand two hundred years [emphasis in the original],144 Maitland, who
expands on Tregelless position and states that the YDP was altogether unknown by the Jewish
church before the Christian eraby the Apostles of our Lordby the primitive churchby the
Fathers,145 and Elliot, who confirms Maitlands assertion and states that for the first four
centuries, the days mentioned in Daniels and the Apocalyptic prophecies respecting Antichrist
were interpreted literally as days, not as years, by the Fathers of the Christian church.146 Burgh
and Tregelles confirm and expand on Elliots contentions.147, 148
Maitland argues that Josephus provides definitive evidence that, indeed, the Jews and the
Christians in the first centuries were not familiar with the YDP and never used the historicist
principle as a hermeneutical tool because the Jewish historian understood the times of Daniel to
mean literal years, and applied the desecration of the temple to Antiochus Epiphanes.149 Barnes
states that there is no evidence that Martin Luther used the YDP in his biblical interpretation,150
while Stuart explains that the first knowledge of the YDP came from Medes published book on
Revelation.151 Douty takes the position, supported with undeniable evidence, that the earliest
time theologians used the YDP in the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation was in the ninth
century, and that there is no evidence for the use of the YDP in the first centuries.152
The data submitted above shows that the SDA historicist claim that the YDP was used
during OT times and in the first centuries is not supported with facts. Even if the evidence from
tradition were genuine and empirical, though, that still does not change the fact that such

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 9

documentation does not prove that this [YDP] method of prophetic interpretation was applied
by Daniel, nor does it prove the correctness of such a method.153
Historicist Application of the YDP
The traditional application of the YDP has been, as Moon puts it, not to all prophecies in
Daniel and Revelation, but to certain time prophecies [emphasis added]154 because the
principles application has been limited and selective. This becomes obvious when one considers
the total number of biblical texts to which the YDP has been applied, and which are, notes
Tregelles, not more than ten. The texts he mentions are Daniel 7:25; 8:14; 12:7, 11, 12 and
Revelation 9:5, 10, 15; 11:9, 10.155 The SDA historicists have followed, for the most part, the
application tradition and have also applied the YDP to a small and selected number of texts, less
than 20 in all, although the specific applications of the principle differ to a certain degree from
theologian to theologian.
Some texts claimed to reflect the application of the YDP have been discussed earlier in
the paper, and the conclusion has been that the claims did not survive the investigation. Among
such texts are Genesis 29:27,156 Leviticus 25:1-7,157, 158 Leviticus 25:8-55, 159, 160 Numbers
14:34,161 Ezekiel 4:6,162 and Daniel 9:24. Concerning this last text Shea affirms that all
commentators on Daniel agree that the events prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27 could not have been
completed within a literal 70 weeks or one year and five months.163 While this is true, it is also
true that Daniel 9:24 does not seem to need the YDP in order to be interpreted when sabuim is
rendered in English as sevens or heptads. Numerous theologians and Hebraists hold this
perspective, among whom are Heppenstall164 and the SDA historicist scholars who contributed to
the revised SDABC.165
Daniel 8:14 deserves special mention among the texts the SDA historicists interpret with
the YDP because it seems to be a crucial passage in connection with the sanctuary doctrine and
the teaching that the heavenly sanctuary is to be cleansed from the sins of the professed people
of God.166 The context of Daniel 8:14, though, indicates that the verse is not part of the
apocalyptic prophecy but part of the literal explanation of the vision in Daniel 8:1-12, as
Tregelles has argued.167 This means that according to the YDP definition that restricts its
application to apocalyptic prophecies, the application of the YDP to Daniel 8:14 is not correct
and legitimate.
Even if Daniel 8:14 was an apocalyptic text, its SDA historicist interpretation remains
questionable because it does not appear to be based in true historical facts. Most theologians
have applied the verse to Antiochus Epiphanes and to his suppression of the Jewish religion.
Stuart shows the evidence when he summarizes the historical events that are the factual basis for
the prophetic vision in Daniel chapter 8.168 McHarg writes a detailed and effective 12-point case
based on Jewish historical evidence that Antiochus Epiphanes IV is the little horn in Daniel 8,169
and demonstrates that Antiochus meets the prophetic narrative criteria for the little horn. In order
to provide more factual support for his arguments, McHarg also includes a dramatic quote from
William Barclay about what the Jews suffered at Antiochus Epiphanes IVs hand.170
The application of the YDP to Daniel 8:14 is also problematic when one considers that
the traditional SDA historicist translation of nitzdaq as cleansed has no historical and
contextual basis. The arguments intended to defend this rendition, such as those in the paper

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 10

Davidson wrote171, 172 are not credible. The scholar attempts to superimpose on the Hebrew term
a semantic range that includes cleansed, restored, and vindicated. That his exegetical
approach does not work is obvious when one tries to extend it to all Daniel 8, the entire prophetic
book, or the entire text of the Bible. Under such exegetical parameters each Hebrew term
assigned multiple meanings the interpretation of Daniel or the Bible would generate absurd
results. The evidence from historical and linguistic data appears to indicate, therefore, that the
best English translation for the Hebrew term nitzdaq in Daniel 8:14 is restored [to its rightful
state (RSV)].
The application of the YDP to Daniel and Revelation has also generated some odd results
among which is the prophetic year, a theoretical, calculated time period that runs for 360 days
and not for 365 days as the natural astronomic year does.173 The biblical passage used in this
calculation is Daniel 7:25 in connection with Revelation 11:2, 3174 and 12:6.175 Similar to Daniel
8:14, though, Daniel 7:25 is part of the literal explanation the angel delivers to Daniel about the
vision, and not part of the apocalyptic prophecy, and this makes the historicist YDP application
to Daniel 7:25 incorrect.
Time Expressions and YDP Application
In 2003, Adventist Today published a critical paper on the YDP176 in which I included the
quantitative tabulation of all time expressions in the KJV Bible, including Daniel and Revelation,
and evidence that the SDA historicists have applied the YDP only to a selected fraction of those
time expressions. Fisel stated that the count I had submitted was less than accurate, because I
had included many passages in which time periods refer to ongoing historical events, and would
not normally be subject to the application of the formula.177 The fact, though, is that the
tabulated data on the time expressions in the KJV Bible that I had submitted has been important
in order to assess whether or not the YDP has been applied in a consistent manner to biblical
texts. Ouro contends in his paper on the Apolesmatic Principle [APP] that if [the APP] is indeed
a fundamental principle of interpretation and a scientific methodology, then it should apply to
prophetic texts throughout the Bible.178 This criterion also applies to the YDP. The historicist
rule is either applied to all the time expressions in the Bible or it is not applied at all. A
selective application of a rule is no application at all.
In order to obtain a count of all the time expressions in the Bible, I performed a search on
the KJV Bible text with the Bible Works179 search engine. The search showed 4138 time
expressions in the entire KJV Bible, with 98 time expressions in Daniel, and 55 time expressions
in Revelation. The count included both the multiples and submultiples of the day as standard
chronological time mentioned in the Bible.180 A more accurate computation is obtained from the
original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was written. Because the examination
of all the time expression in the Bible is time and space intensive, this paper will limit the
investigation to Daniel and Revelation.
The detailed examination of the manner in which the YDP is applied to Daniel shows that
this application is irregular and selective. For instance, the principle is not applied to narrative
passages, although it is applied to Genesis 5:1-32181 and 29:27.182 The YDP is applied to the term
iddan (time) in Daniel 7:25, but it is not applied to the same Hebrew term in Daniel 3:5 and 7,183
or in Daniel 4, although the time periods are expressed in uncommon units in the chapter.184

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 11

Daniel 10 is stated to be given largely in literal language,185 and for this reason the YDP is not
applied there, although it has been applied to other literal passages in the same book. In Daniel
12, the principle is also applied to verse 7 (the 1290 days), but no verifiable historical event
could be linked to the date 186 Out of the 63 texts that contain time expressions, the YDP has
been applied to 8 texts. The application rate is about 11%, or 1 in 9 texts, and that makes the
texts to which the YDP has been applied the exception, and not the rule in the application of the
principle.
The SDA historicists have applied the YDP in the same irregular and selective manner to
Revelation. Kairos (time) is interpreted as a vague time reference in 1:3,187 and the same happens
with emera (day) in 2:13, although the YDP is applied to the same term in 2:10.188 Hora (hour)
in Revelation 3 is interpreted as vague,189 and so is chronos (time) in chapter 6.190 In chapter 8,
hemiorion (half an hour) is interpreted with the YDP,191 although perspectives are divided in the
matter. Verses 5 and 10 in chapter 9 have been considered for a while as evidence for the
pragmatic test192 as both William Miller and Josiah Litch have applied the YDP to it, but when
the prediction failed the claim was abandoned.193 No YDP application is made for emera (day)
in Revelation 6:7 but chronos (time) in verse 6 is interpreted as a reference to the end of the
2300 day prophecy.194, 195 Chapters 11 (the 42 months in verse 2, the 1260 days in verse 3, and
the 3 days in verses 9 and 11),196, 197, 198, 199 12 (the 1260 days in verse 6 and 3 times in verse
14),200 and 13 (the 42 months in verse 5) are considered essential to the SDA historicist
interpretation of Revelation, and the YDP has been applied to them, but ora (hour) in chapter
14:7 and 15 has been interpreted as nonspecific historical time.201 The same is the case with ora
(hour) in chapter 17,202 and emera (day) in chapter 18. 203 The YDP is also not applied to the
1000 years in Revelation 20.204 Out of the 45 texts that contain time expressions, the YDP has
been applied to 13 texts. The application rate is about 28.9 %, or 1 in 3.5 texts, and as with the
YDP application to Daniel this makes the texts to which the YDP has been applied the exception,
and not the rule in the application of the principle.
The facts also indicate that an unrestricted application of the principle to all the time
expressions in the Bible would generate strange results in numerous cases. This is the conclusion
drawn by Terry,205, 206, 207, 208 Tregelles,209, 210, 211, 212, 213 and Stuart,214, 215, 216, 217 who consider
such results evidence against the YDP. Some dedicated historicists, such as Elliot, have applied
the YDP even to biblical passages that the more tempered SDA historicists have never
considered for an application,218, 219, 220 and the results have been bizarre. This information is
relevant because the scholar has applied the principle to those texts from the perspective that the
YDP should be applicable to all the time expressions in the Bible and not only to a few selected
ones as the principle has been applied in the historicist tradition.
In his arguments against the YDP, De Burgh disputes the historicist schools position that
interprets all the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation as being fulfilled through the
course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them,221 and intended
by its ancient author[s] to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span
between his day and the eschaton [emphasis in the original].222 De Burghs contention is that
the historicist school places an artificial and unbiblical restriction on the fulfillment of those
prophecies and schedules Christs Second Coming at the convenience of the historicist
theologians.223 That the Second Coming could not have occurred before the 2300 day SDA
historicist prophetic period had ended is an unacceptable idea even to some SDA theologians

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 12

such as Neufeld. He contends that if certain conditions have been met, Jesus would have come
earlier, seemingly as early as the generation specified in Matthew 24:24,224 and that at
whatever time the fulfillment would have come, the Holy Spirit could have provided the
appropriate scale225 for the prophecies.
The APP and YDP Compared
In his article on the APP, Ouro describes it as unscientific and inconsistent, and denies
the claim that the principle is a legitimate hermeneutical method.226 The same criticism applies to
the YDP, the hermeneutical rule or equation227 which the SDA theologians consider
indispensable for the interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.228
The APP is the solution Ford has proposed in his manuscript, Daniel 8:14,229 for the multiple
theological issues that have confronted the SDA historicists because of their questionable
prophetic interpretations due in part to their selective YDP application.
Both Ford and the SDA historicists interpret the Bible as a roadmap that covers the
historical time from the creation to the end of the world and includes reference points or
historical landmarks. 230, 231 Embedded in the definitions for both the APP232 and YDP233 is the
inconsistent and selective manner in which the two principles will be applied that not all the
Bible, but some prophecies in Daniel and Revelation might be interpreted with these
hermeneutical tools. Such selective applications of the APP and the YDP are inconsistent and
unscientific application failures because scientific rules must be universal in their application
ranges and effects.234
Ford and the SDA historicists also accept and use the APP in their interpretation of the
Scriptures Daniel and Revelation included. Their disagreement is about application details, that
is, to which texts should the APP be applied, and to which it should not be applied. Both the
SDA historicists and Ford make dual applications to some OT prophecies. For this reason Ford
supports and defends the APP with numerous quotations from the SDABC in order to
demonstrate that the difference between him and the SDA theologians is in the selection of the
biblical texts for the APP application and nothing else.235
Ouro argued that if the APP were a fundamental principle of interpretation and scientific
methodology, then it would be applied to prophetic texts throughout the Bible, and not only to
a few selected biblical passages.236, 237 The same inconsistent and selective hermeneutical
approach is evident in the SDA application of the APP to various biblical texts. For instance, the
SDA historicists have applied the principle to the seven churches in Revelation from the
perspective that the seven local churches also represent the seven consecutive periods of church
history.238, 239, 240 The SDA theologians, though, do not recognize a dual application to the
vision in Daniel 8:8-14 that would allow both Antiochus Epiphanes IV and Rome as candidates
for the little horn role. This interpretation would not be acceptable because the only consistent
method of interpreting the prophetic chapters of Daniel is that suggested by the historicist
school, and since the little horn of chapter 7 cannot be Antiochus IV the little horn in chapter 8
should not represent him either.241, 242

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 13

Ouros criticism of the APP has been focused on two issues that are essential for a correct
rule application: 1. text pool (the texts to which the APP will be applied), and 2. application
parameters (how the APP will be applied to the texts). His research on the APP provided
evidence that the principle suffers from (1) limited application (the application range is too
small), and (2) selective application (the application is limited to selected texts).243, 244 Neufeld
makes his case against the YDP as a hermeneutical principle and shows that the SDA traditional
application of the method to the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation has always been
inconsistent and selective, and that some Bible texts have been arbitrarily excluded from the
YDP application pool.245 The two application issues confront both the APP and the YDP. In
response to Ouros criticism that Ford (1) has not applied the APP throughout the Bible, and that
Ford (2) has applied the APP in a selective manner to biblical texts, we have also shown that the
SDA historicists have applied the YDP in the same irregular and selective manner to Daniel and
Revelation.
Conclusion
The factual data submitted in this paper has provided ample evidence for the unavoidable
conclusion that the YDP, as an SDA historicist prophetic time computation method, is not a
divine law, biblical principle, or scientific method, but a theological assumption that has no
linguistic support, is not grounded in the Bible, and cannot be defended with the Bible. This
conclusion is based on the evidence derived from (1) the unscientific definition, (2) the
questionable support (3) the irregular and selective application of the principle, (4) the bizarre
and even absurd interpretations, and (5) the absence of a true linguistic background. The
principle is illogical, unsound, and unreliable, and should be discarded as a hermeneutical
method of prophetic interpretation and replaced with the discourse approach a verified
scientific method for Biblical interpretation.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 14

References
1

William H. Shea, Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy, Adventists Affirm (Spring
2003), 22:2.
2

Ibid., 22:3.

Ibid., 22:4.

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 67.
5

Ibid., 104.

John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,
second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
7

Gerhard Pfandl, The Year-Day Principle, Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April
2007, 1.
8

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Review
and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Ezekiel 4:6.
9

William H. Shea, Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the
2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (Spring
2001), 89.
10

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 21.
11

Ibid., 30.

12

Ibid., 44:2.

13

Ibid., 44:1.

14

Ibid., 44:3.

15

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 103.
16

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 33.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 15

17

Gerhard Pfandl, The Year-Day Principle, Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April
2007, 1.
18

William H. Shea, Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the
2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (Spring
2001), 89.
19

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association,1978), Year-Day Principle.
20

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Review
and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 7:25.
21

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 44:1.
22

Ibid., 44:3.

23

Jerry Moon, The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days, Adventist Today, volume 10,
number 4, July-August 2002, 14-15.
24

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
25

Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Explanatory and Practical (London: Blackie &
Son, 1851), xxiii.
26

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
27

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 79-95.
28

John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,
second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
29

Gerhard Pfandl, In Defense of the Year-day Principle, Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society, 23/1 (2012), 9.
30

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
31

Toby Joreteg, Reexamining the Year-Day Principle in Prophetic Interpretation, Adventist

Today, volume 10, number 3, May-June 2002, 19.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 16

32

Don F. Neufeld, This Generation Shall Not Pass, Adventist Review, April 5 1979, 6.

33

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1 and 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 81.
34

Jerry Moon, The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days, Adventist Today, volume 10,
number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
35

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
36

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1 and 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 79-81.
37

Ibid., 79-80.

38

James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: SCM Press, 1961), 8-20.

39

Edward Greswell, Fasti Tempores Catholici and Origines Kalendriae (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1852), 151-152.
40

Ibid., 152.

41

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1 and 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 81.
42

Ibid., 81.

43

Ibid., 81-82.

44

Ibid., 81.

45

Jerry Moon, The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days, Adventist Today, volume 10,
number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
46

Robert Lowth, Isaiah, A New Translation with A Preliminary Dissertation and Notes (Boston:
William Hilliard, 1834), ix, 1-2.
47

George Buchanan Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (New York: Hodder and Stoughton,
1915), 37-38.
48

Ibid., 38.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 17

49

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 83.
50

Ibid., 84-85.

51

Ibid., 85.

52

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
53

Jerry Moon, The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days, Adventist Today, volume 10,
number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
54

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1866), 95.
55

Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 382.

56

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 85.
57

Ibid., 85.

58

Ibid., 104.

59

Ibid., 85-86.

60

Ibid., 89:2.

61

Ibid., 89:3.

62

Jack J. Blanco, The Historicist Interpretation of Prophecy: Its Present Relevance in the Light
of the Holy Spirit, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 2/2 (1991): 67-80.
63

Gerhard Pfandl, In Defense of the Year-day Principle, Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society, 23/1 (2012), 10.
64

Ibid., 10-11.

65

Edward Heppenstall, The Year-Day Principle in Prophecy, Ministry, October 1981, 18.

66

J. Hans K. LaRondelle Christ or antichrist: The mysterious gap in Daniel 9, Ministry, May
1982, 14-15.
67

Ibid., 15:2.

68

Ibid., 15:3.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 18

69

Ibid., Ministry, July 1982, 12.

70

Gerhard F. Hasel, The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, Ministry, May 1976, 5 D.

71

Ibid., 5 D.

72

Ibid., 6 D.

73

Gerhard F. Hasel, The Hebrew Masculine Plural for weeks in the Expression seventy
weeks in Daniel 9:24, Andrews University Studies, Summer 1993, No. 2, 105.
74

Ibid., 106:1.

75

Ibid.,106:2.

76

Ibid., 105.

77

Ibid., 107:2.

78

Ibid., 107:3.

79

Ibid., 107:4.

80

Ibid., 107-108.

81

Ibid., 105-106.

82

David H. Lurie, A New Interpretation of Daniels sevens and the Chronology of the Seventy
sevens, JETS 33/3 (September 1990), 304.
83

Ibid., 306.

84

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1866), 92.
85

Ibid., 95.

86

Ibid., 115-117.

87

Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 388.

88

Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (London: Blackie & Son, 1851), xxx.

89

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M. H. Newman, 1845), 462.

90

John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Publishers,
1971), 216.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 19

91

Ibid., 217.

92

Ibid., 219.

93

H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1949), 406.

94

Ibid., 409.

95

Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: W. M. B. Berdmans Publishing
Co., 1949), 191.
96

Ibid., 195.

97

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 44.
98

Ibid., 45.

99

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 86.
100

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1866), 114.
101

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M. H. Newman, 1845), 461.

102

Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 386387.
103

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
104

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 87.
105

Ibid., 88.

106

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
107

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 88.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 20

108

Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 387
up.
109

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 461.

110

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1866), 115.
111

Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 260.
112

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
113

Ibid., 46.

114

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 100.
115

Ibid., 101.

116

Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261.
117

Ibid., 263.

118

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1866), 118-119.
119

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 105-110.
120

Ibid., 105.

121

Gerhard Pfandl, The Year-Day Principle, Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April
2007, 3.
122

Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261.
123

Gerhard Pfandl, The Year-Day Principle, Reflections, A BRI Newsletter, number 18, April
2007, 3.
124

Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 264.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 21

125

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 106.
126

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1950), 107.
127

Ibid., 122.

128

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 105.
129

Ibid., 106:2.

130

Ibid., 106:3.

131

Ibid., 107.

132

Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261.
133

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 107.
134

Ibid., 107.

135

Ibid., 108:2.

136

Ibid., 108:3.

137

Ibid., 109:2.

138

Ibid., 109:3.

139

Ibid., 109:2.

140

Ibid., 109-110.

141

Ibid., 110:2.

142

Ibid., 110:2.

143

Nancy V. Wood, Perspectives on Argument (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009), 261-265.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 22

144

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1866), 123-124.
145

S. R. Maitland, Second Inquiry (London: C. & J. Rivington, 1829), 77.

146

E. B. Elliot, Horae Apocalypticae (London: Seeley, Burnside, & Seeley, 1847), 232-233.

147

William De Burgh, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, & Co.,
1857), 417.
148

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1866), 111.
149

S. R. Maitland, An Inquiry (London: C. & J. Rivington, 1829), 45-46.

150

Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (London: Blackie & Son, 1851).

151

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 459.

152

Norman F. Douty, Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1962), 1962.
153

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 106.
154

Jerry Moon, The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days, Adventist Today, volume 10,
number 4, July-August 2002, 14.
155

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1864), 119.
156

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46.
157

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 83.
158

Ibid., 84-85.

159

Ibid., 85:2.

160

Ibid., 85:3.

161

Ibid., 86.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 23

162

Ibid., 87.

163

Ibid., 89.

164

Edward Heppenstall, The Year-Day Principle in Prophecy, Ministry, October 1981, 18.

165

Gerhard Pfandl, In Defense of the Year-day Principle, Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society, 23/1 (2012), 10.
166

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 12.
167

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1864), 121.
168

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845), 468.

169

Winston McHarg, Why the Little Horn of Daniel 8 Must Be Antiochus Epiphanes, at Good
News For Adventists.com: http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/why-the-little-horn-of-daniel8-must-be-antiochus-epiphanes/
170

William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible: The Revelation (St. Andrews Press, 1975), 73.

171

Richard M. Davidson, The Meaning of Nisdaq in Daniel 8:14, Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 7/1 (Spring 1996): 107-119.
172

Ibid., 118.

173

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 7:25.
174

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 45.
175

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 12:6.
176

Eduard Hanganu, A Linguist examines the Year Day Principle, Adventist Today, Sept.Oct. 2003, www.atoday.com/160.0.html.
177

Fernand Fisel, Adventisms Last Stand in the Battle for the Year-Day Formula, at
http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=433658756&url=f1bbae2ba6653f0fe24e5245c0784093.
178

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 24

179

Michael S. Bushell and Michael D. Tan. Bible Works 5.0.00, Bible Works, 2002.

180

J. Robert Spangler (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 44.
181

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 80.
182

J. Robert Spangler (Editor) Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, in Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 46-47.
183

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 7:25.
184

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 74.
185

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Daniel 10:1.
186

Ibid., Daniel 12:11.

187

Ibid., Revelation 1:3.

188

Ibid., Revelation 2:10.

189

Ibid., Revelation 3:10.

190

Ibid., Revelation 6:11.

191

Ibid., Revelation 8:1.

192

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 100.
193

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 12:5, 15.
194

Ibid., Revelation 10:7.

195

Ibid., Revelation 10:6.

196

Ibid., Revelation 11:2.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 25

197

Ibid., Daniel 7:25.

198

Ibid., Revelation 11:3.

199

Ibid., Revelation 11:9,11.

200

Ibid., Revelation 12:6, 14.

201

Ibid., Revelation 14:7.

202

Ibid., Revelation 17:12.

203

Ibid., Revelation 18:8.

204

Ibid., Revelation 20:3.

205

Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, a Treatise (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 387.

206

Ibid., 387-388.

207

Ibid., 388.

208

Ibid., 389-390.

209

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1866), 123.
210

Ibid., 123.

211

Ibid., 123-124.

212

Ibid., 124:1.

213

Ibid., 124:2.

214

Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (New York: M.H. Newman, 1845).

215

Ibid., 460:2.

216

Ibid., 460:3.

217

Ibid., 460-461.

218

S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel (London: Samuel
Bagster and Sons, 1864), 118.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 26

219

E. B. Elliot, Horae Apocalypticae, third edition (London: Seeley, Burnside, & Seeley, 1847),
226 footnote 3.
220

Ibid., 227, footnote 3.

221

William H. Shea, Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy, Adventists Affirm
(Spring 2003), 22, cited in Vetne, A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method
for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall
2003), 2.
222

Reimar Vetne, A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting
Daniel and Revelation, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7.
223

William De Burgh, An Exposition of the Book of the Revelation (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, &
Co, 1857), 416.
224

Don F. Neufeld, This Generation Shall Not Pass, Adventist Review, April 5 1979, 6.

225

Ibid., 6.

226

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 326-342.
227

William H. Shea, Year-Day Principle Part 1 and 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.
Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 103.
228

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 328.
229

Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment
(Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980).
230

William H. Shea, Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy, Adventists Affirm
(Spring 2003), 22, cited in Vetne, A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method
for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall
2003), 2.
231

Reimar Vetne, A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting
Daniel and Revelation, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7.
232

Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment
(Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), 319.
233

Jerry Moon, The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days, Adventist Today, volume 10,
number 4, July-August 2002, 14.

The Year-Day Principle Reexamined (SHORT) 27

234

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337-338.
235

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, D.C.: Review
and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 1:1017-1019 cited in Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14,
320.
236

Robert Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 337.
237

Ibid., 337-339.

238

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Revelation 2:1.
239

Ibid., Revelation 2:1.

240

Ibid., Additional note on Revelation Chapter 2.

241

Arthur J. Ferch, Daniel on Solid Ground (Washington: Review and Herald, 1988), 83-84, 8586, cited in Vetne, A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting
Daniel and Revelation, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 2,
footnote 4.
242

William H. Shea, Why Antiochus IV Is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8 in Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised
Edition. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1992), 64.
243

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 337.
244

245

Ibid., 337-338.
Don F. Neufeld, This Generation Shall Not Pass, Adventist Review, April 5 1979, 6.