Talk:Day-year principle

message: The page currently has too much of a Seventh-day Adventist focus, I think. This is not intentional, as the main contributors so far have a good knowledge of the church and so contributions simply reflect our knowledge base. Other editors are very welcome to introduce a broader perspective. Colin MacLaurin 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventist focus 

message: Which doctrines are the verses Cottrell mentions usually employed to support? The first two are obviously the day-year principle. The second two are obviously the remnant. What about the last three? Colin MacLaurin 20:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raymond Cottrell quote 

message: I've removed the following from the notes as the link is a 404 as of today, and the Google cache page doesn't contain the audio:
* "Day-year Principle" Probe commentary on the Seventh-day Adventist Adult Sabbath School Lesson of August 26, 2006 by Alden Thompson. The accompanying audio commentary is a dialogue between Thompson and guests Dave Thomas and Paul Dybdahl, all of the school of theology at Walla Walla College (unpolemic)
If you can find another instance of the article, or if the page goes back up, you may want to reinstate it. —AldeBaer (c) 11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  404 link 

message: I have corrected the section on the historical background of the day/year principle, and provided relevant source material.  --Taiwan boi 02:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help, and I would also like to inform you there are policies about translating. Colin MacLaurin 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would appreciate any information on translating which you can provide.  I've been looking through the Wiki FAQs for policies about translation, but I haven't found any yet.  --Taiwan boi 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical background 

message: The page currently has a lot of criticism. If Hardyf or others would like to add to the supportive arguments to improve its neutrality, please go ahead! Colin MacLaurin 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I have made quite a few edits today.  Please review them.  I have endeavoured to make the article read more smoothly in places, I have added some qualifications and clarifications, and I have provided some additional historical information and references.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your good work, Taiwan boi. I have a question: what 3.5 year period are you referring to when you say "some historicist interpreters have also considered the "3½ years" to be included also" ? Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're welcome.  I meant the 3.5 years of Revelation 11:9, and I thought I had placed that in the text when I made that edit.  I've edited the paragraph to make it more clear.  I note that someone has been putting the word 'days' in inverted commas (1,260 "days"), instead of the entire phrase ("1,260 days").  I don't think this is correct.  The phrase should be placed in quotes as a direct quote.  Placing the days in the quote marks is interpretative, and not a true reference.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I was confused because you said 3.5 years rather than 3.5 days. (Ugh, this whole day-year thing is really knotty!) I agree it should be "1260 days" rather than 1260 "days" and have changed it. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: There are some problems with this latest edit:
The year day principle is a unique interpretive feature of the historicist interpretation of bible prophecy. Historicism as a systematic interpretation of Daniel and Revelation emerged during the Post Reformation era.
Firstly the year/day principle is not unique to Historicism, and has been used by Futurist expositors.  Secondly Historicism as a systematic interpretation of Daniel and Revelation did not emerge during the Post Reformation era.  It was used from around the 4th century onwards.  I can provide an overwhelming amount of evidence for this, but if you want to see for yourself then I suggest Edward Elliott's 'Horae Apocalypticae' (volume 4, appendix 1, 5th edition, 1862), and Leroy Edwin Froom's 'The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers' (1950-1954).  --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit 

message: This entire section is guilty of WP:COAT.  It is a detailed exposition of the 2,300 day and 70 weeks prophecies, and does not contribute to the subject of the article, which is the day/year principle.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2300 Day Prophecy within the Seventieth Week of Daniel

message: There are currently 15,000,000 SDAs world wide.  Even if we assume that All of North America (1.05 million) and all of Australia (.40 million) and a good share of Europe (.10 million) were progressive Adventists (which is so not reality), 1.55 million is still a minority.  Progressive Adventism is basically limited to the English language and around some Adventist institutions of higher education (with some exceptions).  I'd estimate that more than 80% of SDAs have never heard of Ford or Cottrel and their off-shoot teachings simply because they don't speak English.  And because most of them have become Adventists since Ford was kicked out of the church.  Spectrum Magazine (and one or two other English language mags, are about the only place one would bother to read about Ford, et. al.  I'd estimate that their membership and readership is way under 10,000 world wide.  Again and minority.  So I'm reverting the text back to "minority".  Don't forget  WP:UNDO.   Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for explaining your reasoning, but it is still speculation without any hard facts. A qualitative assertion such as "minority" cannot be made without supporting evidence. Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything less than 50% is a minority.  Progressive theology is much, much, much less than that.  It is hardly worth mention in Adventism.  And it can be argued that Progressive theology isn't even SDA.  The vast majority of SDAs are conservatives.  Most could care less about Ford.  Just like all the other dissenters and off-shoots in Adventism over the last century and a half, he has faded out of sight, while the SDA church continues to be successful and grow without him and them.  Get over yourself.   Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The < 50% claim (and "much much much less") is still an assertion without any supporting evidence or substantiation. As such it is a weasel claim and does not meet wikipedia standards or guidelines. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand you cannot prove anything but a minority.   Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He doesn't need to. Some is a claim that could apply to a minority or a majority. The claim is weaker than claiming either. Thus, there's no issue with it. If one wants to put in a stronger claim that it is a "minority" view then one needs a better source. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minority

message: This entire section constitutes WP:COAT.  It needs to be moved to the article on Dispensationalism.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the section needs to be heavily edited removed. Day-year principle and deep discussion of 2300 days are Adventist issues, not dispensational issues.  Its clear from the initial source by Kreiger that he is not "advocating" any dispensational view; rather, he is just referencing it in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventism. My sources show that the dispensational view of the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14 is a reference to a literal period of either 2300 or 1150 days set in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Since that is not any different from the non-Adventist view, this whole speculative section should be removed.  Lamorak (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispensationalist approach to the 2300 Days

message: I replaced several external links, from an old version of this page. I am disappointed they were deleted. William Shea is possibly the foremost Adventist defender of the subject. Desmond Ford's early chapter supporting the subject is cited. Jerry Moon is an Adventist scholar of some note. Jon Paulien is a well respected Christian scholar. I haven't heard of Hanganu outside of his article, but it was published in one of the most useful Adventist magazines (according to third-party sources, see Seeking a Sanctuary affimation). These are all replaced, and others have been replaced but commented out. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced external links 

message: I've expanded the Baha'i section at the end of the article.
Baha'is recognize the Day-year principle, the 1260-year prophecy and the 2300-year prophecy, and thus the significance of the year 1844 both from a Christian and from a Muslim viewpoint.  Unlike the Christian denominations, they believe that God did reach out to mankind during that year, although not in the manner or the place that most Westerners expected.  They understand the coming of the Báb and Baha'u'llah to be the return of Elijah and Christ respectively.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetstream423 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Baha'i section 

message: One day equals exactly one year at the north pole. Just granpa (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are! But this splendid argument isn't used by those using the day-year principle. A pity indeed! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  North pole 

message: Use the principle too, in order to "prove" that Mirza Ghulam is Christ (although not Jesus Christ). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadiyya 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Day-year principle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403153158/http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents.htm to http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Noted as a sort of secondary precedent, the root of the concept from Genesis was added (Laban calls seven years a week).
The section may need sub titles now, maybe something like:
   Primary precedents
  Secondary precedents 
  Theological 
But, maybe there is someone who can advise? 
And, as Scripture is rooted in itself, do you feel  the root reference to a day for a year concept [with future context] is relevant to this section?  Hispattern (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Basis 

message: My edit summary got cut off. I'm pretty sure that "time, times and half a time" refers to the 1260 days. Everything I've ever read on this subject says that this is the case. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1260 days