A Building is Only As Solid As Its Foundation
“A small leak can sink a great ship.” Benjamin Franklin
RE: Holidays (Thread:2079297) From:
Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2011 10:18 pm To: email@example.com
“It is impossible for Yom Kippur to occur that late in the month of October no matter what alleged change (to the Jewish calendar) there may have been .
Simply put the Torah tells us that the first month of the Jewish year is the month of Passover which must occur in the Spring, and the latest secular date it can start is about April 19. Yom Kippur is always 173 days after this date, and that would be October 9. There is no way it could work out to be October 22.
Thank you for coming to AskMoses.
AskMoses Email Team
Note: In order to have a October 22, Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) in 1844; Passover would have had to be on May 2nd, in 1844. Passover has NEVER happened in the month of May. Period! Neither has a Yom Kippur EVER occurred as late as October 22, at any point in the world’s history! Visit RosettaCalendar.com and see for yourself. Test out as many years as you like, as far back or as far into the future as it takes to satisfy yourself and to accept this fact!
“Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”
The Levitcal Priesthood offered sacrifices continually, year by year. Melchizedek received tithe from Abraham ONCE. Hebrews 9 &10 emphasizes the work of Jesus Christ as our high priest occurred ONCE for all time, not continually. The investigative judgment theory has Christ doing His High Priestly work continually since 1844 (167 years as of 2011). Please read Hebrews 9 &10, and you will find the emphasis on ONCE is precisely the point in direct context to Jesus Christ fulfilling the anti-typical Day of Atonement in heaven as our High Priest; which earlier we are told is after the order of Melchizedek. Our King and High Priest offered His own blood before the Father and made atonement for our sins once, there is no need to do this a second time 1800 years later, nor is there any need for Him to do so continually since 1844 until today. Once He did so He SAT DOWN at the right hand of God. Why? Because the Father has already accepted Christ’s blood to make atonement for sin.
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Romans 5:10-11
TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK AT VERSES 11-12 AND COMPARE IT WITH 25-26, AND VERSE 7. THERE IS NO MISTAKE, THE HOLY PLACE IN VERSE 12 IS THE MOST HOLY, ON THE ANTI-TYPICAL DAY OF ATONEMENT. THE CONTEXT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER SHOWS THE CONTINUITY OF THIS FACT THROUGH OUT THIS CHAPTER.
This next section is taken from White-Washed, Uncovering the Myths of Ellen G. White, “The Great Disappointment,” pages 117-129. For information about ordering this book. Click Here
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or … When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
“Of all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles,
none have been more free from human imperfection and the wiles of Satan than
was that of the autumn of 1844.”— Ellen G. White in Great Controversy, page 401
No other doctrines are more distinctly Seventh-day Adventist than those of the 2300 days, the Sanctuary, the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. These concepts led to the “Great Disappointment” when Millerites and founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church expected Christ to return to earth on the Day of Atonement, October 22, 1844.
Biblically the Day of Atonement is an annual event occurring on the tenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish calendar (“Tishri” — Leviticus 23:27-32). At first Miller had Adventists believing Jesus would return in 1843. Disappointed, they re-examined their mathematics and set a new date for the spring of 1844. Disappointed again, they picked the fall of 1844. In writing about their first disappointment in 1843 Ellen White made a number of unusual observations:
EGW “I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. It was his design to arouse the people, and bring them to a testing point where they should decide. … Thousands were led to embrace the truth preached by Wm. Miller, and servants of God were raised up in the spirit and power of Elijah to proclaim the message. … Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ’s coming; but they objected to the definite time. … These false shepherds stood in the way of the work of God. The truth spoken in its convincing power to the people aroused them. … But these (false) shepherds stepped between the truth and the people, and preached smooth things to lead them from the truth. Many ministers would not accept this saving message themselves, and those who would receive it, they hindered. … I saw the people of God, joyful in expectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to prove (i.e. “test”) them. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods. Those who were looking for their Lord did not discover it. … God designed that his people should meet with a disappointment.” — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, pp. 133-137, written in 1858.
Did you notice Ellen White blamed God for the disappointment of 1843? And did you also notice that even though she stated there had been a mistake made in the figures, and that the 1843 prediction was wrong, she called it “the truth” and a “saving message?” Would a Divinely-inspired prophet call false messages and false predictions “the truth?” How could a genuine prophet ever call a false message a “saving message?”
Instead of recognizing these errors and simply admitting the leaders of the Advent movement of the middle 1800s were wrong, Ellen White approved of those errors as the basis for a new prediction that Jesus would come in the fall of 1844:
EGW “The hand of the Lord was removed from the figures, and the mistake was explained. They saw that the prophetic periods reached to 1844, and that the same evidence they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843, proved that they would terminate in 1844. … Again they had a point of time.” — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 138.
If the “same evidence” that produced the mistake and disappointment of 1843 was used again to set dates in 1844, wouldn’t it be logical to expect that the results would also be the same — wouldn’t they be disappointed again? Does God play games with His people by covering their errors so they cannot discern them only to later remove His hand? Is that the way the God of the Bible works to reveal truth? No. Titus 1:2 tells us that God “cannot lie!” How could any Christian ever have any confidence in God or the Bible if God lies to His people or deliberately leads us astray from truth just so He can test us? But that is only the beginning of the issues raised by these doctrines. The emphasis on setting a specific time for Christ to return created other problems. Ministers whom Ellen White called “false shepherds” and whom she accused of leading people away from the “truth” were not objecting to the preaching of Christ’s second coming — they were objecting to Adventists setting a specific date for Christ’s second coming. By objecting to the false prophecies of 1843 and 1844 those ministers were remembering the words of Jesus:
BIBLE “Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.” — Matthew 25:13 (NIV).
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” — Matthew 24:36 (NIV).
“He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” — Acts 1:7 (NIV).
Ellen White called those Bible-believing Christian ministers “hypocritical ministers,” “bold scoffers” and “false shepherds.” Why? Because they held to Scripture instead of accepting her errors. Does a true prophet of God condemn Christians for believing the Bible? No.
Ellen White was wrong when she called the false predictions of Christ’s coming in 1843 and 1844 “the truth” for Jesus tells us in 1 John 2:21 that “no lie comes from the truth.” But she went deeper into error by calling those false predictions a “saving message.” A false message cannot possibly be a “saving message!”
Worse, over the next six decades Ellen White never retracted her error of setting a time for Christ to return in 1843 and 1844, and even went on to “firmly believe” Christ would come in 1845 (see Word to the ‘Little Flock,’ p. 22). However, she taught that others who set specific dates for Christ’s coming “suit the purposes of Satan”:
EGW “The preaching of a definite time for the judgment, in the giving of the first message (1843 and 1844), was ordered of God. … The repeated efforts to find new dates for the beginning and close of the prophetic periods, and the unsound reasoning necessary to sustain these positions, not only lead minds away from the present truth, but throw contempt upon all efforts to explain the prophecies. The more frequently a definite time is set for the second advent, and the more widely it is taught, the better it suits the purposes of Satan.” — The Great Controversy, p. 457, written in 1888.
Finally, Ellen White tried to smooth over the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844 by assuring the faithful that they had really been right all along:
EGW “True, there had been a failure as to the expected event … The mistake had not been in the reckoning of the prophetic periods, but in the event to take place at the end of the 2300 days.” — The Great Controversy, pp. 406, written in 1888.
The day after October 22, 1844, in the midst of dark depression, a solution was proposed in order to salvage the Advent movement. By admitting that the expected event was wrong Adventists were able to maintain they had been correct as to the date of October 22, 1844 — they said instead of Jesus returning to earth on the Day of Atonement, He went into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the Investigative Judgment. This important doctrinal shift resulted from a “vision” received by Hiram Edson which was sanctioned by three of Ellen White’s own subsequent “visions!” Here is how Seventh-day Adventists explain this crucial doctrinal switch to their high school students even though later Hiram Edson categorically denied he ever had a “vision”:
SDA “‘While passing a large field I (Hiram Edson) was stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly, and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to earth …, that He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of the sanctuary.’ So simple — yet it rates among the most dramatic moments in religious history. … In December … Ellen received her first vision. … Here was the answer to their prayer. It was the very thing the Adventists needed. God was telling them as plainly as He could that the October 22 movement … was true light!” — Moving Out, Department of Education, General Conference of SDAs, pp. 27, 29, revised in 1980.
Thus after the fact, Ellen White claimed God told her in vision the doctrinal switch was “true light,” and that the Jewish Day of Atonement in 1844 (the 10th of Tishri) occurred on October 22.
EGW “The tenth day of the seventh month, the great Day of Atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the 22d of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord’s coming. This was in harmony with the proofs already presented that the 2300 days would terminate in the autumn … the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stands without impeachment.” — The Great Controversy, pp. 400, 457.
Wrong Day, Wrong Month, Wrong Year, Wrong Event
Where did the date of October 22, 1844 come from? Miller taught 457 B.C. marked the beginning of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, but gave no specific month or day.
After being disappointed in 1843 and again in the spring of 1844, Ellen White and her friends settled on the event and date of the Jewish Day of Atonement (the 10th of Tishri) as marking the end of the 2300 days. They believed God had revealed to S. S. Snow that the 10th of Tishri would occur on October 22 in 1844. The fact is, that in 1844, the Jewish Day of Atonement began at sunset on September 23 — not October 22! (See The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, © 1939, volume 2, pages 636 and 637).
NOTE: If you do not have access to a public library that has the The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, you can easily access a Jewish web site with a calendar program that will calculate the Gregorian date for the 10th of Tishri (the Day of Atonement) in 1844 by clicking on the link at the end of this note. When you arrive at the Jewish calendar page go to the data fields for the Civil (Gregorian) dates and enter 23 September 1844. Then click on the “Compute Dates” button and you will see the result: 10 Tishri 5605. According to the Bible, the 10th of Tishri is the day and month for the Day of Atonement. The number 5605 is the Jewish calendar’s year for 1844 on our Gregorian calendar. If you wish to double-check this information, click the “Another Calculation” button, and this time enter 10 Tishri 5605 in the Jewish date data fields and click the “Compute Dates” button. This time the result will be: Monday, 23 September, 1844. Click here to go to the JewishGen Calendar web site.
All this proof that the Day of Atonement in 1844 occurred on September 23 is not new information to SDAs. They still rely on L. E. Froom’s claim that, in 1844, the Karaite Jews celebrated the Day of Atonement on October 22, one month later than the Orthodox Jews. Their argument is not based on fact, for no Karaite sources support Froom’s claim. Instead researchers have repeatedly shown the Karaite Jews celebrated the Day of Atonement on September 23, 1844 — the very day required by the Bible and the very same day (10th of Tishri) celebrated by Orthodox/Rabbinical Jews! Here is the evidence:
Conradi (unaware the Karaite’s Day of Atonement in 1844 was September 23)
“From March 22, until October 22, 1844, S. S. Snow, gradually gaining a mighty influence over all Adventists, … claimed the Father had revealed to him that the 22nd of October, 1844, was the definite date of Christ’s coming to exchange the righteous and to destroy the wicked. … That the great date of delivery was the jubilee year of the Atonement Day. (The fact) that this jubilee year was still years in the future, and that the Jewish Day of Atonement was on the 23rd day of September, did not matter to him. In order to gain time, he adopted the reckoning of the Karaites.” — The Foundation of the SDA Denomination, by L. R. Conradi, p. 68, written in 1939.
E. S. Ballenger (knew the Karaite’s Day of Atonement in 1844 was September 23)
“October 22, 1844 has been a crucial time with SDA’s since their pioneers fixed upon it for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; and they still stand tenaciously for this date in spite of all facts to the contrary. The Day of Atonement fell on Sept. 23 in 1844 instead of Oct. 22. This can be easily demonstrated by consulting any Jewish almanac of that time, or any orthodox Jewish authority. They celebrated the Day of Atonement in 1844 on Sept. 23.
“(SDAs) declare that while the Orthodox Jews may have celebrated the Day of Atonement on Sept. 23, the Karaite Jews observed it on Oct. 22. We have made careful investigation, and we find that this is a false claim. The leading Karaite rabbi of Cairo, Egypt, Youseff Ibrahim Marzork (sp), in reply to an inquiry as to the day on which they celebrated the atonement in 1844, wrote: ‘As to the dates of the Passover and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) they are the following: according to the Karaite Jews in the year 1843 the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) is on Wednesday 4th October, and just the same date according to the Rabbinical. In the year 1844 it is on Monday 23rd September for both the Karaite and Rabbinical.'” — The Gathering Call, May/June, 1941.
To see a copy of Nehemia Gordon’s, (Jerusalem, Israel) letter stating the September 23, 1844 date, See bottom of this post
“Writing to the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, I learned some very surprising things. The Day of Atonement in 1843 occurred on Wednesday, October 4th. In 1844, the Day of Atonement occurred on Monday, September 23rd. I have the letter from the Seminary on file as proof. Anyone can check it out if they want to by paying me a visit, or writing to the Seminary themselves.” — The GC News-letter, September, 1980, by Donald E. Mote.
Robert K. Sanders: September 23, 1844
“In 1994 I spoke with Indiana’s Purdue University professor Prohofsky of the Hillel Foundation of the B’nai Brith concerning the date of the Day of Atonement in 1844. Professor Prohofsky verified the September 23 date through the InterLuch computer and stated that the Day of Atonement has never occurred so late in the year as October 22.” — Conversation with Robert K. Sanders, Lafayette, Indiana, in November, 1994.
The facts are that Ellen White and the Adventists were wrong about the year, month, day, and event which was supposed to occur in 1844! Can any Christian have confidence in a church which continues to teach those myths as Bible doctrines?
(To access a Jewish web site with a calendar program that will calculate the actual date for the 10th of Tishri (the Day of Atonement) in 1844, or any year, click here!)
Cleansing Requires Contamination
But that is not all. The entire theological concept of “cleansing” the heavenly sanctuary requires it to first be contaminated. In support of that concept Ellen White claimed the blood of animal sacrifices was taken daily into the Holy Place and thus, in type, the earthly sanctuary was polluted with sin through that blood:
EGW “The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals. The repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and, placing his hand upon the victim’s head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. By his own hand the animal was then slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place ….” — Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 354, written in 1890.
Unfortunately Ellen White had to once again contradict the Bible to support her idea. A careful reading of Leviticus chapter 4 states that the only time blood was taken into the Holy Place, other than on the Day of Atonement, was when the High Priest sinned, or when the entire congregation sinned. Even her own editors verified this after her death by inserting Appendix Note number 6, on p. 761 of Patriarchs and Prophets. It was an admission their prophet erred by contradicting Scripture.
Raymond F. Cottrell and the Church’s Squandered Opportunities
The 1950’s presented SDAs with two notable opportunities to admit their sanctuary doctrine errors. First was when the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on the book of Daniel was revised by editors Raymond F. Cottrell, Don F. Neufeld and Francis D. Nichol. In a taped address (given around 1985) Cottrell remembers stormy sessions where “we really struggled” to make sense out of Daniel 8 and 9 and wondered “what are we going to put into the Commentary?”
As a result, Cottrell researched the position of non-SDA scholars and discovered that no reputable Christian scholar has ever accepted Adventism’s sanctuary doctrine! Highly regarded cult watcher, Walter Martin, examined Bible texts presented by SDAs and wrote in his book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists: “None of these texts has anything to do with any judgment now going on. Neither the grammar, nor the context supports such a contention. … (The SDA sanctuary doctrine) relies on out-of-context quotations. The Adventist error is that they draw from the Scriptures interpretations which cannot be substantiated by exegesis, but rest largely upon inference and deduction.” Writing in Eternity magazine, Martin’s associate, Barnhouse, said: “The (SDA sanctuary doctrine resulting from the Great Disappointment of 1844) is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history! We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position. And we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable.”
The More One Knows About the Bible the Less Likely One is to Accept 1844!
Cottrell’s research led him to exclaim: “Time and again non-Adventist Bible scholars have examined Adventist beliefs and have given all of them a bill of health as having some roots in Scripture. … But without exception, and often in the most emphatic terms, they denounce our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as ‘eisegesis of the worst kind’ (that is, reading into the Bible something that is not there). Perish the thought, but the invariable rule appears to be that the more a non-Adventist knows about the Bible and how to study it, the less disposed he is to look with favor on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14!
“Now, if only minor matters were involved, we could dismiss these criticisms. But when the keystone in our theological ‘arch’ has been the target of these criticisms — you knock the keystone of an arch out — what’s going to happen? You don’t have an arch there! That has been the target of these attacks, so in a certain sense, the integrity of our church is at stake! And, unfortunately, we have never faced up realistically, yet, to this fact!”
Revising Bible Readings Shocked Cottrell
A second opportunity for Seventh-day Adventism to resolve their doctrinal errors occurred in 1958. Here again are Cottrell’s taped recollections: “In 1958 … it fell to my lot, as a Review and Herald Publishing Association editor, to revise the perennial classic Bible Readings (published for nearly 100 years). … The old plates had worn out and we had to make new plates. … The Review and Herald thought it would be highly desirable to bring Bible Readings into harmony with the (Seventh-day Adventist Bible) Commentary so that we wouldn’t be saying something out of one corner of our mouth and something else out of the other corner. So it fell to my lot, then, to come to Daniel 8:14, the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment. And with all of these statements — of Martin and Barnhouse and Lindsell and DeHaan and you name them — reverberating in my mind just like an echo that kept going back and forth …, I decided that I would try to find some way to say what we wanted to say about the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in a way that would take the ammunition out of these people’s hands so they couldn’t criticize us like they were — present it as Biblical. And after struggling, I found that it couldn’t be done!
“So I went to Elder Nichol one day and I said, ‘Elder Nichol, what do you do in a case like this?’ I was really trying my very best to present the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in the book Bible Readings — I couldn’t do it! He said, ‘Well, what do (our) college Bible teachers have to say? … Write them a letter.’ So I composed a letter in which I asked a number of key questions on getting the sanctuary doctrine out of Daniel 8:14. And I sent this questionnaire out to every teacher of Hebrew in our colleges — we didn’t have any universities at the time — and to the head of every Bible department and a number of other Bible teachers I was personally acquainted with. And I protected them by assuring them their names would never be associated with any responses they made.
“I asked these questions and all twenty-seven I wrote to replied. Without exception the responses expressed the opinion that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the antitypical Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. There was not one college Bible teacher who came out and said there is a basis in exegesis — that is in the language or the context.
“And then I had asked another question: ‘What reason, other than language and context can you offer?’ And thirteen, half of the twenty-seven, said ‘There is no other basis.’ In other words, half of them were saying there is no basis whatever! Then there was a little scattering among the other half — two people replied this way and I was really taken back by those replies — two of them proposed that the English word ‘cleansed,’ in the King James Version, was ‘a fortunate accident!’ How about having the most important of our doctrines based upon a ‘fortunate accident’ in translation! …
“Actually, it was not an accident, the Septuagint has the word ‘cleansed,’ … and they put the word ‘cleansed’ in because they thought it applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. So the (Seventh-day) Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, the interpretation of ‘cleansed,’ is based on an ancient translation made by Jewish people into Greek believing that Antiochus Epiphanes had fulfilled the prophecy. So if we take the word ‘cleansed’ there, we really ought to say that it applied to Antiochus Epiphanes.
Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel Stymied
“Well, I went to Elder Nichol. Since he had gotten me into this fix, it was up to him to get me out of it. You know what he did? He took them (the responses) over to the President of the General Conference, Elder Figuhr. And the General Conference appointed the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel to try to find some answers to these questions. Well, the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel met for five years. I was a member of the committee. We studied forty-five prepared papers for the committee and adjourned without finding any answers!
“Now, there was a majority on the Committee and a minority, altogether fourteen people. Nine of them, the majority at the end, wanted to issue a formal report in which we wouldn’t say one word about any problems or any questions. Now remember, the name of the committee was Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel. And they wanted a report that would just make everybody happy and say some nice things. Well there were five of us that didn’t think that was intellectually honest. We didn’t think that the church would be well served by such a report…. The majority insisted on that ‘unanimous’ report to which we would have to sign our names — and we couldn’t conscientiously do that because we would be to blame for a report that didn’t deal with any of the problems!
“So we made several proposals. We made a proposal that would deal honestly with the facts and the different proposed solutions — the reasons for them — and let people make up their own minds. Well of course that didn’t meet the desire of the majority. Another proposal we made was that there be no report and any member of the committee, on his own initiative, could submit any article for publication in the Review or Ministry or any other journal, under his own name and without mentioning the committee. That way people could say what they wanted to. No, those weren’t acceptable. So we came out with a facetious suggestion. We proposed that they let us five step out into the corridor, and then the majority could have a unanimous vote just as they wanted it.” — Raymond F. Cottrell in taped address, circa 1985.
A Challenge to Seventh-day Adventist Theologians
In the end, the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel had no solutions! This insight into the inner workings of Seventh-day Adventism answers a number of questions as to why the church has continued to teach their non-Biblical sanctuary doctrine for another half century. Without question reputable non-Adventist Bible scholars and the overwhelming majority of Adventist Bible scholars agreed the entire doctrine of 1844 is not Biblical. Those wishing to study this subject further will find ample inspiration in the following twenty questions contributed by former Seventh-day Adventist pastor Phillip Wilson:
- It should be explained why the context of Daniel 8 is not considered and why the question of Daniel 8:13 is ignored, when seeking to interpret its answer given in Daniel 8:14.
- It must be proved that 2300 evening and morning sacrifices equal 2300 full days, when there is no conclusive evidence from Daniel 8:14 itself (and no other text of Scripture to confirm) that it means full days.
- It must not only be proved that a day equals a year in prophecy but that an evening and a morning sacrifice equal one year.
- In the face of the contextual implication that the 2300-year period would commence when the daily sacrifice was suspended, it must be argued that it began, rather, in 457 B.C. — a date which had nothing to do with taking away the regular burnt offering.
- It must be proved that the heavenly sanctuary is meant, when the context refers to the earthly sanctuary and activity against it by the little horn.
- It must be proved that the cleansing of the sanctuary means cleansing it from the confessed sins of the saints, when the context refers to cleansing it from pollution by the desolating activities of the little horn.
- It must be proved that confessed sins defile the sanctuary; and that the blood of individual sin offerings was taken into the sanctuary, that such blood was sin laden, and, therefore, defiled the holy places.
- It must be assumed that 490 years are cut off from the 2300 years, when there is nothing in Daniel 8 or 9 that requires it.
- It must be assumed that the 2300 years and the 490 years begin together, although there is no proof of this.
- It must be maintained that the reconsecration of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14, as well as the anointing of the sanctuary in Daniel 9:24 are not the same, but are separated by nearly 2,000 years.
- It must be proved that there is both contextual and linguistic linkage between Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16.
- It must be demonstrated that the word that was issued in Daniel 9:25 refers to the kingly decree and that Artaxerxes made such a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, when there is no evidence that he did.
- It must be proved that the cleansing of the sanctuary commenced — when Daniel 8:14 says nothing about commencing — not just in 1844, but on October 22, 1844. Since such detail is not in the Bible, it must be shown that Karaites did celebrate the day of atonement on October 22 in 1844 (which they did not), and that the Karaite religious calendar is more reliable than the orthodox rabbinical calendar. This entire exercise depends, of course, upon proving that the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is the same as that typified in Leviticus 16.
- It must be explained why, in giving the 2300 days a New Testament application, it is still necessary to be tied to the Jewish ceremonies and practices — since Seventh-day Adventists teach that after the cross, Judaism, as a system, was disqualified; and today the true Israel of God is His church.
- It must be shown that the antitypical day of atonement began in 1844; and it must be explained why Christ’s great act of atonement [Calvary] is not the day of atonement, but is separated from it by 1800 years.
- It must be proved that the two-apartment schema of the Old Testament sanctuary parallels a two-apartment ministry by Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, when Hebrews does not suggest such a conclusion.
- It must be shown that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary, and that Christ moved from the holy place to the most holy place in 1844. It must be explained also how, when the New Testament says that Christ entered God’s presence and sat down on the throne in the heavenly sanctuary (as Hebrews 9:12 says), this only means the first apartment in Heaven.
- It must be shown further why Christ must function as a priest after the order of Aaron, when Hebrews teaches that He has transcended that priesthood and functions as a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
- It must be proved that the judgment that began in 1844 was an investigative judgment only for the professed people of God — not a judgment of the wicked horn or of Babylon.
- It must be shown this is what Revelation 14:7 is describing, though it gives no such details on this trial of the saints. Does Revelation 14:7 refer to this investigative judgment? Or does it refer to the great judgment hour of God that commenced at the cross?
It is a fact that the majority of reputable Christian Bible scholars believe the “2300 evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 refer to the events leading up to the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes on December 4, 168 B.C. and on through its reconsecration on December 14, 165 B.C.
Cottrell Was Mistaken About the Septuagint’s Use of “Cleansed”
The Septuagint was written between 285 B.C. and 246 B.C. Therefore, the translators could not possibly have known about the defilement and “cleansing” of Jerusalem’s temple — an event which occurred at least 81 years after the Septuagint was written. Thus Elder Cottrell was mistaken when he stated the writers of the Septuagint used the word “cleansed” (thus apparently manipulatating the intent of Scripture) because they thought Daniel 8:14 applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. Seventh-day Adventists continue to have difficulty coping with the inerrancy of God’s Word — particularly when their own prophet Ellen White is so error-prone.
The historical evidence is clear that the earthly temple was defiled and cleansed — reconsecrated — nearly two centuries before Christ. In the light of history, is it logical to assume Daniel was predicting an event which would not occur until A.D. 1844 in heaven — some 2,500 years after the angel spoke with him in vision? Or is it more likely that Daniel 8:14 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the temple (fulfilled just 500 years after Daniel wrote) and followed immediately by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and thus the fulfillment of Daniel chapter 9?
Seventh-day Adventists have long claimed to be the successors and completers of the Protestant Reformation. But they have long departed from the Reformation’s battle cry of “Sola Scriptura — The Bible Alone!” The Sanctuary Doctrine, the 2,300 days, the Investigative Judgment and the Great Disappointment all evolved not from the solid rock of Scripture, but from the miasmic writings of Ellen G. White. And that is the “keystone in the arch” of Seventh-day Adventism!
September 23, 1844 Confirmed as Yom Kippur as the “Day of Atonement”
“That Yom Kippur 1844 was celebrated by the Karaites in September and not October is confirmed by a Karaite Tomb Stone inscription cited by Abraham Firkowitz in his book “Avnei Zicharon” (lit. ‘Stones of Remembrance’. published Vilna 1872). It should be noted that while claims have been made that Firkowitz altered some of the inscriptions cited in his book, all of these dubious accusations are in regards to Tomb Stones from the early centuries of the Common Era and there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of the later Tomb Stones, especially those from the 19th century. On p.242 Firkowitz quotes from a Karaite Tomb Stone from the “New Cemetery” in Gozlow that reads:
“And Yosef Shlomoh died at seventy five years of age. And all Israel mourned him and cried for him ‘Woe master and woe his glory’. And they buried him in great honor on the 12th day of the month Tevet in the year 605 of the sixth millennium since creation according to our counting, and according to the counting of Rome, the tenth of the month December in their year 1844 here in Gozlow, or Yeupetoria, on the Crimean Peninsula in the reign of the master the great and mighty Czar, King of Russia and the other lands, that is, the Emperor his majesty Nicolai the first Pavelovitz in the twentieth year of his reign, and in the sixty-first year of this Crimean Peninsula being under the rule of the Kings of Russia since the days of the Czarina Catherine the Second who conquered it from the hand of the Tartaric king and Shekhan Gari Khan who was king of Crimea at that time.”
As can be seen the Karaite date 12 Tevet corresponds to December 10, 1844. Bearing in mind that the Russian Empire used the Julian calendar, December 10 of the Julian year must be understood to refer to December 22 in the Gregorian year (i.e. the system used universally today). If 12 Tevet was equivalent to December 22, 1844 (Gregorian) then Tevet would have begun on December 10 (Gregorian). Bearing in mind that Tevet is the tenth Hebrew month and Tishrei (in which Yom Kippur falls out) is the seventh Hebrew month it becomes clear that Yom Kippur 1844 must have been celebrated in late September and not late October.
Samuel Snow the Father of October 22, 1844 Date.
Samuel Snow attempted to introduce the Karaite Jew’s way of reckoning the New Year, but did not truly understand it:
“Samuel S. Snow had arrived on the camp ground. Hardly had he dismounted from his panting horse than word got around that here was a man with a message. Snow strode to the platform and expounded his view, based on the reckoning of the Karaite Jews, that the 2300 day-years of Daniel 8:14 would actually end on October 22, 1844. The camp meeting was electrified.” Paul A. Gordon & James R. Nix, for the Ellen G. White Estate, in The Footsteps of the Pioneers
Mr. Snow learned about a Jewish sect (KARAITES or CARAITES) who believes that the Jews keep the feasts on the wrong days. The Karaites believe that the new method of calculating the feasts is not Scriptural for it is calculated in advance instead of doing it by the old way of New Moon sighting (every month) and checking the barley crops (for the new year). Mr. Snow believed in the way the Karaites figured out the New Year and in Aug 1844, he figured out that the 10th day of the 7th month of the year 1844 was going to be October 22nd.
“The Millerite Adventists had at first expected the Lord to come sometime in the Jewish year which ended in the spring, March 21, 1844, but even before that date had arrived there were suggestions that time might linger a little longer. As early as February, 1844, Samuel S. Snow had urged the autumn of 1844 as the time of Christ’s coming, but it was not until the Exeter camp meeting, August 12-17, that the October 22 date took hold.” Paul A. Gordon & James R. Nix, for the Ellen G. White Estate
The question is, how did Mr. Snow know when the NEW MOON of October was going to become visible in Israel? What Mr. Snow did, was exactly what the Karaites believed the Jews were doing wrong. Mr. Snow did not use the KARAITE New moon/Barley “sighting” (in Israel) method. As far as we know, Mr. Snow did not check the Barley crops in Israel in order to determine when the New Year started. He obviously did not wait until the sighting of the new moon in October since he determined the date in advance (August 1844).Mr. Snow calculated the Astronomical new moon (conjunction) but did not take into consideration that this new moon cannot be seen! The first visual moon after the conjunction can be seen 15 to 48 hours after the Astronomical new moon. This means that the first day of the 7th month, assuming it was on October (more on that in a moment) could have been 15 to 48 hours after October 11th1 (conjunction for October, 1844).
Samuel Snow a Confirmed FALSE PROPHET
Pioneers adopted Snow’s idea that the Jewish calendar always started on the New Year in April. (Snow’s interpretation of the Karaite reckoning is not really accurate because Karaite Jews used the Moon/barley sighting method which did not necessarily mean every new year started on April.)
“According to the Karaite Jews, the true year cannot commence until the appearance of the new moon in April. They are strict observers of the Mosaic law.” R&H Vol. X., Sept. 3, 1857, – No. 18. The Time in our Year of the True Seventh Month
Uriah Smith wrote:
“In the consulate of Tiberius Caesar Aug. v. and AElius Sejanus (U.C. 784, A.D. 31), our Lord Jesus Christ suffered, on the 8th of the Calends of April (25th of March).” Daniel and the Revelation, Seventy Weeks
If, according to Snow’s misconception of the Karaite Jews’ view, the true year cannot commence until the appearance of the new moon in April, then why does Uriah Smith say that Jesus died on the 25th of March? If we were to apply the same “SDA/Karaite logic”, then SDAs would have to accept the “SDA/Karaite fact” that the first month of 31 AD started on April 10th, thus placing Jesus crucifixion on Sunday the 24th of April (assuming that March 25th was a Friday)!What happened to Mr. Samuel S. Snow? What happened to the person who was responsible for finding all this new light? What happened to the man who had all the answers as to why Jesus failed to return as Miller had predicted at the end of the Jewish year of 1843?
“For a brief time after the disappointment, Snow questioned as to whether a mistake had been made in the prophetic reckoning of the year, and searched for another time or event. He rejected the message Hiram Edson had received, that the date had indeed been correct, and that Jesus had then entered the most holy place and had a work to do before He would return to the earth. He continued searching for a definite time for Christ’s return. He preached it would be October 22, of 1845, 1846, or 1847…”In May, 1845, Snow fancied himself to be Elijah, the prophet. In a chapter entitled A Proclamation, from a book he wrote, he declared about himself,
“‘By the special favor of God, through Jesus Christ. . . , I have been called and commissioned to go before the face of the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to prepare the way for His descent from heaven. . . as His Prime Minister, I demand of all Kings, Presidents, Magistrates, and Rulers, civil or ecclesiastical, a full surrender of all power and authority, into my hands, on behalf of King Jesus the Coming One. . . . WAR, FAMINE, PESTILENCE, and DESTRUCTION. . .shall go forth among the nations more and more, till the earth be utterly desolate. Then shall ye know that a prophet hath been among you.’
“His followers began publishing The True Day Star, Dec. 29, 1845, proclaiming that Jesus was King and Snow, his messenger, Elijah. Snow also refused to endorse the movement which was growing under the leadership of James and Ellen White. Denouncing a woman in the pulpit, he said, ‘Let your woman [sic] keep silent in the congregation. . . . I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over man, but to be in silence.’ Neither did he accept the additional light, such as the seventh-day Sabbath and the sleeping state of the dead.”He preached his last sermon, Sunday, July 13, 1870, at the Mount Zion Church. He died at the age of 84, according to his funeral service. Snow’s thinking had become twisted, and he continued believing himself to be Elijah until the day he died. From Samuel Snow’s life we can understand that God may use a man to present actual truth, but that fact will in no wise preserve him from undue exaltation nor from erring from the path of truth.” (Lest We Forget Volumes 1 – 4 (1991 – 1994) A Quarterly Adventist Pioneer Library Periodical, LWF Volume 3, Second Quarter, 1993 Number 2 Adventist Pioneer Library, “Samuel S. Snow 1806 – 1870 Modern Elijah?”)
The Adventist will document scores of quotes from the Karaite Jews about methods of keeping time, and finagle them into supporting October 22. What I would like to see is the Adventist go to the actual Karaite Jews and tell them their 1844 calendars are wrong, and there encyclopedias are wrong and help those poor Jews who have kept the Jewish Calendar for thousands of years get their dates right for 1844 so that they will agree with October 22. After all according to the Adventist, the Karaite Jews are nearly an entire month off in 1844, and after all the Adventist just know better (sarcasm). The Adventist think they know more about the Jewish calendar than the Jews themselves. Amazing!
Go to ANY Jewish source and be specific: Ask which day in 1844 was the Day of Atonement? They all give a VERY SPECIFIC answer and say September 23!
Quote as many Karaite Jewish sources as you like and finagle them anyway you like! According to the Karaite Jews the Day of Atonement in 1844 was on September 23, and that is the bottom line! You will notice that NONE of the Karaite Jewish sources quoted by Adventist will specify October 22, hence all the Adventist hootenanny shenanigans and finaglings with the Karaite Jewish documents!
Official Jewish Karaite Documentation
Subject: Yom Kippur 1844
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 18:07:55
From: The Karaite Korner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In the past you have asked regarding the Karaite date of Yom Kippur 1844. I have recently received further inquiries in this matter and have done some investigation of this subject. Here are my preliminary results:
In the Middle Ages the Karaites ardently maintained that the Biblical year begins with the ripeness of the Barley crop in Israel (called in the Bible “Abib”). The Rabbinic calendar had originally followed this practice but around the 9th century CE they adopted a 19 year cycle of intercalation (leap years) which approximates the Abib but which is far from accurate. This often caused a difference of a month between the Karaite and Rabbanite calendars. The Seventh Day Adventist tradition seems to have heard of this Karaite practice or perhaps they assumed it was the Karaite practice based on their (correct) assumption that the Karaites strictly follow the Bible. The Abib was a central issue to the Karaites and to this day the Karaite marriage contract includes a vow that the marrying couple will celebrate the holidays “according to the visibility of the moon and the appearance of the Abib in the land of Israel.” However, already in the Middle Ages there were Karaite communities who slowly adopted the Rabbinic 19 year cycle. At first it was only Karaites in the distant lands of the Dispersion who followed the Rabbinic 19 year cycle. They claimed that it was difficult to receive reports of the state of the Barley crop in Israel from so far away. As late as the 15th century though the Karaites of the Holy Land continued to follow the Abib even though their compatriots in the Dispersion accepted the 19 year Rabbinic cycle. The 15th century Karaite Hacham Elijah Baschyatchi writes:
“Having explained that the beginning of the year according to the law of our Torah is according to the Abib which is found is the Land of Israel in the conditions which we have mentioned, because of our great sins we have been distanced from the Holy Land and we do not have the capability of finding the Abib, we have been forced to follow the Calculation of Intercalation like that done by our brothers the Rabbanites…”
Baschyatchi continues further down the page:
“And the Hacham R’ Aharon [ben Elijah] author of the book ‘Etz Haim’ also said** that in the 269th cycle we heard that in the 4th year of the cycle [i.e. 1354/1355 C.E.] what was for us the month of Elul was for the people of the Land of Israel the month of Tishrei…’ … And this has also happened in our [Baschyatchi’s] times in the year 5240 [i.e. 1479/1480 C.E.], the 15th year of the cycle, people went from our community in the
Holy City [i.e. Jerusalem] and said that the 14th year of the 276 cycle, which we are in, which was for us an intercalated year [i.e. 13 months] was for them a regular year [i.e. 12 months]. And our faith should not be weakened by this because they [in Israel] go after the observable and we [in the Diaspora] go after approximation… The end of the matter is, all maintain the legal decision that the inhabitants of the Land of Israel should go according to the Abib in the Land of Israel and those far away should go after the calculation of intercalation of leap years and simple years.” (From “Aderet Eliyahu” by Elijah Baschyatchi, Israel 1966, p.39a (written in the 15th century) [translation from the Hebrew by Nehemia Gordon, square brackets added by translator for clarity])
As can be seen, in Baschyatchi’s’s own time the Karaites of the Dispersion followed the Rabbinic 19 year cycle while those of Israel followed the actual appearance of the Abib and at times this caused a difference of one month in the calendar.
Nevertheless, by the 19th century the Karaites universally followed the 19 year Rabbinic cycle both in the Diaspora and in Israel. The 19th century Karaite Hacham Shlomoh ben Afedah Hacohen wrote an abridged paraphrase of Elijah Baschyatchi’s Aderet Eliyahu. In his abridgement, Shlomoh Afedah paraphrases the above quoted passage but adds the following words:
“And for some time now the quest for the Abib has been abandoned even in the Land of Israel and they [the inhabitants of Israel] intercalate years using the above mentioned system [i.e. the 19 year Rabbinic cycle] like we do outside of Israel, [this is] against the legal decision of the Rav [i.e. Baschyatchi] and the Hachamim [mentioned in the above quoted passage of Aderet Eliyahu] perhaps in order to unite with all the communities and so that we will not have a disagreement between them and us in fixing the year.”
(From “Gefen Ha’Aderet”, Shlomoh ben Afedah Hacohen, Israel 1987, pp.22-23 (written in 1860) [translation from the Hebrew by Nehemia Gordon, square brackets added by translator for clarity.])
Clearly in the time of Shlomoh ben Efedah Hacohen (c. 1860) all Karaites everywhere had for many years been using the 19 year Rabbinic cycle. Therefore, Yom Kippur must have been celebrated by the Karaites in late September 1844 in accordance with the 19 year Rabbinic cycle and not in late October 1844. While late September may or may not have been the correct month in which to celebrate Yom Kippur (only a crop report from that year would decide that issue) it was undoubtedly the month actually observed by Karaites everywhere.
That Yom Kippur 1844 was celebrated by the Karaites in September and not October is confirmed by a Karaite Tomb Stone inscription cited by Abraham Firkowitz in his book “Avnei Zicharon” (lit. ‘Stones of Remembrance’. published Vilna 1872). It should be noted that while claims have been made that Firkowitz altered some of the inscriptions cited in his book, all of these dubious accusations are in regards to Tomb Stones from the early centuries of the Common Era and there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of the later Tomb Stones, especially those from the 19th century. On p.242 Firkowitz quotes from a Karaite Tomb Stone from the “New Cemetary” in Gozlow which reads:
ý”And Yosef Shlomoh died at seventy five years of age. And all Israel mourned him and cried for him ‘Woe master and woe his glory’. And they buried him in great honor on the 12th day of the month Tevet in the year 605 of the sixth millenium since creation according to our counting, and according to the counting of Rome, the tenth of the month December in their year 1844 here in Gozlow, or Yeupetoria, on the Crimean Peninsula in the reign of the master the great and mighty Czar, King of Russia and the other lands, that is, the Emporer his majesty Nicolai the first Pavelovitz in the twentieth year of his reign, and in the sixty-first year of this Crimean Peninsula being under the rule of the Kings of Russia since the days of the Czarina Catherine the Second who conquered it from the hand of the Tartaric king and Shekhan Gari Khan who was king of Crimea at that time.”ý [Translation from the Hebrew by Nehemia Gordon]
As can be seen the Karaite date 12 Tevet corresponds to December 10, 1844. Bearing in mind that the Russian Empire used the Julian calendar, December 10 of the Julian year must be understood to refer to December 22 in the Gregorian year (i.e. the system used universally today). If 12 Tevet was equivalent to December 22, 1844 (Gregorian) then Tevet would have begun on December 10 (Gregorian). Bearing in mind that Tevet is the tenth Hebrew month and Tishrei (in which Yom Kippur falls out) is the seventh Hebrew month it becomes clear that Yom Kippur 1844 must have been celebrated in late September and not late October. This is illustrated in the following correlation of months for months in late 1844:
September 14/15* = Tishrei 1 (Yom Kippur = September 23)
October 13/14* = Heshvan 1
November ? = Kislev 1
December 10 = Tevet 1
*The correct date for the beginning of these months, based on the predicted visibility of the New Moon, would have been September 15 and October 14 (both beginning the prior evening). However, it is possible that with some of the inaccurate calculation system used by the Karaites in the 19th century some Karaites may have observed the beginning of these months one day earlier. It would seem that according to the system of Isaac ben Solomon, which was wide-spread in the 19th century, some Karaites would have celebrated September 14th as the beginning of the month and not September 15th [this last fact has been relayed to me by Magdi Shamuel, an expert on the Karaite calendar and lunar crescent visibility]. October 13th would not have been celebrated as the beginning of the month even according to Isaac ben Solomon’s system. However, further investigation is required to rule out the possibility that some Karaites would have celebrated the beginning of the month on October 13th instead of October 14th.
**The original report of Aharon ben Elijah regarding the difference of one month between the Karaite calendar in Israel and the Diaspora in 1354/1355 C.E. can be found in his book “Gan Eden”, Israel 1972 (written in the 14th century), p.22a
Note: We would like to ask the Seventh-day Adventist researchers why they did not go to the Karaite Jews for documentation as we have done and as was done by Ballenger in 1941? Could it be they did, and did not reveal their findings, as it would nullify their prophet’s date?
E.S. Ballenger found the truth by a letter from the Karaite. “The defenders of the creed declare that while the orthodox Jews may have celebrated the Day of Atonement on Sept. 23, the Karaite Jews observed it on Oct 22. We have made careful investigation, and we find that this is a false claim. The leading Karaite rabbi of Cairo, Egypt, Youseff Ibrahim Marzork, in reply to an inquiry as to the day on which they celebrated the atonement in 1844, wrote:
“As to the dates of the Passover and Yom Kippur they are the following: “According to the Karaite Jews in the year 1843 the Yom Kippur is on Wednesday the 4th October, and just the same date according to the Rabinnical.” “In the year 1844 it is on Monday 23rd September for the Karaite and Rabinnical.” The Gathering Call by E. S. Ballenger, May-June 1941, pp. 14-15.
Instead of accepting Ballenger’s documentation or getting the facts from the Karaite Jews, William Shea played the numbers game with the ancient Babylonian calendar and attempted to make it come out to October 22, 1844. William H. Shea, M. D., PhD.Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Appendix, vol. 1 of the Daniel and Revelation committee series.
In conclusion, Ellen G. White had the wrong year, wrong month, wrong day of the return of Jesus Christ, and when that failed, she had the wrong year, month, and day to begin her false Sanctuary and Investigative Judgment doctrines that were to begin on the Day of Atonement in 1844.
The Day of Atonement in 1844 according to Jewish Encyclopedia
“The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia” 1939 vol. 2, lists holidays, feasts and fasts as follows for September:
1 Rosh Hashanah (New Year)
2 Second Day of Rosh Hashanah
10 Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)
Tishri I Sept. 14, 1844
Heshvan I Oct. 14, 1844
Kislev I Nov. 12, 1844
Tebeth Dec. 11, 1844
From the above data from the “The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia” 1939 Vol. 2, the first day of Tishri begins on September 14th of our calendar. Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) begins 10 days later, Tuesday September 24, 1844. Using the Biblical and Jewish reckoning, the day begins at evening or sunset. The Day of Atonement would begin the evening of Monday September 23, 1844 and not October 22, as claimed by Ellen G. White.
October 22, 1844 “The Second Great Disappointment!”
“Man! that date sure hasn’t treated the Adventist very well now has it?”
Seventh-day Adventist who would like to challenge this Article must by default challenge the Jewish People all over the world! You need to convince not just myself, but every Jewish Calendar website on the Internet, and all the Jewish Encyclopedias all the Rabbi’s that Ellen White’s “vision endorsed” & “Great Controversy” stamp and sealed date of October 22, is the Actual Day of Atonement in 1844! That means you need to convince the Jews that their present day calendar is off by a month! Otherwise DROP the October 22 date and stop teaching it! Any teaching that is founded on error, and deceit is not of God, it is of the …. well you can figure that one out all on your own. God is the Father of TRUTH. His church is the PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH. October 22, 1844 is not grounded in the truth! Teaching falsehood is not good brother and sister.
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. James 4:17
Quoting from the SDA CORE statement of faith…
Thou shalt not bear false witness. Exodus 20:16
“The tenth day of the seventh month, the great day of atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the 22d of October.”— Ellen G. White in Great Controversy, page 400.
“It is this coming, and not His second advent to the earth, that was foretold in prophecy to take place at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844. Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the holy of holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man–to perform the work of investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits.” Ellen G. White in Great Controversy, page 480.
The Christians in Rome received the Atonement way back in the first century!
For if, when we were enemies, We were Reconciled to God by the Death of his Son (31 AD, not October 22, 1844), much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, By Whom We Have NOW Received the ATONEMENT.
Atonement = at-one with God= reconciled = forgiven = sins blotted out = made white as wool = adopted as sons of God!
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or … When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
DEAR FRIEND: Today you have learned the TRUTH about October 22, 1844. Do you LOVE the truth, even more than your prophet, even more than your church? It greatly saddens my heart to think that just one would say no and cling to and even continue to teach anything connected to that date.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-11
Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Links to other Jewish Calendar Converters Not Used in this Article
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ (After Calculating You will need to scroll down to see results)