OPEN LETTER TO VANCE FERRELL

By Bud Alavezos

Brother Vance Ferrell,

Let me begin by stating that I have really appreciated many of the books that you have written. God has used you to produce a positive influence in my life as well as the lives of many others. Recently however, I’ve received your twelve page mailing in which you propose forty-two reasons that you feel the 2520 or seven times of Leviticus 26 is not a time prophecy and because your mailings were open to all, I was left with no other option but to respond with an open letter.

We have specific council from God’s prophet.

“My message to you is: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth. Unmask the pretentious sophistries which, if received, will lead ministers and physicians and medical missionary workers to ignore the truth. Everyone is now to stand on his guard. God calls upon men and women to take their stand under the blood-stained banner of Prince Emmanuel. I have been instructed to warn our people; for many are in danger of receiving theories and sophistries that undermine the foundation pillars of the faith.” Selected Messages, book 1, 196.

I was deeply saddened to see that you had stepped off the platform of truth and what is worse; you are misleading others by interjecting your own words into spirit of prophecy quotes to direct them into your (most likely honest) misguided thoughts. In addition, you began by stating that it would be an “in depth study” when in reality your reasoning displays a serious lack of not only historical pioneer knowledge but spiritual eyesight as well. I’ll deal with that as I go through your forty-two points. In your opening paragraphs, you misapplied two Ellen White quotes directed at false prophets in sheep’s clothing intending to deceive.

First, those presenting the 2520 have no evil intent to deceive but rather a desire to lead God’s people back to the old paths which are the foundations of Adventism.

Secondly, I would ask: would you have had the boldness to direct those quotes at William Miller and the three hundred plus preachers who were presenting all the truths that were on both the 1843 and 1850 charts; especially in light of the fact that God stated through His prophet that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord and that the figures were as He wanted them? See Early Writings, 74. She was speaking of all the figures; not just some of the figures. God told her that not a figure of it should be altered except by inspiration. See Spalding and Magan, 1.

According to Early Writings, 74 the Lord’s hand hid a mistake (singular) in some of the figures. Yes, it states that the mistake was in more than one of the figures (the year 1843 is given five times on the 1843 chart dealing not only with the 2520 and 2300 years, but the 1335 years as well); however the wording specifies that it was only one mistake and not mistakes as you declare in paragraph seven, on page twelve of your mailing. The fact that the 1850 chart corrected the year 1843 to 1844 on both the 2520 as well as the 2300 year prophecies clearly indicates that the singular mistake was the year 1843. This perfectly explains the above bold quote from Early Writings, 74.

These inspired statements were directed at the 1843 chart. The mistake was the miscalculation of the full year for both the 2520 and the 2300 year prophecies leading to 1844. It was planned by God to bring about a testing for the true Israel of God. Those who remained faithful realized that the text of Habakkuk 2:2–3, which had inspired them to produce the 1843 chart, also identified a tarrying time which they had overlooked.

For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Habakkuk 2:3.

“God tested and proved His people by the passing of the time in 1843. The mistake made in reckoning the prophetic periods was not at once discovered, even by learned men who opposed the views of those who were looking for Christ’s coming. Scholars declared that Mr. Miller was right in his calculation of the time, though they disputed him in regard to the event that would crown that period. But they, and the waiting people of God, were in a common error on the question of time.” Life Sketches, 58.

Here again we see a singular mistake in periods. Since this mistake was in the reckoning of the periods and not in the periods themselves (as you incorrectly suggest on page twelve), one must naturally conclude that it was how they arrived at the figures represented on the chart and not the prophecies themselves. Historically the 2520 (seven times) and the 2300 days were the only two prophecies on the 1843 chart in which they came to an incorrect conclusion. In going from B.C. to A.D. they had miscalculated the full year of the two prophecies.

To illustrate the problem; the actual time span for children whose ages’ are one year apart can range from one day (one born on December 31, 2001; the other born January 1, 2002) to as many as three hundred and sixty-five days if they were born on the same day one year apart. God corrected the singular mistake. Are you suggesting the 1850 chart was faulty?

“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 which they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843, proved that they would terminate in 1844.” Early Writings, 236.

Notice what God says about the figures which you are working so hard to discard:

“I saw that the figures of the chart were as God would have them, and that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none should see it till His hand was removed.” Spalding and Magan, 1.

You are using human reasoning and leading people to believe that God doesn’t mean what He says. In 1850 God was working to correct the mistake.

“God showed me the necessity of getting out a chart. I saw it was needed and that the truth made plain upon tables would affect much and would cause souls to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Manuscript Releases, volume 5, 215.

Notice she employed the word “truth.” The chart was not a mixture of truth and error as you suggest. Again:

“On our return to Brother Nichol’s, the Lord gave me a vision and showed me that the truth must be made plain upon tables, and it would cause many to decide for the truth by the third angel’s message with the two former being made plain upon tables. I also saw it was as necessary for the paper to be published as for the messengers to go, for the messengers need a paper to carry with them containing present truth to put in the hands of those who hear and then the truth would not fade from the mind, and that the paper would go where the messengers could not go.” Manuscript Releases, volume 5, 215.

She is here identifying the 1850 chart in which the mistake was corrected and on which the 2520 was once again placed. Are you suggesting that God made a mistake? Or do you feel that He really didn’t care that man would confuse the truths which were on His charts (since you clearly believe and promote that the 2520 is an invention of man)? Please reread the above quote. That chart embodies the three angel’s messages.

Honest souls reading your mailing were led to believe that both charts were very flawed. The thrust of your articles is that there is no 2520 prophecy. Who has inspired you to make such a claim in light of the fact that the 2520 is on both charts, and we are told that “the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord” (Early Writings, 74) and that “God was in the publishment of ” the 1850 chart (Manuscript Releases, volume 13, 359)?

Contrary to your false assertion that Harriet Livermore came up with the 2520 out of the blue in the late 20’s (points #34 & #41 of your mailing), the 2520 was independently discovered by William Miller sometime between 1816 and 1818. He states in his own words:

“From a farther study of the Scriptures, I concluded that the seven times of Gentile supremacy must commence when the Jews ceased to be an independent nation, at the captivity of Manasseh, which the best chronologers assigned to B. C. 677; that the 2300 days commenced with the seventy weeks, which the best chronologers dated from B. C. 457; and that the 1335 days, commencing with the taking away of the daily, and the setting up of the abomination that maketh desolate, Daniel 12:11, were to be dated from the setting up of the Papal supremacy, after the taking away of Pagan abominations, and which, according to the best historians I could consult, should be dated from about A. D. 508. Reckoning all these prophetic periods from the several dates assigned by the best chronologers for the events from which they should evidently be reckoned, they would all terminate together, about A. D. 1843. I was thus brought, in 1818, at the close of my two years’ study of the Scriptures, to the solemn conclusion, that in about twenty-five years from that time all the affairs of our present state would be wound up; that all its pride and power, pomp and vanity, wickedness and oppression, would come to an end; and that, in the place of the kingdoms of this world, the peaceful and long-desired kingdom of the Messiah would be established under the whole heaven; that, in about twenty-five years, the glory of the Lord would be revealed, and all flesh see it together,—the desert bud and blossom as the rose, the fir-tree come up instead of the thorn, and instead of the briar the myrtle-tree,—the curse be removed from off the earth, death be destroyed, reward be given to the servants of God, the prophets and saints, and them who fear his name, and those be destroyed that destroy the earth.” William Miller’s Apology and Defense, 12.

Miller also declares that he understood the seven times prophecy first.

“I [William Miller] had Cruden’s Concordance, which I think is the best in the world; so I took that and my Bible, and set down to my desk, and read nothing else, except the newspapers a little, for I was determined to know what my Bible meant. I began at Genesis, and read on slowly; and when I came to a text that I could could [sic] not understand, I searched through the Bible to find out what it meant. After I had gone through the Bible in this way, O, how bright and glorious the truth appeared! I found what I have been preaching to you. I was satisfied that the seven times terminated in 1843. Then I came to the 2300 days; they brought me to the same conclusion.” Apollos Hale, The Second Advent Manuel, 65.

God sent not only the angel Gabriel but He repeatedly sent angels to open the prophecies to William Miller.

“I saw that God sent His angel to move upon the heart of a farmer [William Miller] who had not believed the Bible, and led him to search the prophecies. Angels of God repeatedly visited that chosen one, and guided his mind, and opened his understanding to prophecies which had ever been dark to God’s people. The commencement of the chain of truth was given him, and he was led on to search for link after link, until he looked with wonder and admiration upon the Word of God.” Early Writings, 230.

Speaking of the date B.C. 677 for Manasseh’s captivity (which you propose to disprove), William Miller states:

“From a farther study of the Scriptures, I concluded that the seven times of Gentile supremacy must commence when the Jews ceased to be an independent nation, at the captivity of Manasseh, which the best chronologers assigned to B. C. 677; that the 2300 days commenced with the seventy weeks, which the best chronologers dated from B. C. 457; and that the 1335 days, commencing with the taking away of the daily, and the setting up of the abomination that maketh desolate, Daniel 12:11, were to be dated from the setting up of the Papal supremacy, after the taking away of Pagan abominations, and which, according to the best historians I could consult, should be dated from about A. D. 508. Reckoning all these prophetic periods from the several dates assigned by the best chronologers for the events from which they should evidently be reckoned, they would all terminate together, about A. D. 1843.” William Miller’s Apology and Defense, 12.

Please note that he used the best chronologers of his time to arrive at the date B.C. 677 for the date of Manasseh’s captivity and not as you also state on page nine that “. . . she turned Leviticus 26 into a time prophecy, subtracted 2520 from 1843—and arrived at 677 B.C. Presto! A new time prophecy had been invented!”

I pray you will humble yourself and realize that not only is this line of reasoning argumentative, it is patently false. This is an insult not only to William Miller but to the angels and God as well. History has been rewritten and I can see how, upon a hasty search you may have felt that Manasseh’s captivity in 677 B.C. was not supported by historians. I searched the internet and found numerous sights which left doubt and suggested other dates; however after searching I did find support for 677 B.C.; but setting that aside, I prefer to stand on the chart whose figures were as God wanted them; and with William Miller of whom God opened prophecies which had ever been dark. But notice how you have repeated history. In responding to a sermon by a Dr. Jarvis sometime in 1843 Joshua Himes writes:

“He then shows that the first breaking of the power of Israel was as early as the death of Solomon, and that Judah was not carried to Babylon till many years after B. C. 677, and then adds, ‘How, then, it will be asked, did Mr. Miller arrive at his dates? He took 1843 from 2520, which gave him 677 years before Christ as the commencement of his seven prophetic times. . . . As for the captivity of Manasseh, it is very uncertain in what year it took place, or how long it continued. Both the Scriptures and Josephus are equally silent on the subject. Manasseh began to reign B. C. 698, and continued to reign 55 years, until B. C. 643. The nation was not carried into captivity, nor could the king have long continued a prisoner. The threatening occasioned by the wickedness of Manasseh, were not brought upon Judah till 54 or 55 years after his death. What then becomes of Mr. Miller’s date for the commencement of his 2520 years? It has nothing to support it but conjecture, and it would never have been assumed, if he had not first formed his theory and then looked about for arguments to sustain it.” Joshua Himes, Signs of the Times, August 2, 1843, volume 5, number 22, 169.

Joshua Himes then continues with a lengthy reply; however since it addresses numerous points you have presented, it is necessary to continue his response:

“From the above one would suppose that Mr. Miller would never have surmised that the seven times began B. C. 677, had he not found that 2520 years must begin then, in order to end in 1843. We shall say nothing of the want of courtesy which the Doctor here manifests. We had expected the utmost fairness and candor on his part; and we trust that no disrespect on his part may draw us into a like want of courtesy. We will however say, for the benefit of Dr. Jarvis, that he little knows William Miller; and does not appreciate the powers of his mind, the extent of his researches, or the chronological and historical authorities with which he is familiar; but of which his vanity never leads him to boast.

“To find the commencement of the seven times, he sought to find the period when Judah ceased to be an independent nation. That period he found when Manasseh was taken captive. Before this, whenever they were oppressed, they always recovered their independence; but from this period they were never again independent. Although Manasseh was permitted to return to his kingdom, yet he was dependant on the Babylonians; and the nation was finally carried captive to Babylon, because they rebelled against that nation; the captivity of Manasseh is therefore the time their independence departed. That the era of B. C. iar [sic. 677] to Mr. Miller, we have only to refer to the margin of all polyglot Bibles, where the same date is given. We make the following quotations from Hale’s Manual.

“‘Why commence the seven times at the captivity of Manasseh, B. C. 677?

“‘1. The prediction itself points to that event. The first form of their punishment stated in connection with the first mention of the period is,—“And I will break the pride of your power.” If their kingly form of civil government is here referred to, it was never ‘broken’ until the captivity of Manasseh. Although it was the case, after the division of the Hebrews into the ten tribes and two tribes, that they were several times made tributary to foreigners, still one division remained independent while the other was subdued and tributary until his captivity; but at this period the ten tribes had lost their king, (2 Kings 17:1–18,) and as soon as Manasseh, the king of the remaining division, was carried into captivity, their power as an independent people, was gone. Manasseh was the pride and the ruin of the Jews.

“‘Again; the prediction specifies the particular sins on account of which this evil should befall them.

“‘Some of these sins are as specifically charged upon Manasseh and the Jews as the direct cause of their calamity. Compare Leviticus 26:14, 18, 27, with 2 Kings 21:9–13; and Leviticus 26:1, 2, with 2 Kings 21:2–8; 2 Chronicles 33:2–11.

“‘2. Those texts which speak of the instruments of Providence in effecting this judgment, all point to his captivity as the time for the commencement of the period. Compare Isaiah 10:5, 6, with 2 Kings 21:10–14; 2 Chronicles 33:10, 11; Nehemiah 9:32.

“‘3. The sacred historians refer to Manasseh’s sins as the cause of their captivity and sufferings long after his captivity. 2 Kings 23:26, 27; 24:1–4; Jeremiah 15:1–7.

“‘4. Although Manasseh was restored to his throne, and there were a few other kings of the Jewish nation after him, they had never been an independent people “from the day of the kings of Assyria unto this day.” Nehemiah 9:32. Nebuchadnezzar brought the kingdom, in its subjected form, to an end; when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus, the Jews passed under the power of the Medes and Persians; then under that of the Greeks; in the division of Greece, they were connected with Egypt; as a part of Egypt, were conquered by Syria; they prospered awhile under the Maccabees, and the protection of the Romans, who eventually “took away their place and nation.” Since the destruction of their city, they have been “wanderers among the nations,”—a, hissing and a byword,—pitying none, pitied by, none.

“‘5. The prophets, who lived long before the captivity of Manasseh, point to that event as the time of the passing away of the Jewish, independence, by connecting it with other, events. One of them gives the date. Hosea, more than a hundred years before, had said,—“And the pride of Israel (the ten tribes) doth testify to his face: therefore shall Israel and Ephraim (the principle tribe of the ten) fall in their iniquity; Judah (the other, division) shall also fall with them.” Hosea 5:5. Isaiah, in the year 742 B. C., according to date in the margin, had said,—“And within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken that it be not a people.” [See Isaiah 7:8] “‘From 742 deduct 65 leaves B. C. 677,—the only date ever given, I believe, for the captivity of Manasseh.”

“For an explanation of the quotations from Hosea and Isaiah, and for the most authentic history of the period before us, we add the following.

“‘Prideaux’s Concordance, volume 1, 149–151. ‘In the eleventh year of Manasseh, B. C. 688, died Tirhakah, king of Egypt, after he had reigned there eighteen years, who was the last of the Ethiopian kings that reigned in that country.

“‘The same year that this happened in Epypt, by the death of Tirhakah, the like happened in Babylon, by the death of Mesessimordacus. For, he leaving no son behind him to inherit the kingdom, an interregnum of anarchy and confusion followed there for eight years together, of which Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, taking the advantage, seized Babylon, and, adding it to his former, empire thenceforth reigned over both for thirteen years; he is, in the canon of Ptolemy, called Assar-Adinus. And in the scriptures he is spoken of as king of Babylon and Assyria jointly together.

“‘In the 22nd year of Manasseh, B.C. 677, Esarhaddon, after he had now entered on the 4th year of his reign in Babylon, and fully settled his authority there, began to set his thoughts on the recovery of what had been lost to the empire of the Assyrians in Syria and Palestine, on the destruction of his father’s army in Judea, and on that doleful retreat which thereon he was forced to make from thence; and being encouraged to this undertaking by the great augmentation of strength which he had acquired by adding Babylon and Chaldea to his former kingdom of Assyria, he prepared a great army, and marched into those parts, and again added them to the Assyrian empire. And then was accomplished the prophecy which was spoken by Isaiah, in the first year of Ahaz, against Samaria, that within three score and five years Ephraim should be absolutely broken, so as to be from thenceforth no more a people. For this year, being exactly sixty-five years from the first of Ahaz, Esarhaddon, after he had settled all affairs in Syria, marched into the land of Israel, and there taking captive all those who were the remains of the former captivity, (excepting only some few, who escaped his hands and continued Still in the land,) carried them away into Babylon and Assyria; and; to prevent the land from becoming desolate, he bro’t others from Babylon, and Cutha, and from Ayah, and Hamath, and Sepharvaim, to dwell in the cities of Samaria in their stead. And the ten tribes of Israel, which had separated from the house of David, were brought to a full and utter destruction, and never afterward recovered themselves again.

“‘Esarhaddon after he had thus possessed himself of the land of Israel, sent some of his princes, with parts of his army, into Judea, to reduce that country also under his subjection; who, having vanquished Manasseh in battle and taken him, hid in a thicket of thorns, bro’t him a prisoner to Esarhaddon, who bound him in fetters and carried him to Babylon.”

“Archbishop Usher, after referring to the above facts in the history of Egypt and Babylon, stated by Prideaux, in reference to the points in question, says:—‘Year of the world 3327. Julian period, 4037. Before Christ 677. This year also was fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah, (7:8,) in the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, ‘within sixty and five years, Ephraim shall be broken in pieces, so that it shall be no more a people.’ For although the greatest part of them were carried away by Salmaneser 44 years before, and the kingdom utterly abolished, yet among them which were left there was some show of government. But now they left off to be any more a people by reason of the great multitude of foreigners which came to dwell there. New colonies or companies were sent out of Babel, Cuth, Hava, and Sepharvaim; and this was done by Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, as is easy to be understood, by the confession of the Cuthites, mentioned Ezra 4:2, 10.

“‘At which time, also, as it should seem, and in the same expedition, whereby these things were done in the land of Israel, some of the chief commanders of the Assyrian army made an inroad into Judea, and then took Manasseh the king, as he lay hid in a thicket; after binding him with chains of brass, carried him away to Babylon. Jacobus Capellus hath noted in his Chron. that the Jews in Sedar, Olam, Rabba, and the Talmudists, cited by Rabbi Kimchi upon Ezra, chapter 4, do deliver, that Manasseh, 22 of his reign, was carried away captive into Babylon, and that he repented him of his sin thirty-three years before his death.’ [Usher’s Annals of the World, 75. Lohd. 1658.

See also Newton on Prophecy, 98–99. Rollin, B. 3, chapter 2.]

“‘From all the light we have upon the event to which this prophecy refers, and from which the seven times should commence, no other date could be named for the event—no other point for the starting-point, any more than we could fix upon any other date than 1776 for the date of American Independence.’ “Dr. Jarvis’ next point is to show that the word ‘times’ is not contained in the original text. We shall not attempt to cope with him in a criticism on the Hebrew. That the word ‘times’ is understood in the original, we have the authority of King James’ translators. And that it is to be understood in a chronological sense, we have the authority of many European writers, besides messengers Miller, Bush, Duffield, and Mr. Campbell, and others in our country, understand the text to contain a prophetic period, which they all understand figuratively to be 2520 years—as it must be understood in the nature of the case. Among the European writers, Mr. Philip (I think that is the name) understands and applies the period exactly as Mr. Miller does. I refer to him because he could have no knowledge of Mr. Miller. (See Morning Watch—a rare work in this country.)” Joshua Himes, Signs of the Times, August 2, 1843, volume 5, number 22, 171.

Earlier in the article Joshua Himes deals with the argument that since the seven times were mentioned in Leviticus 26 four times that it suggests a total of 1080 years. Your reason #30 on page five is a variation of this argument.

Your statement that it is “not one curse, but seven” includes the fact that it was given in verse 18 and then repeated in verses 21, 24 and 28. Himes’ response was that Genesis 41 states that Pharaoh dreamed two dreams concerning the seven years of plenty followed by seven lean years. He then stated Dr. Jarvis’s reasoning suggests that Pharaoh’s prophecy was to be repeated, for a total of 28 years. Later he quotes Genesis 41:32: “And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.” Obviously this was done for emphasis. Note also that the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned in Daniel four a total of four times. Are we to believe that he spent 28 years eating grass with beasts?

You provided no inspiration proving that the 2520, which was placed upon both charts, was an error. The ultimate conclusion of assigning this as error upon the 1850 chart is to identify that God made a mistake. Ellen White was shown that it was God who directed the 1843 chart and that God that was in the publishment of the 1850 (Nichols) chart. See Manuscript Releases, volume 13, 359. Unfortunately all you provided were arguments of “supposed omissions” in the Spirit of Prophecy.

We will proceed through your article point by point, but first it must be noted that truth stands on its own. Truth does not need faulty arguments for support. It appears that you began with the conclusion that the 2520 was not a prophecy and set about to prove your original thesis. We are told to go to God’s Word with an open mind. You may have been very sincere; however your arguments appear to have been influenced by preconceived ideas and thus all your points as well as your conclusion is terribly flawed.

My sincere desire is that you, after seeing the truth as presented in this response, will notice how you have been kicking against the pricks and, as did Manasseh, set about to repair the damage that you have done with your mailing.

Point #1 you state that “according to inspiration, the 2300 year prophecy is the longest bible prophecy.” For emphasis you state that “not one is longer” and to seal it you tell us that it is “a powerful fact” which “cannot be refuted.” Later you state that The Great Controversy, 351 “totally annihilates any possibility that any longer time prophecy could be biblical.” For support you quote from Life Sketches, 111 and for emphasis you quote from The Great Controversy, 351.

In truth, that is not what those paragraphs state. Your statement is a false assumption. They do both connect the preaching of the disciples after Pentecost (preaching the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:25) with the Millerites who were preaching not just the 2300 years but the 2520 years as well. Ellen White knew this. That was a historical fact. In your argument you completely overlook this.

The Millerites had two witnesses taking them to 1844. Why else would they be on both charts which you appear to disdain? In attacking the 2520 prophecy you are promoting the idea that God and His prophet could be easily manipulated. The entire theme of your argument is that the 2520 is not a time prophecy. On page 11 you incorrectly state that the Millerites, upon discovering the 2520 from Harriet Livermore, decided to add it to their sermons as a second witness to 1843 and so had it placed on the 1843 chart. In stating this you are setting your words against God, who has stated that the figures were as He wanted them. (See Spalding and Magan, 1.)

You have also attempted to mislead honest souls by adding your own interpretation of the statement in The Great Controversy, 351. Here is the original quote:

“As the disciples went out preaching, ‘The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand,’ so Miller and his associates proclaimed that the longest and last prophetic period brought to view in the Bible was about to expire, that the judgment was at hand, and the everlasting kingdom was to be ushered in. The preaching of the disciples in regard to time was based on the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. The message given by Miller and his associates announced the termination of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, of which the seventy weeks form a part. The preaching of each was based upon the fulfillment of a different portion of the same great prophetic period.”

Though you interjected your own interpretation to make it sound as though the disciples and the Millerites were both presenting a part of the 2300 year prophecy, it is more correct grammatically; and much more accurate historically, that it means that both the disciples and the Millerites were preaching a portion of the same great 2520 prophecy. All the time prophecies of Daniel are connected and as such they are a part of the vision that Habakkuk identified to be made plain upon tables. That is exactly what the Millerites did at God’s direction. The above interpretation is consistent with the statement below:

“The preaching of a definite time for the judgment, in the giving of the first message, was ordered by God. The computation of the prophetic periods on which that message was based, placing the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stands without impeachment.” The Great Controversy, 457.

Though her emphasis is on the 2300 days, she places the prophecies in the plural that lead to the autumn of 1844. The only prophecies that lead to 1844 are the 2520 and the 2300 year prophecies.

“When, therefore, he [Miller] found, in his study of the Bible, various chronological periods that, according to his understanding of them, extended to the second coming of Christ, he could not but regard them as the ‘times before appointed,’ which God had revealed unto His servants.” The Great Controversy, 324.

The reason that the 2300 days was emphasized is noted in the last paragraph of page 324.

“The prophecy which seemed most clearly to reveal the time of the Second Advent was that of Daniel 8:14: ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ Following his rule of making Scripture its own interpreter, Miller learned that a day in symbolic prophecy represents a year (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6); he saw that the period of 2300 prophetic days, or literal years, would extend far beyond the close of the Jewish dispensation, hence it could not refer to the sanctuary of that dispensation.” The Great Controversy, 324.

The above statement is not stating that the 2520 was not a prophecy; nor is it saying that the other prophecies were unnecessary. Only that the 2300 days seemed to reveal the Second Advent most clearly.

In point #2 you state that in The Great Controversy, 323 eleven Old Testament time prophecies are mentioned and the 2520 is not among them. The paragraph you quote does not contain the 1260, the 1290, the 1335 nor the 2300 days; however this does not invalidate them as time prophecies.

In point #3 you claim “we are told” of only one prophecy, the 2300 time prophecy, which “would extend far beyond the close of the Jewish dispensation.”

The Great Controversy, 324 does not state the 2300 days was the only prophecy that would extend far beyond the Jewish dispensation. Your assumption does not take into account the historical record. This has been addressed.

In point #4 the 2300 year prophecy is mentioned in The Great Controversy, 323–329 numerous times; however the 2520 is not mentioned once. We’ve addressed this numerous times where the term “periods” is mentioned. This argument is analogous to stating that the reformers should not declare that the Catholic Church is the antichrist because the term “catholic” is not mentioned in the word of God.

In point #5 & 6 you essentially state that the 2520 is not mentioned in The Great Controversy. This is more of the same and has been addressed.

In point #7 you connect the magnificent 2300 year prophecy with the sanctuary work in the Old Testament, the suffering and death of Christ and His mediation in the Heavenly Sanctuary; contrasting it with what you see as nothing significant for the 2520. Sadly you do not see that the center of both charts is the cross; which, of course, was the very center of the 2520 literal days of Daniel 9:27. In the response under point #10 you’ll see that it connects with the sanctuary as well.

In point #8 the 2300 is mentioned on 43 pages in The Great Controversy; the 2520 not once, yet The Great Controversy, 351, where she speaks of “the great prophetic period”; as has already been shown to be addressing the 2520. When Sister White writes of the “periods” that lead to the autumn of 1844 she is addressing both the 2300 and the 2520 prophecies. This concept of “periods” leading to 1844 is referenced numerous times.

In point #9 you suggest the 2520 is not mentioned anywhere in the Spirit of Prophecy. This is another of your incorrect assumptions. The term “periods” is consistently found in mentioning the prophecies in many of her books.

In point #10 you claim again that the number 2520 is not found anywhere in the Bible. Oh but it is! However, let me begin by using William Miller’s Rule #6:

“God has revealed things to come, by visions, in figures and parables, and in this way the same things are often time revealed again and again, by different visions, or in different figures, and parables. If you wish to understand them, you must combine them all in one.”

The concept of the scattering is a major subject of Bible prophecy. Your argument was addressed under point #4 where we note that the term “catholic” is not mentioned in scripture either. The concept of the 2520 is addressed by many of the prophets multiple times. Because of limited space, we’ll only present a few; however it can be seen throughout scripture (both OT and NT).

Moses was speaking of the 2520 in Leviticus 26, where he mentions the “seven times” four times (God doesn’t repeat things that are not important).

Isaiah 7:8 as mentioned was prophesied in 742 B.C. It states that within sixty five Israel would not be a people. Nineteen years later Samaria was besieged by the Assyrians. It is not a coincidence that exactly sixty five years later (677 B.C.) that Manasseh, the pride of Judah, was taken captive and carried into Babylon. This was a fulfillment of this prophecy. Joshua Himes’ explanation of this fact has already been noted in this response; where he also uses Hosea 5:5. In the same context he uses Isaiah 40:1–3. You may wish to reread his thoughts. Jeremiah also speaks of the 2520.

Jeremiah 16:14–15 states:

“Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them.”

Though this had a partial fulfillment after the seventy years of captivity, the words of Ezekiel were not fulfilled until 1844.

“Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand… And David my servant shall be king over them.” Ezekiel 37:16.

Jeremiah 50:17 and 15:4 also speaks of the scattering of both tribes.

“Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones. And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.”

In the margin of Daniel 8:13 we see that Jesus is called “Palmoni” or the “numbered of secrets” or “the wonderful numberer”. The 2520 is a perfect number into which every number from one through ten inclusive will divide evenly. Jesus died in the midst of the last week (2520 days) of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:27). Thus the 2520 is connected with Christ, and the center-point of the prophecy is the cross of Christ.

Nebuchadnezzar spent 2520 days (seven times) with the beasts, after which his kingdom was restored.

Mene/50 shekels, Mene/50 shekels, Tekel/1 shekel, Upharsen/25 shekels equals 126 shekels; and there are 20 gerahs per shekel (See Leviticus 27:25, Numbers 3:47), 126 shekels equals 2520 gerahs. This can be verified easily on the internet. Thus Belshazzar’s last and only direct communication from God was the 2520.

In Numbers 7:85–86 the utensils in the sanctuary equaled 2520 shekels, so the 2520 is marked in the sanctuary.

In point #11 you state that Daniel 4:15–16 is not a year for a day time prophecy. Here you are correct. No one however, that I know, is claiming that it is a year for a day prophecy. This fact does not preclude it from being a type for the indignation against Judah. Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom was restored; just as God restored modern Israel in 1844.

In point #12 you claim there is no reason to apply the year for a day to any of the more than thirty places in the Bible where the expression “seven times” is found. You are here creating a straw man to attack. Admittedly, they are not time prophecies; they are types for the scattering and gathering that God’s people have experienced and will experience for either keeping or breaking the covenant.

In point #13 you claim that Daniel four is the only place in scripture that a time span is clearly implied. As previously presented, all the pioneers would disagree with you up until the church entered into the Laodicean period sometime in the late 1850’s.

In point #14 you boldly draw a connection with Clement of Alexandria and his Gnosticism and those who are presenting the 2520!

Are you really associating Clement with God, Who directed the design and publishment of both the 1843 and 1850 charts? Both of those charts clearly identify the 2520? And, what about William Miller? God sent Gabriel and the numerous other angels to Miller for the stated purpose of opening up his understanding to the prophecies?

Again, are you associating Clement with all three hundred of those advent preachers who were preaching the truths on those charts? Advent history informs us that the fifty faithful souls who remained firm and followed Christ into the Most Holy Place on October 22, 1844 had an experience in the third angel’s message and knew that the truths that they held were attested to by the Holy Spirit. Notice how God’s servant speaks of the truths that were on that chart.

“A transforming power attended the proclamation of the first and second angels’ messages, as it attends the message of the third angel. Lasting convictions were made upon human minds. The power of the Holy Spirit was manifested. There was diligent study of the Scriptures, point by point. Almost entire nights were devoted to earnest searching of the Word. We searched for the truth as for hidden treasures. The Lord revealed Himself to us. Light was shed on the prophecies, and we knew that we received divine instruction.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 47.

In point #15 you claim there is no scriptural basis for the 2520 in Leviticus 26. Your claim is of course, is a false interpretation. God, through Ellen White’s endorsement of the charts, the three hundred Millerite preachers, and all the pioneers prior to the late 1850’s disagree with your premise.

In point #16 you claim the curse dealt with punishment and not time spans. This was addressed previously in this response.

In point #17 you claim Leviticus 26 is not a prediction of length but of certainty, and this has already been demonstrated to be incorrect. It is both length and certainty.

In point # 18 you claim Leviticus 26 is speaking of a series of curses—not a single lengthy curse. Again this issue was addressed previously.

In point #19 you claim the Spirit of Prophecy only mentions Leviticus 26 four times with no hint of the 2520. Spiritual eyesight is needed. Many, if not all, of the prophets are speaking of the curse (2520) upon Israel and Judah for breaking the covenant and the blessings for keeping it. The fact that all the prophets address the 2520 is part of the message of the 2520.

In point #20 you manufacture an argument premised on the idea that the Jewish nation didn’t exist for 2520 years. But as already noted in this response, The Great Controversy when speaking of Miller, stated that “he saw that the period of 2300 prophetic days, or literal years, would extend far beyond the close of the Jewish dispensation.”

In Daniel 8:14, God gave Daniel the 2300 day prophecy. Your line of reasoning would lead to a disbelief of this basic tenant of our faith, because his people were not around after A.D. 70. This is bordering on futurism.

In point #21 you decide to apply the prophecy that you claim is not a time prophecy and deduce that the 2520 would end in A.D. 2554 because until A.D. 34 the Jewish people were still in the 490 years of probationary time, suggesting that A.D. 34 was the last of the seven curses.

This again, is futurism. You have missed the point of prophecy; not only the blessings but the curses which fell and were to fall on literal Israel have been inherited by spiritual Israel.

Example: Jeremiah 16:14–15 state:

“Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.”

One might say that this was fulfilled when Judah began to rebuild Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity, but this was only a partial fulfillment. Notice this text:

“And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.”

The only time this prophecy was fulfilled was in 1844 when God stretched forth His hand to recover the remnant of His people at the end of the second, or “last indignation” as noted in Daniel 8:19. The first indignation (the first 2520) against Israel ended in 1798. The second indignation (the second 2520) against Judah ended in 1844.

In point #22 you state that the Israelites have not been scattered for 2520 years. You write, “that is what those teaching the 2520 claim.” Again that is a misleading statement. The dispensational change has been noted

under point #20.

In point #23 you claim the Jews are still scattered. Again, this is futurism. He is not a Jew who is one outwardly. (See Romans 2:28.)

In point #24 you also claim that “the treading down of Israel by the Gentiles” occurred during this time. If so, then like the scattering it should have ended in 1844, as claimed by the 2520 advocates.

If I understand your point, you are stating that since the two are concurrent they both should have ended in 1844. The “scattering” and “treading down” are identical. However since Israel’s scattering started in B.C. 723 the first 2520 ended in 1798; whereas the last end of the indignation (Daniel 8:19) arrived in 1844. (More on this later).

In point #25 Daniel himself acknowledged that the curses of Leviticus 26 were event curses, and not as year for a day time span. Daniel does not state that they were event curses. This is simply your premise. After quoting words taken directly from Leviticus 26, in his prayer Daniel says:

“. . . therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And he hath confirmed his words.” Daniel 9:11–12.

The word translated as “oath” in this previous verse is translated as “seven times” in Leviticus 26. Daniel knew the Hebrew. You may not realize that Daniel was given the entire (chazown/ Daniel 8:13) vision, but he was.

In chapter 8, he was told what would happen be in the last end of the indignation (the scattering of Judah). See Daniel 8:19. Daniel realized from his study of Jeremiah 25:12 that Judah would be in Babylon seventy years.

“And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.”

He understood by “books” (Daniel 9:2). He was reading not just Jeremiah 25:12, but 2 Chronicles 36:21, Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 25 and 26 as well as many other passages that refer to the scattering of God’s people. However let’s assume that he didn’t understand the full impact of the scattering. Notice this quote from Sister White:

“The prophets to whom these great scenes were revealed longed to understand their import. They ‘inquired and searched diligently: . . . searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify. . . . Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you; . . . which things the angels desire to look into.’ 1 Peter 1:10-12.” Education, 183.

The prophets, according to Peter were looking for the element of time, not only the events.

In point #26 you claim Moses predicted that the curses would fall on literal Israel only, while also claiming that the association of the curses in Deuteronomy with Leviticus is a reason to deny the 2520. This has been addressed abundantly.

In point #27, Does Deuteronomy 29:26–28 sound like a time prophecy?

“For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: And the anger of the Lord was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: And the Lord rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land.”

All alone it may not sound like a time prophecy, but when studied line upon line the connection of this verse with Leviticus 26 is definite.

Point #28 is informative about your approach to prophecy. You ask why 1844 was selected as the terminal date for the 2520 and then you state that nothing happened for the Jews in that year. Nothing could be further from the truth. The judgment of the dead began to determine those who are true Jews (Romans 2:28). How could you suggest that prophecies apply to the literal Jews as a nation at this time in this earth’s history? This is futurism and has previously been addressed.

Another point which we’ll address at the conclusion of this article is that in 1844 God stretched forth His hand “a second time” and took unto Himself a “denominated people,” and those people are spiritual Jews.

Point #29 you propose that the punishment of the literal Jews did not end in 1844, while you simultaneously state that prior to 1844 supporters of the 2520 claimed that the Jews would be liberated in 1844; released from captivity. Next you claim that no newspaper or historical records reveal that such has occurred.

In response to your point #20, it has been demonstrated from The Great Controversy that William Miller recognized the dispensational change. No one today that I know of is teaching this type of futurism in connection with the 2520. This approach has been addressed previously.

In point #30 Leviticus 26 presents not one curse but seven. This has been addressed previously in this response.

In point #31 you claim that “every genuine Biblical time prophecy always leads us to an event which concludes it! But the false 2520 span ends in a blank, a nothingness. Its beginning is a faked number and its end is a dismal failure.” This statement is an unfortunate assumption from a prejudiced mind, and is reminiscent of what the skeptics all said (and still are saying) after the disappointment in 1844.

In point #32 you claim that the two 2520’s are two different hypothetical time frames of this theoretical 2520 prophecy which have been devised; yet this only adds to the confusion. Because of your lack of spiritual eyesight you cannot see the beauty of the fact that there are two 2520’s which were noted in Jeremiah 50:17.

“Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones.”

We will address this in more detail at the conclusion of this response.

In point #33 you claim the Assyrian siege of Samaria cannot be supported by history. This line of reasoning is used by those who state that creation is not supported by science. But that aside, using your own analysis, you state that Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary on the Bible (Isaiah chapter 20) states that the siege began in 723 B.C. [And in bold print you write], and ended in 721 B.C., the first year of Sargon’s reign.”

You go to great lengths (more than one full page) to disprove the date 723 B.C., my question to you is, when did they lose their independence? The answer is obvious; B.C. 723.

In point #34 you state that B.C. 677 is an imaginary starting date with no historical support; at best, marks the conversion to God of a very wicked king of Judah,—and that event could not (!) mark the beginning of Heaven’s curse on the nation. The B.C. 677 date has been aptly supported previously in this article by Joshua Himes as well as William Miller himself, and God Himself disagrees with your second false premise for Jeremiah 15:4 states that He would “remove them into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh…which he did in Jerusalem.”

In point #35 you argue that Judah’s captivity didn’t begin until 72 years later. Again this has previously been addressed superbly by Joshua Himes.

In point #36 your premise is essentially that there are no historical records of anything occurring in Judah in B.C. 677. There is no way, anywhere in biblical or historical sources to find one! None exists. You then state that the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary does state that Manasseh reigned from B.C. 696 to B.C. 641 but that no historic or archaeological event occurred during that time, not a single one.

These very dogmatic statements are untrue, as previously proven by written statements from both William Miller and Joshua Himes.

In point #37 your point again, is that Manasseh became truly converted and upon his return sought to bring about a spiritual revival in Judah. You then claim that “Surely a 2520 curse from Heaven would not fall on the nation in the year that he repented, returned home, and initiated serious reforms in the Southern Kingdom to bring it back to God!

Later you state that he spent the next 36 years (yes, 36 years) doing it! According to you, B.C. 677 could not possibly be the correct date of Manasseh’s captivity. Again your first point is contrary to God’s word where He states in Jeremiah 15:4 that He would scatter Judah because of Manasseh.

Your next conclusion can logically be seen incorrect upon analysis of your thoughts presented in your point #36. You state that Manasseh’s reign was from B.C. 696 to B.C. 641. In point # 37 you state that he returned and spent the next 36 years (yes, 36 years) bringing about a revival. 36 years added to his last year (B.C. 541) leads directly to B.C. 677.

In point #38 you claim the captivity could not have occurred in B.C. 677. According to 2 Chronicles 33:11 Manasseh was taken captive by an unknown Assyrian king. There were three different kings reigning during Manasseh’s rule (696–641 B.C). They are Sennacherib (705–681 B.C.), Esarhaddon (681–669 B.C.), and Ashurbanipal ((669–627 B.C.) You propose that it could not be any of them because they ruled long after B.C. 677.

The 677 date has been addressed numerous times. You mentioned that it was an unnamed king that took Manasseh captive. I cannot see how that impacts the issue, except that your historical data suggest that it could not have been any of the above mentioned kings. Again I would direct you to Joshua Himes’ data that put Esarhaddon as the king who took Manasseh into captivity.

In point #39 you argue that God would not place a 2520 curse on the Jews because they had renounced idolatry, smashed their idols, and returned to the worship of the true God…Manasseh was totally converted to God…Not only is it impossible for the “captivity of Judah (the Jewish people) to end in 1844, it is equally impossible for it to begin when Manasseh was converted.”

This point is redundant and has been addressed in point #37 as well as on several other pages of this response.

In point #40 you address the mistake in the figures on the 1843 chart, thus claiming that the 2520 would “have to be” one of those incorrect numbers; reasoning that it was eventually abandoned by the faithful. Later found to be incorrect; they were laid aside. It was on the 1850 chart; but can only be seen with the aid of a magnifying glass. Your suggestion is that Otis Nichols, the printer, influenced James White to allow it to be placed on the 1850 chart. Your next paragraph is highly significant. You state, “We cannot expect that James, who granted permission for the 1850 chart to be printed, always made wise decisions. By that year he was not clear on many points.” You point out in that in July 21, 1851 he announced in the Review that Ellen’s articles would no longer appear. This was mistakenly done to encourage more readers. The result was that she stopped having visions, but by 1855 they recognized the error and changed the policy.

The singular mistake has been addressed in this response. It appears that the church actually entered its Laodicean condition sometime in 1851. Your next point was also dealt with for the 1850 chart was produced in response to a vision given on November 7, 1850 commanding to make the truth plain on tables.

Notice six points. (1) God was actively involved. (2) She was told to make the truth plain on tables. (3) It as in early November in 1850. (4) While on her way to brother Nichols house she had a vision. (5) Brother Nichols was the one who produced the 1850 chart. (6) She thereafter identified that God was in the publishment of that very chart. More importantly, note Early Writings, 236 which states “the mistake (singular) was explained.”

Your line of reasoning leads to skepticism. Souls are led to believe that; (1) Otis Nichols was a manipulator. (2) James White could be manipulated. (3) Ellen White could be manipulated as well.

In point #41 you falsely claim that William Miller did not independently discover the 2520, but that he received it from Harriet Livermore and that Miller and Himes used their influence to place the 2520 next to the 2300 year prophecy. Finally you state that of 88 Bible students only 11 advocated the 2520 time span.

Here again you have given an incorrect statement. It was earlier proven by Miller’s own testimony that he came to the 2520 time prophecy sometime before 1818; and that he understood it before he understood the 2300 year prophecy. Your false accusation that Himes and Miller placed the 2520 on the chart next to the 2300 year prophecy promotes skepticism. Here the conclusion is that they either coerced or manipulated the 1843 chart so that the 2520 was placed there by finite man. Inspiration tells us that the figures were as God wanted them.

Your third point is that the majority did not accept the 2520. First, the majority is seldom right; but more importantly we need to stand on a “Thus saith the Lord.”

In point #42 you claim Miller, himself, had not found the 2520 time prophecy during his formative years of study. You then suggest that he came to his 12-point list of beliefs in 1818 and at that time the 2520 was not one of them. Later you state that in those later waiting years (1822–1831) he started reading other commentaries and accepting other ideas. It was during that time that he learned about Harriet Livermore. You state that William Miller wrote of his acceptance of the 2520 because of commentators who dated it at B.C. 677 and that this was on page 11 of his Apology and Defense.

These statements have been proven to be incorrect and are misleading. I read his Apology and Defense and again you are reading into his words statements that are not there. As confirmed previously, he states that he discovered the 2520 time prophecy prior to 1818 and that he came to the 2300 year prophecy thereafter. This concludes this analysis of your reasons that the 2520 is not a time prophecy.

Sadly, the approach you have used to combat those you supposed to be in error; those who are seeking to bring God’s people back to the old paths; who are earnestly contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints, is analogous to the church of Rome going to opposite extremes and setting forth both preterism and futurism as theories to divert attention from who is the real antichrist. I am reminded of God’s words to Job in Job 38:2,

“Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?”

I am truly sorry that you have taken such an unwise position. Somehow you appear to have been blinded to this beautiful truth and this has resulted in arguments which cannot stand when held up to the light of truth.

I will now direct our attention to the true beauty and depth of understanding of the 2520 year prophecy.

All the prophecies of Daniel are connected. The 490 years is the beginning of the 2300 years prophecy. The 2300 year prophecy is connected to the 2520 year prophecy (scattering) of Judah in that they both conclude in A.D. 1844. The 2520 against Israel ends in A.D. 1798; as does both the 1260 and the 1290. The 1335 begins at the taking away of the daily (paganism) in A.D. 508 as does the 1290. If I was capable of placing this on a graph, you could see this very clearly.

More importantly, after noting that the scattering of Israel ended in A.D. 1798, whereas the scattering of Judah ended in 1844, one is led to the conclusion that there are exactly forty-six years between the two conclusions of both prophecies.

This may seem insignificant at first consideration; however, after further investigation we see the bigger picture. In John 2:18–21, Jesus had just cleansed the temple and only the sincere believers (the remnant) were left.

“Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.”

Today, the church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:15–16). During the forty-six years from A.D. 1798 to A.D. 1844, God stretched out His hand the second time to recover the remnant of His people and took unto himself a covenant people later to become Seventh-day Adventists (a denominated people). As noted previously Jeremiah 16:14,15 states:

“Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.”

We have already cited Education, 183 which states that the prophets didn’t understand the full extent of the messages which they gave. I honestly mean this as no disrespect, but Sister White is no exception. Had she had the light that God is now opening to his servants who are searching the word of God as for hidden truth, she would not be opposed to this truth. Notice this quote:

“Ever since the first promise of redemption was spoken in Eden, the life, the character, and the mediatorial work of Christ have been the study of human minds. Yet every mind through whom the Holy Spirit has worked has presented these themes in a light that is fresh and new. The truths of redemption are capable of constant development and expansion. Though old, they are ever new, constantly revealing to the seeker for truth a greater glory and a mightier power.

“In every age there is a new development of truth, a message of God to the people of that generation. The old truths are all essential; new truth is not independent of the old, but an unfolding of it. It is only as the old truths are understood that we can comprehend the new. When Christ desired to open to His disciples the truth of His resurrection, He began “at Moses and all the prophets” and “expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Luke 24:27. But it is the light which shines in the fresh unfolding of truth that glorifies the old. He who rejects or neglects the new does not really possess the old. For him it loses its vital power and becomes but a lifeless form.” Christ’s Object Lessons, 127.

As we have quoted previously, Isaiah 7:8 states:

“For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.”

This prophecy is referring to the scattering (2520) of both Israel and Judah. As noted by Himes, this prophecy was given to Ahaz in B.C. 742. Nineteen years later, Israel was scattered (2520). In addition, exactly sixty five years later Manasseh was taken captive into Babylon (B.C 677), beginning the scattering of Judah.

It is not a coincidence and must not be overlooked that in 1863, the church officially rejected the 2520. In that year James White came out with a chart in which the 2520 was missing.

At this point we will quote from page 8 of your mailing:

“We cannot expect that James, who granted permission for the 1850 chart to be printed, always made wise decisions. By that year, he was still not clear on many points.”

You then take us to July 21, 1851 when he decided to discontinue printing Spirit of Prophecy articles in the Review, believing that it would receive wider readership resulting in a loss of visions from God. It appears that the church entered its Laodicean condition earlier than had previously been realized. James White takes note of this condition in some Review articles in the later 1850’s.

The point is that the 2520 was rejected exactly nineteen years after the “last end of the indignation” (Daniel 8:19). To rephrase, the prophecy was given nineteen years prior to the first 2520. Exactly nineteen years after the scattering of Judah ended with the gathering of modern Israel, the 2520 was officially rejected by a Laodicean church. How does this apply for us today?

We are told that after 1844 time will be no more. This does not negate the fact that God’s people were scattered at the time that they went into the Laodicean condition in the 1850’s. God is now calling His people (the 144,000) to come into covenant relationship with Him. That will be the final gathering of a people who, as a result of being under the influence of His Spirit, will be led into all truth.

Leviticus 26 begins by speaking against idolatry and calling for a true keeping of His Sabbaths. After pronouncing blessings on those who keep this covenant and curses on those who break it, God reaches out to those who truly repent, confess and seek Him with their whole heart by stating that He will remember His covenant and be their God. This is the blessing for the 144,000 of which we all wish to be included. In closing I’ll leave you with this thought from God’s prophet:

“The burden of the warning now to come to the people of God, nigh and afar off, is the third angel’s message. And those who are seeking to understand this message will not be led by the Lord to make an application of the Word that will undermine the foundation and remove the pillars of the faith that has made Seventh-day Adventists what they are today.

“The truths that have been unfolding in their order, as we have advanced along the line of prophecy revealed in the Word of God, are truth, sacred, eternal truth today. Those who passed over the ground step by step in the past history of our experience, seeing the chain of truth in the prophecies, were prepared to accept and obey every ray of light. They were praying, fasting, searching, digging for the truth as for hidden treasures, and the Holy Spirit, we know, was teaching and guiding us. Many theories were advanced, bearing a semblance of truth, but so mingled with misinterpreted and misapplied scriptures that they led to dangerous errors. Very well do we know how every point of truth was established, and the seal set upon it by the Holy Spirit of God. And all the time voices were heard, ‘Here is the truth,’ ‘I have the truth; follow me.’ But the warnings came, ‘Go not ye after them. I have not sent them, but they ran.’ (See Jeremiah 23:21.)

“The leadings of the Lord were marked, and most wonderful were His revelations of what is truth. Point after point was established by the Lord God of heaven. That which was truth then, is truth today. But the voices do not cease to be heard—‘This is truth. I have new light.’ But these new lights in prophetic lines are manifest in misapplying the Word and setting the people of God adrift without an anchor to hold them. If the student of the Word would take the truths which God has revealed in the leadings of His people, and appropriate these truths, digest them, and bring them into their practical life, they would then be living channels of light. But those who have set themselves to study out new theories have a mixture of truth and error combined, and after trying to make these things prominent, have demonstrated that they have not kindled their taper from the divine altar, and it has gone out in darkness.

“According to the light God has given me, you are on the same track. That which appears to you to be a chain of truth is, in some lines, misplacing the prophecies and counterworking that which God has revealed as truth. The third angel’s message is our burden to the people. It is the gospel of peace and righteousness and truth. Here is our work, to stand firmly to proclaim this. We need now to have every piece of the armor on.” –Ms 31, 1896.

Manuscript Releases, volume 17, 4.

- THE END -

 

4 Responses to OPEN LETTER TO VANCE FERRELL

  1. Alma Fraser says:

    This was truly a BLESSING, It was like a cool drink of pure water in a very dry hot summer day. The words rang truth at every sentence. You have indeed proven the solemn truth of The word of the Lord. I could not have done such a great job. All Praises be to the Father, Son and Spirit who reigns on high, and who I am sure is reigning in your heart. I join with you in saying ‘Come Lord Jesus, quickly come’ Thank you for a good article.

  2. Olevine Whyte says:

    I share the same sentiments, – that Vance Farrell places his own words and sentiments in the servant of the lord’s work and misleads people into thinking that his thought is that of the pen of inspiration .

  3. kelvin says:

    Well this is truly inspirational. It shows that those who are fighting against the 2520 dont have any proof what soever,they twist ,wine and misapply what the SOP teaches. Praise God for this letter to Vance I hope he repents and undo the wrong work he has done.

  4. Jeff Ruetz says:

    Thank you Bud for beings used of God to expose error of Vance Ferrell
    on the 2520. Lets pray for the people that read Vance Ferrell material, and that God
    will give them the spirit of investigating for them selves. Lets pray: Lord,
    we ask that every person that reads that material, that you give them a
    a desire to investigate , to see if what Vance Ferrell wrote is true or not just like the
    Bereans did in scripture. Amen.
    One of the characteristiscs of Laodicea is that they don’t investigate for them
    selves but find it easier to rest on the what the church leaders think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>