Talk:Day-year principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Day-year principle is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:

Contents

[edit] Adventist focus

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

I certainly agree with that. I've attempted to broaden the perspective. --Taiwan boi 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Cottrell quote

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

[edit] 404 link

I've removed the following from the notes as the link is a 404 as of today, and the Google cache page doesn't contain the audio:

If you can find another instance of the article, or if the page goes back up, you may want to reinstate it. —AldeBaer (c) 11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical background

I have corrected the section on the historical background of the day/year principle, and provided relevant source material. --Taiwan boi 02:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can provide a Latin translation of the quotes from the Early Fathers if necessary. I think I will add that in now. --Taiwan boi 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and I would also like to inform you there are policies about translating. Colin MacLaurin 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate any information on translating which you can provide. I've been looking through the Wiki FAQs for policies about translation, but I haven't found any yet. --Taiwan boi 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

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

[edit] POV

Since the article isn't the place to add contradictions, I added a "POV" on the topic cover.
Regarding the offer above, additions may not be as appropriate as deletions and corrections, particularly where original content reflects, or inadvertantly creates, bias. If the author doesn't personally hold an understanding of prophecy within the day-year principle, perhaps he's not the best qualified to write about. I will quote the original premise paragraph, and indent comments:

The day-year principle, year-day principle or year-for-a-day principle

Why not include as one version the way scripture words it: "each day for a year"?
Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

is a method of interpretation of Bible prophecy in which a day in apocalyptic prophecy is sometimes understood to represent a year of actual time.

Folks also use the day/year principle for Daniel's "sevens" when seen as weeks of days as years. I don't believe the 69, of Daniel's 70 weeks passage, are generally viewed as apocalyptic prophecy.

It is unique to the historicist school

This is incorrect and results in bias. You even go on yourself to show that it is not unique to the historicist school, by citing others who used it such as reformers - that weren't historicists. While the historicist school is one group that may understand prophecy through a "continuous historic" framework, using the day-year principle, they certainly don't have a franchise on it![1]
In fact all Christians and Jews that understand Daniel's beasts to be successive kingdoms that spanned hundreds of years in Daniel's future, for example, hold a "continouus historic" (or perhaps better termed linear historic) view in regard to Old Testament prophecy..
Simply put, the continuous historic understanding holds that prophecies are fulfilled steadily, as the era they were written about unfolds. It is a required context for application of the day-year principle.[2]
The continuous historic view was widely held prior to the 20th century, when Jesuit Alcazar's preterist doctrine, and Jesuit Ribera's/Darby's futurist doctrine, became fashionable in the protestant church (Darby's through the Scofield bible). [3]

of prophetic interpretation. It is not popular among contemporary scholars, but was held by some Protestant Reformers, and is retained by groups such as the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Jehovah's Witnesses today.

As stated earlier the continuous historic context is held by virtually all Christians and Jews in regard to Old Testament prophecy, with many Christians applying the day-year principle to Daniel's 69 weeks. Some of us see prophecy open before us, when we use this same principle uniformly. [4] A person who holds the day-year principle for New Testament prophecy is not required to be a Catholic basher, even though some are.

RJEdit 20:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the reason for the POV tag, so I removed it. Colin MacLaurin 14:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If you authored this article would you find it surprising that you can't see the bias in it? It's particularly interesting that you would feel you had the authority to remove the POV tag yourself, before addressing any return comment on your somewhat wanting defense of it. Particularly since your defense didn't address some specific points. Perhaps you failed to notice "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." But even without the notice, I don't suppose it occurred to work with the person who put the tag on the article, and find a way to encourage him to remove it, did it?
Perhaps it would be less confusing if we try the points one at a time. Someone (you?) wrote: "It is unique to the historicist school" Do you believe this statement to be true? If so, how is this day-year language of prophecy "unique" to the historicist school, when others use it as well?[5]RJEdit 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJEdit (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Again, quoting:

The day-year principle was first used in Christian exposition in 380 AD by Tychonius,...

Please show confirmation that this is when it was first used in Christian exposition.


Why not start by showing where it is first used in scripture?
Ezekiel 4:5 For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Numbers 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, [even] forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, [even] forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

RJEdit 01:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


RJEdit, are you the one who is asking for evidence that 'this is when it was first used in Christian exposition'? I've already provided a citation from Elliott for that entire paragraph, which supplies the information you require. Please let me know if that's insufficient. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi RJEdit, thank you for your contributions. I think some of your comments are fair, however I respectfully disagree with a few assertions as well. Firstly, a wide range of Protestant scholars which I have read consider the entire book of Daniel, or at least the last 6 chapters, to be apocalyptic genre. This includes chapter 9, so the comment about day-year principle being relevant to apocalyptic is accurate. Secondly, the reformers in general were historicists, according to most commentators. There may be some futurists and preterists who hold a limited version of what you call "continuous historic" understanding of the prophecies, but none of these (so far as I know) use the day-year principle. Thirdly, the use of Ezekiel and Numbers passages in establishing the day-year principle is heavily disputed and abandoned by all except Adventist (and maybe Jehovah's Witness) interpreters. There are even many Adventists such as Desmond Ford and his theological heirs who disagree with the use of Ezekiel and Numbers.
I do agree that the POV of this article can be improved, but as it stands much of what it says is accurate. Tonicthebrown 11:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
So why the lack of interest in improving the parts that aren't accurate?RJEdit 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please advise which parts are inaccurate? As I have pointed out in the paragraph above, I disagree at several of the points which you consider inaccurate. In particular, I do not agree that there are any interpreters other than historicists who use the day-year principle. If you have any evidence that futurists or preterists clearly use the day-year principle (Daniel 9 does not count, for reasons outlined in the article itself), I would appreciate it if you could supply it. Thank you Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article is largely accurate (though I think it could be improved a little). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This is stunning. You yourself wrote "I do agree that the POV of this article can be improved" - so why not improve it? Futurists as well as preterists count 69 of Daniel's 70 sevens as weeks of days as years that span from the rebuilding of Jerusalem and it's walls to the Cross.
The day-year principle preceeded the term Historicist, which is today largely taken to be a doctrine that is spelled out here for example: [6] [7] . It is also widely associated with the Catholic bashing dividers of the body of Christ. But a person who exegetes scripture by the day-year principle does not need to be a historicist or a Catholic basher. For example it was 1260 days from the founding of the Dome of the Rock in 688 to the woman (Israel) coming in from the wilderness of the nations in 1948. It was 42 months from the same event in 688 until 1967, with the "times of the Gentiles" were fulfilled in Jerusalem.
Why on earth would you have an objection to indicating that historicists are ONE GROUP that use the day-year principle? Is it your intention to tar everyone who uses the day-year principle as Catholic bashers?
And why would you remove a POV tag against explicit instructions for you not to on the tag itself, until resolution? Particularly when you yourself wrote that the POV could be improved? RJEdit (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the POV tag was actually removed by a different/another adventist. The same earlier on this page wrote: "The page currently has a lot of criticism. If Hardyf or others would like to add to the supportive arguments to improve its neutrality, please go ahead! Colin MacLaurin 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)".
So why didn't he put the POV tag on himself? When I put it on why did he remove it before resolution of the issue? Is there something I am missing?
Is it so hard for you guys to imagine that being similarly indoctrinated, you may therefore have similar/parallel blindness to your POV? Particularly after you both even admitted that the POV is left wanting?RJEdit (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
How about this. I begin by going through and simply scratching stuff like this: "The use of Daniel 9 to support the day-year principle is also criticised. The prophecy literally refers to seventy "sevens", rather than seventy "weeks", and the word "day" is not found in the passage."
If this was expected to stand why not dismiss "months" of days as years in the same cavalier and off-hand fashion? The word "day is not found in that passage either.
Let alone this passage that also uses: Strong's 07620 shabuwa` {shaw-boo'-ah} or shabua` {shaw-boo'-ah} also (fem.) sh@bu`ah {sheb-oo-aw'}... week 19, seven 1; 20 ... 1) seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week" :
Gen 29:27 [8] Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.--RJEdit (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
So does Tonicthebrown stand by this claim?:
"If you have any evidence that futurists or preterists clearly use the day-year principle (Daniel 9 does not count, for reasons outlined in the article itself), I would appreciate it if you could supply it. Thank you."
Daniel 9 doesn't count because someone wrote the reasons for this unsupported claim "outlined in the article itself"?
Why not suggest that they use the day-year principle when it suits their doctrines, and then discard it when it doesn't? RJEdit (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

RJEdit, your remarks are so voluminous that it will be difficult for me to respond in detail. I will try to comment in a series of points.

  • Firstly, please note that because of this dispute I have already changed the wording of the sentence you are unhappy with. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
But all you did was reduce the bias slightly, and then write as though it is all accomplished. This discussion about recognizing and correcting bias, not my personal happiness. (PS Please imbed your comments in my comments) RJEdit (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I sense that this topic makes you somewhat emotional. I would respectfully ask that we conduct the discussion in a more calm and level headed manner.Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you shouldn't trust your "senses". The difficulty you seem to be having from where I stand is that your article reflects that you can't imagine a POV where there could be a valid use of the day-year principle. Indeed most of the article revolves around the failed efforts of modern denominations from misuse of it.RJEdit (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • When I (and I suspect Colin) say that the POV can be improved, we're not admitting that we think there are gross inaccuracies or imbalances in the article. If such inaccuracies existed, we would have corrected them long ago. We are simply inviting further input of an encyclopedic standard in favour of the day-year view.Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If either of you had an interest in the integrity of the standards of Wikipedia, you would have noticed on the POV tag: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
Had the dispute been resolved when the tag was removed? No. It hadn't even begun to be discussed yet, had it. Instead, one 7th dayer removed the POV tag that was placed on an article, the bias of which was being defended by a second 7th dayer, who had not only previously been given an award by the first (for being unbiased!)[9], but who also seems to have a familiar realtionship with the first.
Did it occur to either of you to resolve the dispute with the person who placed the tag, before removing it?
I'll pause for your response.RJEdit (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
And while waiting I made a few changes to the article. For example: "Most notably, Desmond Ford challenged the use of the day-year principle - as practiced by Adventists such as himself - in his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine."
I added the "- as practiced by Seventh Day Adventists such as himself -". You see, this might be "most notably" to Seventh Day Adventists such as yourself, but his condemnation is irrelevant to other applications of the use of the day-year language. He was speaking about it in the context of adventist use of it.RJEdit (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This article has absolutely nothing to do with attacking "Catholic bashers". Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nor did I say it did. I indicated that it tars folks who use the day-year principle by putting them in the same group as the Catholic bashers. If you mischaracterize what I write our exchange will become increasingly difficult.RJEdit (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have a vested emotional interest in this issue, as you appear to do. It is about exploring a hermeneutic and exegetical issue in the context of an encyclopedia article, that's all.Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Our discussion is about bias. You don't have to have intended it, in order for it to be there. For example under criticism, why lump them all together and all mixed up? Why not separate them into categories? The way you presented it, it appears that a criticism of Adventist (mis)use of it provides a valid condemnation for other uses of this language of prophecy. Since you seem to be most familiar with that why not have a category "Criticism in regard to Adventist use" to help segregate and make things more clear? Then when folks have criticism in regard to Christadelphian use then can create a category for them, for example.RJEdit (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The view about 688 and 1948 is, at best, a minority and non-scholarly view. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand you can't see your bias, but how do you know it is non-scholarly? On what basis did you form that opinion when you offered this matter-of-fact answer? RJEdit (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this is an encyclopedia article, we can't deal with every single interpretation from Tom, Dick and Harry's personal website. The focus must be interpretations that are found in significant publications, biblical commentaries etc. which are produced by reputable scholars.Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The author of this use of the day-year language of prophecy has published books on the subject for over 27 years. His eschatology is widely held, and taught in seminaries, in Africa.RJEdit (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In any case, the day-year application to 688-1948 certainly appears to be a historicist rather than preterist or futurist interpretation. Preterists and futurists almost invariably understand the 1260 day period to refer to 3.5 literal yearsTonicthebrown (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A continuous-historic view is necessary for this language. Not historicist doctrine, but you seem to not be able to segregate the two. Historicist doctrine also uses a continuous-historic framework for prophecy.
If you understand Daniel's beasts to be successive conquering kingdoms that came to pass in his future, you yourself hold a continuous-historic understanding of Old Testament prophecy. Simply put, it is the traditional view that prophecy is fulfilled steadily, as the era it is written about unfolds.RJEdit (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Exegetically, it is questionable whether the word "shabuwa" should be translated as "week". This has been raised by many commentators, and the concern has influenced popular translations such as the NIV which have avoided the word "week". In the definition which you yourself cite, "week" comes last after "seven", "period of seven" and "heptad". The common word for "week" is different. Thus, very few Daniel scholars (if any) would consider a "day-year principle" to be necessary to understand Daniel 9. Just read some of the Daniel commentaries out there and see for yourself.

Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please put your replies imbedded into my replies so you don't miss questions like the one earlier when I asked why you don't condemn the 42 months as not being a day-year problem since the word "day" doesn't exist there either.
Regarding commentaries, the guys who write them have doctrinal axes to grind just like you.
Regarding bible versions I avoid New Age bible versions such as the NIV that are based on Westcott and Hort.[10] It is corrupt minority 19th century Greek texts that raise the kind of questions you cite, as opposed to the Textus Receptus.[11] However I can see why you might want to cite a modern version in this case.
Let's look at the KJV with Strong's:[12]
Seven - 07651 sheba` {sheh'-bah} or (masc.) shib`ah {shib-aw'}...seven 355, seventh 13
Week - 07620 shabuwa` {shaw-boo'-ah} or shabua` {shaw-boo'-ah} also (fem.) sh@bu`ah {sheb-oo-aw'}...week 19, seven 1
You seem to have difficulty entertaining the notion that others may not share your point of view, or may have another that could be valid and supported.RJEdit (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


And here I thought I did you a favor by deleting the second sentence in your claim that follows:
"The majority of scholars understand these 70 weeks to represent 70 weeks of years, thus being compatible with the day-year principle. However many non-historicist scholars do not see the day-year principle as being necessary for this interpretation."
And you restored it. Don't you think these two statements are a bit oxymoronic? You are saying they use days as years, and their view is "compatable with the day-year principle"/language/theory/etc., but that somehow they don't need to use a day-year language for a day to equal a year?
I would suggest that you might have avoided this undo if you had studied and responded to the above comments, before undoing my deletion.
It may have been less confusing for you from the beginning if you had chosen a different subject title. Perhaps something like "The Day-Year Language of Prophecy", as those such as Thieleman J. van Braght called it, or "theory" as Jamison, Faucett & Brown did, or why not all three, if information dissemination was your goal?
It seems you are still biased by your earlier claim that this language of prophecy is "unique to the historist school".RJEdit (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, had your original premise suggested that the day-year language is unique to the "continuous-historic"[13] view of prophecy, rather than the "historicist school", that statement would have been correct. Instead you chose to relate this language to what is widely considered to be a Catholic bashing doctrine of historicism[14].
The "continuous-historic" view simply views prophecy as being fulfilled steadily, as the era it is written about unfolds. The same view you take of Old Testament prophecy if you see Daniel's beasts as being successive kingdoms that came to pass steadily over time in his future, for example.RJEdit (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Your ego won't allow you to engage the person who criticized your bias will it. Nor to fix the article. RJEdit (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect the problem is not my ego, it is the fact that I need to work for a living and can't spend hours a day on wikipedia. And the fact that you just seem to be repeating yourself without really listening to what anyone else is saying. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't have time to defend what you put on Wikipedia I suggest you avoid doing so. There is nobody for me to "listen to" because neither you nor your similarly indoctrinated buddy answered to the claims of bias. Why not go point by point? It shouldn't take long.--RJEdit (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
RJEdit, to be quite honest I have no desire to interact with somebody who has been as aggressive, demanding and rude as yourself. You seem to be completely incapable of assuming good faith. All you seem to care about is your own agenda and have little respect for others. I respectfully suggest you have a read of WP:EQ. Perhaps we can resume a conversation when you've learnt some civility and basic politeness. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I have made quite a few edits today. Please review them. I have endeavoured to make the article read more smoothly in places, I have added some qualifications and clarifications, and I have provided some additional historical information and references. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 538-1798

In this section the following sentence appears:

'Secular historians generally do not regard this period of time as being particularly significant.'

I don't think that's a meaningful sentence in this context. Secular historians would not be expected to regard this period of time as particularly significant, since it's an interpretation of a book they typically consider largely worthless or fictional. This has no particular bearing on whether or not the date range suggested (538 to 1798), is accurate. It would be meaningful if the sentence said something like 'Secular historians do not agree that the historical events of 538 and 1798 respectively contain the events necessary to the Adventist interpretation'. Even in this case some kind of reference or evidence would be necessary. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I've modified the sentence and added a specific reference to the Catholic church for clarity. Let me know if you think this is better. I agree we should find a reference. In particular, there is very little historical truth behind the claim that Papal supremacy began in 598 and ended in 1798. I remember reading Adventist critics who have said this, but can't remember where. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think your edit is getting there, but I would like it to make the point more clearly that it is the Adventist understanding of this history which is at stake, not the time duration itself. Secular historians would say that the era from 538 to 1798 was extremely important in the history of the Catholic Church, namely because it contains almost the entire history of the Church! In addition, many extremely important events in the history of the RCC took place during this time, as secular historians note. The issue at stake is that secular historians do not agree that the historical events of 538 and 1798 respectively contain the events necessary to the Adventist interpretation. You touch on this in your remark on the 'papal supremacy'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the overthrow of the Ostrogoths in Italy by Belisarius? Yes, I've gotten the impression that this did not in fact occur in 538, and in any case it is highly questionable whether this had any effect on the papacy. As for the capture of Pope Pius VI by Louis Alexandre Berthier, I think that did occur in 1798.
What I've been trying to convey is that, whilst 538 - 1798 certainly contains a lot of important history concerning the Catholic church, there is no way that anyone can legitimately say that this was a period of "papal supremacy". For starters, it appears that most historians (secular and religious) consider Pope Leo (reigned 440-461) to be the first Pope to assert the universal authority of the papacy -- that's a century prior to 538. Secondly, within the period 538-1798 there were many periods when the papacy was powerless and uninfluential. And thirdly, the papacy did not become any less powerful after 1798. The whole idea of a period of papal supremacy is based on an extremely naive understanding of European history! Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit

There are some problems with this latest edit:

The year day principle is a unique interpretive feature of the historicist interpretation of bible prophecy. Historicism as a systematic interpretation of Daniel and Revelation emerged during the Post Reformation era.

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