Intent
I am writing this in light of the many people who have come to feel steam-rolled by Seventh-Day Adventism.
Summary
The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church identifies 1844 as a significant prophetic milestone, linking it to Daniel’s prophecy of 2300 days, starting from a decree issued in 457 BC to rebuild Jerusalem. Initially anticipating Christ’s return, the prophecy’s non-fulfillment resulted in “The Great Disappointment,” prompting Adventists to reinterpret 1844 as the commencement of Christ’s “Investigative Judgment” in heaven. Ellen G. White’s support solidified this view as foundational to SDA theology.
However, a closer reading of Daniel 8 and 9 suggests a simpler, more direct interpretation, proposing the prophecy’s start at Christ’s crucifixion in approximately 31 AD, marking the symbolic fulfillment and end of the sacrificial system. Soon thereafter the 2300 days would start. This alternative interpretation reduces the need for complex theological justifications inherent in the SDA perspective.
Additionally, historical divisions within Adventism, such as the split creating the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, further complicate claims of exclusivity and divine endorsement, highlighting broader challenges within the SDA doctrinal identity.
Ultimately, the article argues for prioritizing humility, love, and personal readiness for Christ’s return over rigid adherence to contested prophetic timelines and interpretations, emphasizing that true Christian faithfulness is measured by character and love rather than doctrinal precision.
By the end of this 3 part series, I will show supports to this througout Daniel and Revelation, and show clearly that Daniel 12 matches events in Acts 7 & 8, completing a fully fledged picture of the 70 Weeks Messianic Prophecy, including events following the death of Christ.
1844: Part 1
Adventists regard 1844 as a pivotal date, based on a series of calculations first promoted by William Miller, which he called “proofs”. He believed these pointed to the imminent end of the world. When that event failed to occur [a moment in history known as The Great Disappointment] early Adventists reinterpreted the meaning of the prophecy. They concluded that, rather than returning to earth, Christ had entered the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary to begin a final phase of atonement for humanity titled “The Investigative Judgement”.
Ellen G. White, considered a prophet within the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church, endorsed Miller’s date-setting. Her affirmation cemented 1844 as a doctrinal cornerstone within SDA theology.
To support this date, however, SDA interpreters have had to wrestle with complex and disputed biblical language. An interpretive debate commonly known as “the daily.” This controversy is too intricate to cover in Part 1, but it’s well documented in scholarly works on both sides of the debate. Notable examples include: Ellen White and the ‘Daily’ Conflict by Denis Kaiser (Digital Commons @ Andrews University), or The Lost 1,335-Year Prophecy by Donald E. Casebolt (Spectrum Magazine).
Despite the elaborate theological framework built around 1844, there exists a far simpler and more coherent interpretation for the beginning of the 2300 prophetic days. Adventists can’t accept this since it de-establishes them as some more faitfhul group that succeeded those who came before them, and as such they will defend the pre-established framework. Later we’ll see how this is actually to their demise due to the split of the church into Seventh-day Adventism and Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement denominations, and an apparent carrying of the more-faithful church status by the latter.
Let’s begin with a concise explanation of why SDAs believe those 2300 days, as mentioned in Daniel 8:14, ended in 1844.
Seventh-day Adventists believe the 2300 days (or “evenings and mornings”) in Daniel 8:14 begin in 457 BC because they connect this prophecy with the “seventy weeks” prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27, which explicitly mentions a starting point: “from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem.”
Key reasons:
Link between Daniel 8 and 9: Adventists interpret the 2300 days of Daniel 8 as part of a longer time prophecy that is clarified in Daniel 9. Since Daniel 9 offers a clear starting point, they apply it to Daniel 8 as well.
Historical event in 457 BC: The decree by Artaxerxes I in 457 BC (Ezra 7) is considered the most complete and effective command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, fulfilling the condition in Daniel 9:25.
Day-Year Principle: Adventists use the prophetic principle that one day equals one year (Ezekiel 4:6, Numbers 14:34). So 2300 days = 2300 years.
Fulfillment in 1844: Starting from 457 BC and adding 2300 years reaches 1844 AD, which Adventists believe marks the beginning of the heavenly “cleansing of the sanctuary,” or investigative judgment.
However, this stands in stark contrast to the contextual cues within the biblical texts themselves. Even when using the general framework of the SDA interpretation, the passage actually reveals when the 2300 days begin—and it’s not 457 BC, but rather 31 AD.
Let’s take a closer look at Daniel 8:11–14. These verses occur within a description of a power that exalts itself against God and outlines several key events tied to this rebellion. I’ll highlight the most relevant sections to illustrate the timing being conveyed.
11 It [a new king or power] even exalted itself to be equal with the Commander of the army [often considered to be Christ]; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was overthrown. 12 And because of an offense the army will be given to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will hurl truth to the ground and do as it pleases and be successful. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, “How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the offense causes horror, so as to allow both the sanctuary and the army to be trampled?” 14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be properly restored.”
Daniel 8:11-14
This passage is widely understood to refer to a power that rises in opposition to Christ. Reflecting this interpretation, many Bible translations capitalize possessive pronouns such as “His”, signaling a reference to divinity.
Later in Chapter 9, the angel Gabriel [sent by God] appears to Daniel to provide further insight into the vision from Chapter 8. This new revelation is commonly referred to as the 70 weeks prophecy, and it outlines the precise year of the Messiah’s death more than 500 years before it occurred. It’s a prophecy that the wise men who visited Jesus at His birth likely understood and followed.
Now, let’s examine a portion of the 70 weeks prophecy found in Daniel 9:=
25 So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.”
Daniel 9::25-27
Let’s keep in mind that Gabriel’s purpose in chapter 9 was to help Daniel understand more about the vision from Chapter 8. In doing so, he points out that the removal of the daily sacrifice, a practice which, since the book of Genesis, symbolically pointed to Christ, and that would come to an end at the cross.
Now, let’s go back and read Daniel 8:13–14 again.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, “How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the offense causes horror, so as to allow both the sanctuary and the army to be trampled?” 14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be properly restored.”
Daniel 8:13-24
In these verses, the “holy one speaking” clarifies both the context of his question and the event that marks the beginning of the 2300 prophetic days. He indicates that it begins with the removal of the regular sacrifice, as described in Daniel 8:11:
“And it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was overthrown.”
This detail is crucial. In contrast, the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 outlines the beginning of a separate 490-year period, stating it would commence “from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” That decree, while historically significant, has no connection to the removal of the regular sacrifice or of God’s sanctuary being thrown down.
The point at which the two events converge is Daniel 9:27, where it states that He will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering. This aligns perfectly with Jesus’ own words in John 10:18, where He declares, “No one takes [my life] from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord.” The system of sacrifice was necessary only until Christ’s death—because it symbolically pointed forward to that very moment.
Jesus also spoke of raising the temple in three days (John 2:19), referring to His body. And in a striking parallel, the same power that put Him to death would later destroy the physical temple in Jerusalem—the temple made with hands—adding even deeper layers of meaning to this prophetic fulfillment.
Taken at face value, the text gives us a somewhat clear starting point for the 2300-day prophecy: sometime at or relatively close to after the moment the daily sacrifice was no longer needed—at the cross, when Christ fulfilled the symbol of continual atonement. If counted from that moment in 31 AD, the 2300 prophetic days (understood as prophetic years) would end far in the future, around 2331 AD, though when considering the 70 years prophecy still had 3.5 years to close after the death of Jesus Christ, it could still be some time after that.
To be clear, this is not a call to fixate on some future date for Christ’s return. The truth is, for most people reading this, life expectancy gives you no more than 75 years—and for many, today may be the last. That’s why we must be ready for Christ’s return each day. For most people who have been on this earth, our personal probation will end at death, and after that, there are no further opportunities to choose salvation.
The intent of this article is to point out there is an identifiable start date for the 2300 days in Daniel, one that seems to be the intent of the text to detail. This is in contrast to SDA claims that the 2300 days must start at 457 BC due to William Millers re-interpretation of a single word in Daniel 9:24 that is used nowhere else in the bible (we'll talk about this more in other in Part 2), and Ellen Whites later endorsement.
What I am saying is that there is a far more elegant and theologically consistent interpretation of this prophecy than the SDA version—an interpretation that doesn’t require complex theological scaffolding to understand, and seems to be more in line with Gabriel’s immediate intent, which is explain what he meant with more details rather than ambiguously place a single starting point for two visions.
Let’s be honest, this is prophecy. And by its very nature, prophecy is partial. It often comes in symbolic, poetic, and layered forms that invite interpretation—though not private or arbitrary interpretation, as Scripture cautions. Prophetic language is not always easy to articulate clearly, and so what I’m presenting today [like other interpretations] is not a universally accepted view among scholars. But this is part of the broader experience of Christianity: believing in an unseen God, and trusting in truths not easily expressed in worldly terms.
In the eyes of the world, the message of faith often seems unclear or poorly stated.
Consider, for example, the fossilized and drowned coral reefs beneath the ocean’s surface—such as those along the deep slopes of Hawaii. These formations reveal over 300,000 years of history, where shallow-water coral species built massive reef structures on top of one another as sea levels gradually rose through the age. This kind of evidence poses a serious challenge to literalist or fundamentalist interpretations of the Genesis account that claim the earth is only 6,000 years old.
These corals show now sign of some catastrophic event that caused cavitation and sinking of the volcanic foundation. They grew in place, and are often growing directly on top of each other. This is akin to viewing rings in a tree, providing living evidence of a continual linear cycle. Consider that if the earth had a 8000 year old tree, we’d have to face what that meant, just like we must with these corals.
Unlike the dinosaur fossil record—which young-earth proponents often challenge on various grounds—the geological evidence of drowned coral reefs formed by rising sea levels is far more difficult to dismiss. These structures tell a story that spans hundreds of thousands of years, with consistently older corals as deeper platforms are tested using thorium-230 dating.
There is no plausible short-term scenario of cyclical death and regrowth that can account for the sheer magnitude of formations like those in the Maldives and Enewetak Atoll, with reef structures measuring over 2 kilometers and 1.4 kilometers thick, respectively. Likewise, Hawaii’s submerged reef platforms, descending the underwater slopes to depths of 1.5 kilometers (nearly a mile) below the ocean’s surface, bear silent testimony to a timescale that far exceeds a young-earth model.
As such, sometimes, being a Christian means being “not well said” in the world’s eyes, even for those who might not look at the flood account as historically accurate. Yet I have seen God’s hand at work—I have witnessed His miracles with others. Faith doesn’t always present itself with clean, airtight logic or scientific precision. Humanity has long tried to explain more than it truly comprehends. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Belief in God may run contrary to worldly wisdom, but that does not make Him any less real.
Maybe this is why Jesus said we’d be in danger of hell fire for calling someone else a fool (Matthew 5:22). Or that blessed are those who are poor in spirit –as in– blessed are those who don’t think they have it all figured out (Matthew 5:3).. So then we might say, if we have love, and Jesus, then that’s what he was looking for. So why seek to condemn based on knowledge alone?
Take care that no one deceives himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness";
What I’m proposing here isn’t unbiblical. Nowhere in Scripture does it say a prophet must always get the past right—only that if they predict the future and it does not come to pass, then they are not to be trusted (Deuteronomy 18:22, Jeremiah 28:9). That distinction matters, especially when evaluating interpretations rooted in retrospective alignments of historical events.
The bible does say Scripture can not be undone, but then maybe we are facing something truly symbolic in the descriptions of our origins. For example, the scenario of Noah entering the arc and the period of time until the dove returns with an olive branch in it’s mouth is roughly the time it takes to have a baby after impregnation.
My point in emphasizing the elegance of a face-value reading of Daniel 8 and 9 is this: while the SDA interpretation—though deeply studied—can feel compelling, it bypasses a plainly stated reality. The Bible does tell us when the 2300-year period begins: at the death of Christ, when the daily sacrifice was no longer needed. That is the moment when the symbol met its fulfillment.
At the very least, this reading deserves to be recognized as just as coherent and just as well said as any other interpretation. Certainly I am not the first to have pointed it out. And in its simplicity, it may offer an even clearer witness to the gospel message at the heart of prophecy.
A Sign of Broken Theology
I feel that it is imperative for Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) to reflect on the possibility that God may not endorse any group’s claim to exclusive status—as if assigning the best seats in His house. A recurring theme in SDA theology, often expressed to me by those close to the tradition, is the belief that the year 1844 marks not only a prophetic milestone, but also a special understanding given as a test to mark this new group during the divine launching point of the SDA Church as God’s chosen end-time movement, entrusted with delivering the final message to the world—the so-called Three Angels’ Messages of Revelation 14.
However, a closer examination of the church’s history reveals a more complicated picture. What is commonly referred to as the “Seventh-day Adventist Church” actually exists in two distinct denominations: the mainstream SDA Church and the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement (SDARM).
The division began in the aftermath of World War I, when churches of the Reform Movement were disfellowshipped from the main body of SDAs for refusing to support participation in combat roles during wartime. The SDARM maintained that such involvement violated the commandment not to kill. In contrast, the mainstream SDA leadership permitted military service, sparking the schism.
Tensions escalated further during World War II, particularly in Nazi Germany, where the mainstream SDA leadership sent a letter to the Nazi government declaring ideological harmony and national loyalty. Disturbingly, that same letter suggested that efforts to suppress religious groups out of step with the regime should be directed at the SDARM [1][2]—a move that caused lasting damage to relations between the two bodies. The mainstream SDA Church has since issued an apology for the actions taken by its leadership during that period.
These historical fractures don’t just complicate the narrative—they expose a deeper theological dilemma. If both SDA bodies have claimed to be God’s singular, end-time remnant, then what happens when history reveals division, political compromise, and conflicting interpretations within that very claim?
After these events unfolded and the two churches began to develop their own distinct theologies, a core problem emerged for both: If God has only one true final church to deliver the Three Angels’ Message, as both groups assert, then which one did He choose?
It is my proposition that the broader mindset of Seventh-day Adventism is shaped by a deep need for identity—specifically, the belief that the church exists for a divinely appointed purpose: to be God’s exclusive final voice on earth. This belief carries forward the legacy of Millerism, where the early movement saw itself as the last remnant, with proof that God had rejected all but them, being that He had entrusted them with a final truth in the last days of earths history.
The Adventist movement simply inherited and rebranded that conviction, and from my experience most will defend it as something they inherited from Gods remnant who came before them. This is to say, they believe [in my own words] other branches have been pruned off of Gods tree, and only theirs will remain.
Further evidence of this mindset can be seen in the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, which eventually went a step further—claiming to bear an even more final message, known as the Fourth Angel’s Message. This development reflects the same foundational idea held by the mainline SDA Church: that God’s chosen remnant carries the most final message during the last days of earths history. The Reformers simply adapted it to their own context, reinforcing the underlying theological impulse rather than challenging it.
We can in the spirit of grace agree that they both have their unique challenges, and that ultimately both churches have some sort of truth that can't be separated. Many fall back to this when faced with this dilemma. However, church sentiment and the words of members especially within conservative SDA and SDARM churches does not exactly reflect this narrative.
Somehow, after recognizing how proud both systems are, I’ve come to recognize that it would have been better if they had only claimed that they seek to be one of Gods most faithful denominations. I don’t see where that could have gone wrong, but that was not the spirit of Millerism from which these churches were born. Millerites and by extension early Adventists were highly exclusive, as can be seen from testimonies about early Millerite and Adventist messages[3].
Conclusion
As I’ve pointed out in other articles, Ellen G. White cannot be considered the final authority on biblical doctrine if she has made failed prophetic claims. Though she may have offered valuable spiritual insights and encouragement to many, the inability to accurately foresee major events—according to the standard laid out in Scripture—disqualifies anyone from being held as an infallible prophetic guide (Deuteronomy 18:22). For this reason, no believer should feel spiritually bound to fear or obey her writings as if they were on par with Scripture.
Nevertheless, Ellen White remains the most frequently cited sign used to support the claim that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is God’s uniquely chosen end-time remnant.
However, as Christians, our focus should not rest on claims of doctrinal superiority or prophetic status—but rather on faithfulness, humility, and perseverance. Scripture tells us that in the last days, “your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, and your young men will see visions” (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17). The prophetic gift is not reserved for one individual or denominations during the the last days of earths history—it is to be distributed broadly like rain according to God’s will.
We are called to run the race to win (1 Corinthians 9:24), to remain faithful to God in a world that increasingly is not. But in doing so, we must guard our hearts against turning this aspiration into spiritual elitism. God is inclusive for those who love Him, and we are repeatedly warned not to judge the hearts of others or assume superiority in His kingdom (Romans 14:4; James 4:12).
And that leads us here:
I stand firm on this—Christ alone is the standard by which we are all judged.
Our faithfulness counts for nothing apart from Him. Let each person look to their own good works as evidence of allegiance to God, and nothing more.
There are notable weaknesses in some SDA prophetic interpretations, especially surrounding the 1844 doctrine. Yet the church does not need 1844 to support many of its other biblically sound teachings. If a believer holds that Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary to begin a special work on that specific date, there is no law against it—just as there is no law requiring belief in that date. What matters most is not when we believe Christ entered—but that we believe He does.
Whatever we believe—on 1844, on prophecy, on timelines and symbols—it must be done in love. Without love, the truth becomes hollow. Without love, even perfect doctrine is nothing more than noise.
1 If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may [a]glory, but do not have love, it does me no good.
4 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered, 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it [b]keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1 Corinthians 13:1-7
A note for Adventists
I’m certain SDAs will be quick to remember that Ellen White prophesied that there would be no more date setting after 1844. I feel that was to squash attempts to keep re-addressing the date and potential issues with it more than it was a final closure. What is in this article is just dialogue amidst Gods people, and today is what matters. Tomorrow is just another opportunity.
I am most not trying to date set, for no man [not even Jesus Christ] knows the day or the hour of his return (Matthew 24:36). As such, for many of us on this earth, the next thing we’ll know after today is the resurrection. I am merely pointing out that using the same interpretive methods applied to the SDA prophetic framework, there was a more elegant time period for the 2300 prophetic days to end if we choose to look at it like that.
As we will see in part 2 and 3, William Miller had a date within reach of his lifetime, and a significant biblical prophecy come true in 1798. This led to trying to make all of the other dates line up, to which he did a great job, but I believe the there is substantial evidence weren’t meant to be aligned as such.
If you believe I’m wrong about 1844, I hope you’ll stay with me through Parts 2 and 3. This particular subject represents more than a year-long journey of study and reflection, and I welcome dialogue.
Sources
[1] Christine Elizabeth King, The Nazi State and the New Religions: Five Case Studies in Non-Conformity (Studies in Religion and Society 4; New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1982), 96, https://archive.org/details/nazistatenewreli0004king/page/96/mode/2up.
[2] Corrie Schroder, Seventh Day Adventis (Seminar Papers of UCSB Students
(History 133P), March 2002) https://www.scribd.com/document/425088868/Seventh-Day-Adventist-in-Hitler-s-Time
https://holocaust.projects.history.ucsb.edu/Research/Proseminar/corrieschroder.htm
[3] Trial of Elder I. Dammon. Reported for the Piscataquis Farmer. – Piscataquis Farmer (1845), https://archive.org/details/TrialOfElderI.Dammon.ReportedForThePiscataquisFarmer.-In
