After considering and analyzing 30 articles related to the prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12; and Revelation 13, 14, 19 and 20; it has become evident that the majority of our prophetic interpretations lack biblical and historical foundation, which compels us to investigate and seek a better interpretation. In the last twenty-five years, we have shared what has been recently published on this blog with several dozen experienced theologians from North, Central, and South America, including deans and professors of theology from the Adventist University of Chile, Adventist University of the Plata in Argentina, and the Adventist University of Montemorelos in Mexico, inviting them to question what was shared with the hope that they might point out any errors.
Unfortunately, 96% of the theologians to whom information was provided took a stance of denial towards what was shared, but never once raised objections to the proposal. The remaining 4% consists of two experienced retired Chilean theologians who acknowledged that in our traditional interpretation, we encountered unanswered questions and suggested that we should revise what we believed prophetically. One of them encouraged us to send our research to the Institute of Biblical Research, offering to provide a reference letter for said institute, accrediting that the proponent is not a dissident or adversary of the church. It should be noted that in the year 2017, we participated in a symposium held at the Adventist University of the Plata, commemorating the five hundred years since Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the University of Wittenberg. Approximately 200 theologians from the South American Division attended the event. The director of the Institute of Biblical Research, the director of the White Center, and a representative from Andrews University also participated in the event.
In the different works team in which we participated, during the four days that the symposium lasted, we shared dozens of copies of our research among the participants -including representatives of North American institutions -, and invited them to question it. We exchanged emails in the hope of receiving objections, which never came. The director of the Institute of Biblical Research at the time had the courtesy to send us a letter outlining our traditional prophetic interpretations of the book of Daniel – well-known to all – but did not question what was proposed, which precisely challenges these traditional interpretations. At this point, we were deeply disappointed to realize that our theologians not only lack the elements to question what was presented, but also lack interest in considering it.
Due to the aforementioned reasons, we have felt “obliged” to publicly address our prophetic inconsistencies, not with the intention to harm our denomination, but with the intention of engaging our scholars to provide satisfactory answers to the prophetic questions arising from the objective and diligent study of the book of Daniel. Should they be unable to do so, it should prompt a review of what we have believed and taught, and if necessary, proceed to an honorable correction that does not harm us but rather enhances our reputation by showing honesty and adherence to the truth in admitting we have been mistaken on some points, as befits a Christian institution.
As a church that professes to hold the truth, we must continually seek that truth, discarding what our sincere pioneers, who did not have the interpretative tools we now possess, mistakenly formulated with good intentions. Dreaming costs nothing, so our greatest dream is for the Lord to enlighten our minds so that we may see that what was true in our beginnings, making us think we were a prophetic church, is no longer true in our time. This does not mean we cease to be a church that the Lord raised for a purpose: to announce the glorious moment of His Second Coming and the privilege of enjoying the blessed Sabbath in a troubled world.
It is our desire to remain members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and feel healthy pride in being part of this movement, as we did over fifty years ago when we took our first steps in the Christian walk. However, it is also our desire to proceed with an honest and objective review of our prophetic interpretation because if we do not, we risk following the path of sects that ultimately leads to fanaticism by defending what they know biblically indefensible. Blessings.
The church has met me with silence when I presented views on Daniel 11 and Revelation 17. I can recall only one Adventist who ever responded (he is well known and caused quite a stir in the Adventist world) and his response was “you know your history.” I would enjoy sharing our findings.