If this thesis is correct, would vindicate Adventist pioneers as being especially led of the Holy Spirit.
Foundation of Seventh-day Adventist church (the sanctuary doctrine) rests on solid linguistic, contextual, historical basis.
Adventist pioneers thus the first group properly to reconstruct the New Testament import of Daniel 8 prophecy (as the Holy Spirit intended).
Jewish interpretation of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn is the product of early apostasy and unbelief, even from time of Maccabees.
Preterist interpretation continues as the product of papal unbelief.
Our "new view" of "the daily" logically an apotelesmatic appendage of the Antiochus Epiphanes view:
The Syrian king is a type, the papacy an antitype, of the little horn.
This view involves serious linguistic, contextual problems.
Its inconsistencies virtually render Daniel a taboo topic. Our people, especially youth, widely ignorant of Book of Daniel. Few sermons on prophecies in Daniel. Into this vacuum rushes Cottrell-Ford assertion of Adventist prophetic biblical illegitimacy, widely accepted by scholars whose doubts are too often uncritically accepted by laity.
Result: serious distrust of 1844 and of our unique sanctuary truth.
1844 and 1888 are complementary dates. If one stands, the other does; if one loses significance, inevitably the other does also.
Present anti-1844 propaganda within Adventism accompanied always by a parallel antipathy for 1888 message.
As with Conradi, failure to discern the uniqueness of the 1888 view of justification by faith prepares for failure to appreciate prophetic foundation of 1844.
The 1888 message of righteousness by faith is integrally united with the unique doctrine of the cleansing of the sanctuary, in essence uniquely parallel to and consistent with it.
The 1888 message imparted spiritual appeal to the sanctuary doctrine, freed it from narrow egocentric legalism.
Failure to appreciate 1888 message perpetuated egocentric concept of the sanctuary doctrine, prepared way for widespread internal and external criticism of the doctrine of the sanctuary and investigative judgment. The 1888 view of the1844 truths is refreshingly Christocentric, not the "stale, profitless" egocentric view decried by external and internal opponents.
If this thesis is correct, pioneers' view of "the daily":
In no way restricts the spiritual significance of the sanctuary doctrine.
Establishes 1844 and the cleansing of heavenly sanctuary as only possible linguistic understanding of Daniel 8:14.
Securely locks them in as exclusively referring to the terminus of the 2300 days/years in the Christian era, that is, 1844 A.D.
Eliminates possibility of a logical reversion to Antiochus Epipanes or any other preterist view.
Eliminates all futuristic conjectures in applying the 1290, 1335, 1260, 2300 days literally.
Is supported exegetically, linguistically, and contextually by the Hebrew text.
Is the obvious response of history to prophecy.
Is a lost truth whose hour has come, necessitated by the present anti-1844, antisanctuary propaganda.
Is simple to understand; common people all over the world readily "see" apostate Christianity supplanting or absorbing paganism as a historical reality, and as an on-going development easily observable even today in Africa and South America.
The pioneers' view is clear and cogent, tying together Daniel 8 and 2 Thessalonians 2, focusing the 2300 days as years. No mental stumbling block.
It is true that no Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant commentaries support our pioneer view of HA TAMID; but should this keep us from accepting it?
Inconsistencies of the popular view involve all these commentaries in a quagmire of confusion and conjecture.
Some commentators attempt to reconstruct or rewrite the text in order to make it fit preconceived, popular theories. This we cannot do.
We are unworthy to exist if unwilling to confess truth which is obviously supported by the Bible, regardless of inability of the popular churches (or Jews) to see it.
Straightforward linguistic, contextual, historical exposition of these prophecies will command respect from thoughtful people in "Babylon." We have no need to fear presenting it.
No non-Adventist Christian commentaries support us on the Sabbath truth; should we therefore abandon it?
Although the HA TAMID truth is simple to understand, opposition through the decades appears to make it confusing and distracting. Shall we refuse to restudy it for fear of controversy? Truth never causes disunity; only error does:
Nearly universal acceptance of Conradi's view has now led us to a serious crisis over the sanctuary, 1844, and the Spirit of Prophecy positions. General concept of Daniel's prophecies is out of focus.
But there is no lack of intelligence in the Seventh-day Adventist Church; many minds need challenge of deeper study as alternative to pervasive preoccupation with amusement and mental and spiritual stagnation in respect to Bible study.
Cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is a truth of incomparable importance to the world and the universe; no effort, time, or expense involved in establishing it can be thought wasted.
G. Desmond Ford's Glacier View manuscript links Conradi's "daily" as the vital factor in shaping the anti-1844 views of Ballenger, Fletcher, Snide, Grieve, Brinsmead, Hilgert, Sibley, and himself:
Says Conradi was first to introduce this view to us (page 79).
Ballenger acknowledged that Ellen White opposed it (page 79).
Fletcher recognized the "new view" as essential link in his rejection of the sanctuary doctrine (page 129).
G. B. Starr opposed Fletcher by upholding "old view" of "the daily" (page 129).
Ford links Conradi view as an essential step in downgrading the investigative judgment (pages 295, 296).
Of itself, in our original context as a people, "the daily" was not a prominent or vital leading doctrine, as Ellen White says (but it was nonetheless truth). But the abandonment of that apparently unimportant truth creates the confusion that triggers a tragic disavowal of our sanctuary doctrine.