MY RESPONSE TO STEPHEN BOHRS 2520 NON-PROPHECY

BY THEODORE TURNER

Stephen Bohr is a highly respected voice within conservative Adventism. Like many other
conservatives before him, who consider themselves watchmen on the walls of Zion, he has failed to take
the time to evaluate fully the implications of his response or the teaching that he is addressing. We
recognise that truth is needed and that Adventism needs to be defended against the many winds of
doctrine that seeks to blow down the structure. However, we also recognise that in defending the truth,
we must be aware of those that are affected. Is there fanaticism among some who profess to believe the
2520? Indeed there is, just as there is fanaticism among people who profess every point of Adventism.
This paper is a simple response to charges made by Stephen Bohr and a simple presentation of the
insight that comes about by a correct understanding of Leviticus 26. It is our position that the 2520 is
truth but that not all of what purports to be in support of the 2520 is correct.

ADDRESSING THE CHARGES

1. OCTOBER 22, 1844 WAS REACHED BY A STUDY OF DANIEL 8:14 NOT LEVITICUS 26

For Seventh-day Adventists there is no date which is more important than October 22, 1844. The
year of this date is determined by linking the 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9 with the 2300 days of Daniel 8.
The month and the day are determined by the date of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 23. The 2520
prophecy is not needed to prove that the judgment began on October 22, 1844. The argument from Daniel
8 and 9 and Leviticus 23 is ironclad. The central argument of the seventh-month movement was the 2300
day prophecy. The 2520 supposedly provides us with the year but it does not meet the test as to the day
and the month. October 22, 1844 was reached by a study of Daniel 8:14 not Leviticus 26.1

This is simply not true. I am somewhat remiss at having to correct this claim and that it should be
held by someone who should know better. The date October 22, 1844 was first derived by Samuel
Sheffield Snow in 1844. His main argument that pointed to the end of the 2300 days in 1844 was
derived from an understanding of Leviticus 26. Just prior to the first disappointment, Joshua V. Himes
published a letter in the Signs of the Times written by Snow dated February 16. In this letter Snow
presents an exposition of the seven times of Leviticus 26 as ending in the fall of 1844.

The seven times of Moses, in Leviticus 26, amount to 2520 full years. They
began with the breaking of the power of Judah, at the captivity of Manasseh, B. C. 677.
This is the time that has always been given as the date for their commencement. But
there has been an error in supposing them to terminate in 1843, as I shall now
show. Had they begun with Jan. 1, B. C. 677, they would not have ended before Jan. 1, A.
D. 1844. Or had they begun with the first day of the Jewish year, in 677, they could not
end before the first day of the Jewish year, 1844. For it is evident that it requires 677 and
1843 entire years to make up the full period of 2520. But any point within B. C. 677, is
only in the 676th year before Christ. Reckoning back from the Christian era, we do not
obtain 677 full years, till we arrive at the extreme point, i. e. the first day of B. C. 677. So
also, reckoning forward from the commencement of the Christian era, we do not obtain
1843 full years, till we arrive at the extreme point, i. e. the end of A. D. 1843, or the first
day of A. D. 1844. If, then, the captivity of Manasseh did not occur as early as the
first day of the Jewish year, B. C. 677, the 2520 years cannot terminate till after the

1
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 1.
1
 expiration of the present Jewish year. Now it is evident that Manasseh was not taken
in the early part of the year, from the fact that Esarhaddon and the Assyrians were
employed in carrying away the ten tribes out of their land, and placing foreigners in their
stead, in the same year, and before the invasion of Judah. We find the history of this in 2
Kings 17:20-24. The prophecy concerning it we find in Isaiah 7:8. The date of this
prophecy is B. C. 742. From this date count the sixty-five years, and it brings us to B. C
677. In that year, in fulfillment of the prediction in Hosea 5:5, Israel and Judah were both
broken. But as it must necessarily require considerable time to remove the ten-tribes,
and bring foreigners to fill their place, we cannot well date Manassehs captivity
earlier than the autumn of that year. About one half, therefore, of the Jewish year B.
C. 677, must be left out of the reckoning. This will necessarily extend the period of
the 2520 years, down to the autumn of A. D. 1844.2

This is where Snow started his argument for a fall termination of the prophetic periods. As his
understanding developed, He reworked both the 2520 and the 2300 days having them terminate
together on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month. In fact, it was William Miller who first
recognised the prophecy of Leviticus 26 was based upon the sabbatical and Jubilee cycles found in
Leviticus 25.3 This understanding unfolded, as the end of the prophetic periods came into view. Snow,
and others, saw that the sabbatical cycle ends on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month. So then, it
was not from Daniel 8 and the 2300 days alone that they derived the October 22, 1844 date.

Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound, on the tenth day of
the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound
throughout all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty
throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and
ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his
family."--Lev. xxv. 9, 10. "And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall
have a holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing the trumpets
unto you. And ye shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month a holy convocation:
and ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall not do any work therein. And on the fifteenth day
of the seventh month ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work, and
ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days."--Num. xxix. 1, 7, 12. "And all the men of
Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim,
which is the seventh month."--1 Kings viii. 2. "In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day
of the month shall be do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the burnt
offering, and according to the meat-offering, and according to the oil."--Ezek. xlv. 25.
"Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and
mourned in the fifth and seventh month, even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto
me, even to me?"--Zech. vii. 5. "The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and
the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and
gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace."--Zech. viii. 19.4

It is well known to our readers that the 7th month of the Jewish year has been
looked to with considerable interest, as the time when the typical institutions of Moses
might be supposed to indicate that the Lord would appear. With the letter of Mr. Miller
on the subject, (Signs, May 17, 1843,) they are well acquainted.

2
Signs of the Times, April 3, 1844, 69.
3
See, William Miller, A Lecture on the Typical Sabbaths and Great Jubilee (1842).
4
Signs of the Times, September 11, 1844, 45.
2
 There are circumstances, highly worthy of consideration, which have called the
attention of some of our brethren and sisters to the tenth day of the seventh
month, now just before us, the day of the great annual atonement, and the
sounding of the Jubilee trumpet; and from a fair consideration of all the facts in the
case, we must say, that if we should look to any one day, in preference to others, as the
time for the Advent, we should be disposed to look to that day.5

Thus we see that those types that pointed to events connected with our Lord's first
coming, were fulfilled exactly at the time of their observance. And every one who is not
willingly blind must see, and feel too, that those which remain unfulfilled, will be fulfilled
with an equally strict regard to time. Not only so, but Christ himself confirms this
argument from analogy by saying that one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled. Those types which were to be observed in the 7th month, have
never yet had their fulfilment in the antitype.
On the first day of that month, as we learn from Lev. xxiii. 23--25, was the memorial
of blowing of trumpets. See Ps. lxxxi. 3: "Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the
time appointed, on our solemn feast day." See also Rev. x. 7: "But in the days of the voice
of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God shall be finished,
as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." On the first day of the 7th month,
6000 years being complete, from the first day of the week of creation, the great
millennial Sabbath will be introduced, by the sounding of the seventh trumpet.
Another type is given in Lev. xxiii. 26--32, that is, the day of atonement or
reconciliation, on the tenth day of the 7th month, in which the high priest went
into the most holy place of the tabernacle, presenting the blood of the victim
before the mercy-seat, after which on the same day he came out and blessed the
waiting congregation of Israel. See Lev. ix. 7, 22--24, and Lev. 16th chap.; Heb. v. 1--6,
and ix. 1--12, 27, 28. Now the important point in this type is the completion of the
reconciliation at the coming of the high priest out of the holy place. The high priest was a
type of Jesus our High Priest; the most holy place a type of heaven itself; and the coming
out of the high priest a type of the coming of Jesus the second time to bless his waiting
people. As this was on the tenth day of the 7th month, so on that day Jesus will certainly
come, because not a single point of the law is to fail. All must be fulfilled. The feast of
tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, (see Lev. xxiii.
33--43,) was a type of the marriage supper of the Lamb; which will be celebrated
in the New Jerusalem, the tabernacle of God which is to be with men. In Lev. xxv. 8--
13, 23, 24, we find that on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the fiftieth year,
the jubilee trumpet was always to be blown, and redemption granted to all the
land. Let any man read carefully the connection of this subject, and he must surely see
that this is a most striking type of the glorious deliverance of the people of God,
and of the whole creation which is now groaning under the curse, when the
Redeemer shall come to Zion, and accomplish the redemption of the bodies of all
his saints, and the redemption of the purchased possession. See Rom. viii. 19--23;
Eph. i. 9--14. Our blessed Lord will therefore come, to the astonishment of all them
that dwell upon the earth, and to the salvation of those who truly look for him, on
the tenth day of the seventh month of the year of jubilee: and that is the present
year, 1844.6

5
Signs of the Times, September 18, 1844, 52.
6
Signs of the Times, October 2, 1844, 71.
3
 This is sufficient to show that Bohrs claim is false. The understanding of the sabbatical cycle and
Leviticus 26 was paramount in arriving to and confirming the date of the prophetic periods to be
October 22, 1844 on the tenth day of the Jewish month.
2. 2520 PROPONENTS ARE TEACHING WILLIAM MILLERS UNDERSTANDING OF LEVITICUS 26.

The 2520 non-prophecy is based on Leviticus 26 where presumably God promised to punish Israel seven
times for her apostasy. The seven times are interpreted according to the year/day principle with each time or
year having 360 days. Thus, 7 X 360 = 2520.
William Miller believed that the 2520 began in 677 BC when king Manasseh of Judah was taken prisoner
to Babylon. Applying the year/day principle from 677 BC to 1844, excluding the year zero we have 2520 years.
Some 2520 proponents actually believe there are two 2520 periods, one from 677 BC to 1844 and the
other from 723 BC to 18447. We will not deal with this particular nuance in this presentation because it goes
beyond the time and space that we have for this presentation.8

Though he does not state it explicitly, he simply mounts an attack against Millers understanding of
Leviticus 26 and fails to take into account the new insights that have come about as a result of the study
of Millerite understanding on the prophetic periods. In some ways, this is understandable. There are
many different groups who have different takes upon Leviticus 26 and the 2520 years. Bohr assumes
that all of these groups have a similar teaching. The fact that he notes there are some who see two
periods of 2520 years should draw our attention to this fact. Further, the dismissal of the two 2520
periods is fatal to his argument, in that it is the discovery of the two periods together that is the main
argument for the renewal of the understanding of Leviticus 26 in our time and explains the rejection of
the 2520 by the pioneers, including James White. We will address some of these insights later.

3. THE 2520 IS ACCEPTED SOLELY (OR MOSTLY) FROM THE BELIEF THAT SINCE ELLEN WHITE ENDORSED
THE 1843 CHART, SHE THEREBY ENDORSED THE 2520 ON THE CHART.

The 1843 prophetic chart was the power point that was used by the Advent Movement evangelists
leading up to 1844. It contained several of the key historical events from Daniel and Revelation with their
respective dates. In the upper right hand corner of the chart was the so called prophecy of the 2520. Those
who believe that there is a 2520 prophecy have claimed that Ellen White endorsed the 1843 chart
and therefore she also endorsed the 2520 prophecy that was on the chart.9

We admit that there are some 2520 proponents who take this position. We understand that Ellen
White specifically endorses the prophetic periods on the 1843 chart as represented in figures. Here
are her words.

I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that
it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was
over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand
was removed. 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 1844.10

7
He would mean 1798 and not 1844
8
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 1.
9
Ibid.
10
Early Writings, 74, 236.
4
 Here, we see that her endorsement is in the figures and not everything on the chart. Specifically,
it is the prophetic periods represented in figures that were affected by the mistake in failing to take
into account the transition from BC to AD. The mistake in these figures was hidden by Gods own hand
and it was not seen until His hand was removed. What were the prophetic periods affected by the
mistake? Since the 70 weeks was not on the 1843 chart and did not terminate in 1844, it could not be
one of the prophetic periods. The 1335 days, which was understood by the Millerites to end in 1843,
was not affected by the mistake and did, indeed, end then. The only periods affected by the mistake
were the 2300 days and the 2520 years.

4. SINCE THE 1843 CHART WAS ALTERED AND CORRECTED BY INSPIRATION, WE CAN DO SO AT ANY TIME WE
FIND BIBLICAL SUPPORT TO DO SO. THIS WAS DONE BY JAMES WHITE IN 1863, WHEN HE REJECTED THE
2520 ON THE BASIS OF SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS. ELLEN WHITES SILENCE IS A TACIT ENDORSEMENT OF
THIS CORRECTION.

After the chart was altered the first time, the chart was once more altered by inspiration when James
White examined the inspired evidence from Scripture for the 2520 and found it wanting. Ellen White could
have rebuked her husbands repudiation of the 2520 and yet she did not. Thus the Spirit of Prophecy thus
indirectly reaffirmed what James White had discovered from his study of inspiration. By not repudiating
her husbands clear article on the 2520 and by stating that the prophecy of the 2300 days is the longest in
the Bible Ellen White tacitly agreed with her husband. After all, if the 2300 day prophecy was the longest,
then the 2520 which is clearly longer was no prophecy at all!11

In addressing the correction of the mistake on the 1843 chart, we agree with most of Bohrs
argument. The Millerites came to understand their mistake and the correction was later seen on the
1850 chart. This was done by an appeal to the Bible. However, we do not agree with his further
application of this logic to accept that James White was then free to further correct the chart. Nor do we
see Ellen White silence as a tacit endorsement of the rejection of the 2520 in 1863. Something cannot
be truth at one time and then error at another.
One of the pins to his argument is an interpretation of Ellen Whites statement in the Great
Controversy to the longest prophetic period brought to view in the Bible.

The experience of the disciples who preached the gospel of the kingdom at the first advent of Christ,
had its counterpart in the experience of those who proclaimed the message of His second advent. 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. The Great Controversy, p. 35112

A casual reader of Bohrs article, with its attendant bolding, would be inclined to agree with his
view that the 2300 days is being endorsed as the longest prophetic period in the Bible. However, a
careful analysis of history and the structure of the statement shows clearly that the period being
endorsed as the last and longest is none other than the 2520. I present again the statement with
brackets indicating which period is being referred to.

11
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 3.
12
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 3-4. (bolding is Bohrs)
5
 The experience of the disciples who preached the gospel of the kingdom at the first
advent of Christ, had its counterpart in the experience of those who proclaimed the
message of His second advent. 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 [the seven times of Leviticus 26]
was about to expire, that the judgment was at hand [the 2300 days], and the everlasting
kingdom was to be ushered in [the 1335 days]. 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 [the Millerites of the 2300 days and
the disciples of the seventy weeks] was based upon the fulfillment of a different portion
of the same great prophetic period [the seven times or 2520 years].13

If the 2300 days is the longest time period in this passage, how can we say that it is a different
portion of the same great prophetic period? Some argue that Sister White is here referring to the final
portion of the 2300 days, i.e. the 1810 years from 34 AD to 1844 as being the portion that is part of the
great prophetic period. However, she clearly tells us that the Millerites proclaimed the termination of
the 2300 days and not the 1810 years.
We believe that Ellen White is a careful writer. We would not attribute this to a slip of the pen, as
some do. Again, let us look at Bohrs interpretation of the passage and add in brackets what periods are
being referred to in his understanding.

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 [the seventy weeks of the disciples and the
2300 days of the Millerites] was based upon the fulfillment of a different portion of the same great
prophetic period [the 2300 days].14

Simply, is the 2300 days a portion of the 2300 days? There is no doubt that the 70 weeks is part of
the 2300 days but can it be said that the 2300 days is a portion of the 2300 days? Sister White is simply
stating that the 2300 days and the 70 weeks are both a different portion of the same great prophetic
period that is mentioned earlier in the passage. That period is the last and longest, proclaimed by Miller
and his associates. She is simply stating something that every Millerite would have understood but that
we who are unfamiliar with our history would simply miss the 2300 days and the 70 weeks are a part
of the longer period of 2520 years.

The first grand period [the seven times], which includes all the rest, and
expresses the whole time of the usurpation and triumph of the different forms of
worldly power, together with the depression of the visible kingdom of God, begins
where every one would suppose it must begin, at the passing away of independence
from the Theocracy-an event predicted centuries before it took place, and deplored as
the opening of the full tide of all their troubles for centuries after. It terminates with the
overthrow of all worldly power, and the restoration of the visible kingdom of God on
earth, with Him upon its throne whose right it is to reign, to order and to establish it
with judgment and with justice henceforth, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts
will perform this.
The second of these periods [the 2300 days] begins at a most important point

13
The Great Controversy, 351.
14
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 4. (bolding is Bohrs)
6
 in the history of the depressed covenant people of God-the issuing of an edict in
their favor, under the provisions of which they experienced a partial, though temporary,
deliverance, from a condition which threatened their political existence long before it
actually took place. But though this period commences some time after the first, they
terminate together.
The third begins [the 1335 years] at that point where the final change in the
visible agents of the long-continued subjection of the people of God took place, so
distinctly pointed at by Daniel, but more clearly brought to view by the revelator, and so
well understood by Paul, though future in his day. These last-named periods, that given
for the desolation of the sanctuary,-the 2300 years,-and the period at the end of which
Daniel shall stand in his lot,-the 1335 years,-terminate together, as is evident both from
the nature of the prophecy in each case, and from the only possible dates for their
commencement. One began B. C 457, and the 70 weeks are at once the seal of its truth
and the pledge of its fulfilment in 1843. The other began, not when the first blow was
struck against the worship of Paganism by the Christian emperors, as they are called, but
when Popery stood in the place and acted the part of Paganism in western Rome. All the
histories of the transition point to about A. D. 508, as the time when it took place. The
1290 days, or years, which terminated in 1798, by taking away the dominion of Popery,
and modifying its character, are the pledge of its termination and fulfilment in 1843.15

We can now more fully understand the reference to the three periods being mentioned, in GC 351,
proclaimed by Miller and his associates. They proclaimed that the longest and last prophetic period
brought to view in the Bible [the seven times of Leviticus 26] was about to expire, that the judgment
was at hand [the 2300 days], and the everlasting kingdom was to be ushered in [the 1335 days]. We
can now see that Ellen White is making an indirect reference to the 2520 that can only be understood
once Millerite history is understood. Again, we will address this point in more detail later.

5. THE 1850 CHART SHOWS THAT THE 2300 DAYS WAS BECOMING MORE PROMINENT AND THAT THE 2520
WAS SLOWLY BEING GIVEN A BACKSEAT ROLE.

The 1850 chart was in some ways similar to the 1843 chart but there were also differences. First and
most important, the 1843 date for the conclusion of the 2300 day prophecy was correctly altered (by
inspiration, that is, by a study of the Bible) to 1844. Significantly, the 2520 non-prophecy was moved from
the top right hand corner on the 1843 chart to a very small square in the lower right hand corner with
very small letters and numbers. On the other hand, in the very center of the chart the year 457 BC is
highlighted as well as the year 1844 AD. This clearly proves that the 2300 day prophecy was prominent
and the 2520 prophecy was slowly fading away from the chart.16

Though we agree with his conclusion that the 2520 was slowly fading away, we do not see this on
the chart. First, the 1843 and 1850 charts both begin with 677 BC and are rightly to be seen as 2520
charts, in that this is the period of time that both charts are meant to span. To say that the 2520 was
moved from the top right hand corner on the 1843 chart to a very small square in the lower right hand
corner with very small letters and numbers without stating that this also occurred for the 2300 days
as well, is misleading. Also, they are not really very small letters and numbers, when you consider the
size of the chart. The time calculations for all of the prophecies were made smaller to accommodate the
new truths added to the 1850 chart. To ascribe this to the notion that this indicates a lessening of the
significance of these prophecies in the eyes of the pioneers is simply wrong. We do agree that a new

15
Apollos Hale, The Second Advent Manual, 93-94.
16
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 5.
7
 significance was seen after 1844 for the 2300 days, in that the Adventists who made the 1850 chart had
accepted that the sanctuary was now being cleansed in heaven. The main thrust of their message
(rightly so) was on the cleansing of the sanctuary in connexion with the 2300 days (which are the
central pillar and foundation of Seventh-day Adventism, respectively). However, this does not mean we
can simply dispense with all of the other prophetic periods that led to this understanding.
We also believe that there are other reasons as to why the 2520 days was to eventually be
neglected and finally rejected.

6. THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1863, WHERE WE FIRST OFFICIALLY ORGANIZED THERE WAS VOTE
REJECTING THE 2520.

A little history will help us understand the rationale and the contents of the 1863 chart. On January
26, 1864 James White published a groundbreaking article (published in The Adventist Review and Sabbath
Herald) where he soundly rejected the 2520 prophecy. About eight months before this, the General
Conference delegates had voted on May 21, 1863 (at the same meeting where the SDA church was officially
organized into a denomination), to have a new prophetic chart prepared. The chart was prepared and
published in 1863 and the 2520 prophecy was eliminated.17

This paragraph is a gloss. It leaves out important details that help us understand the context of the
January 26, 1864 article. There was nothing groundbreaking about this article. It went almost totally
unnoticed.
First, there is no proof that the article was from the pen of James White. [This is being researched,
at this time.] The language and style appear to be those of the acting editor, Uriah Smith. All indications
are that James White was on leave after the death of his eldest son Henry in December of 1863. His
death is directly related to the publication of the 1863 chart.

During the absence of their parents, Henry and Edson, under the supervision of
Brother Howland, were busily engaged in mounting the [1863] charts on cloth, ready for
sale. They worked in a rented store building about a block from the Howland home. At
length they had a respite for a few days while they were waiting for charts to be sent
from Boston. . . . Returning from a long tramp by the river, he [Henry] thoughtlessly lay
down and slept on a few damp cloths used in backing the paper charts. A chilly wind was
blowing in from an open window. This indiscretion resulted in a severe cold.18

Second, there is no indication from any historical documents that the 2520 was ever a topic of
discussion or that its removal from the new proposed chart was in anyway connected to its rejection.
Since the 1260, 1290 and 1335 are also missing from the 1863 chart, do we also assume that they were
rejected? Of course, we are not saying that we do not believe that the 2520 was rejected. We do so
believe it. However, it is how and why it was rejected that matters.

Bohr further speculates as to why Ellen White is silent about the rejection of the 2520.

Some who teach that the 2520 prophecy is a testing truth have affirmed that James White did not
have the right to alter the chart; that only inspiration could do so, meaning Ellen G. White. And because
Ellen White never overtly approved of the removal of the 2520 from the chart, James White was wrong in
altering it. But this is a fallacious argument. We have already conclusively proved that the original mistake
on the chart was altered by inspiration, that is, by a renewed study of Scripture, not by Ellen White. This

17
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 6.
18
W. C. White, Sketches and Memories of James and Ellen White, Review and Herald, Dec. 10, 1936.
8
 being the case, why couldnt James White alter the chart once again if, by the study of inspiration, (the
Bible) he proved that the 2520 was not a prophecy at all?
It is more than likely that some questioned why the 2520 had been removed from the new
chart and this made it necessary for James White to write his article on January 26, 1864
explaining the reasons from inspiration (the Bible) for the omission.19

If this is true, that the article was written to respond to questions regarding the removal of the
2520 from the chart, why is there no record of any objections or questions? As far as we know, there is
not a single documented instance where the removal of the 2520 and its neglect and rejection are
addressed. We will make our case later as to why we believe that this is so and why Ellen White never
responded to the rejection of the 2520.

7. NOT ONLY DOES ELLEN WHITE NEVER ENDORSE THE 2520 SHE NEVER EVEN ALLUDES TO IT.

It is argued that Ellen White endorsed Millers view of the 2520 non-prophecy because she endorsed
the 1843 chart. Nevertheless she never, not once, mentioned the 2520 non-prophecy in her writings or in
her sermons. Further, she never even indirectly alluded to it. She endorsed to the time periods of the 1843
and 1850 charts that could be corroborated with a sound study of Scripture and history such as 457 BC,
538 AD, 1798 AD, the 1260 days, the 42 months and the kingdoms represented by the beasts of Daniel 7
with their respective dates20.

We have shown earlier that this statement cannot be true, in that she does refer indirectly to the
2520 on the 1843 chart in Early Writings 74 and 236, which shows that the periods that were affected
by the mistake include the 2520. We have also looked at the GC 351 reference. We present another
exhibit. This is in Great Controversy 323 and is Ellen Whites quotation of Miller and her paraphrase of
some of what he says in his memoirs. We first give you Millers statement.

Another kind of evidence that vitally affected my mind was the chronology of the
Scriptures. I found, on pursuing the study of the Bible, various chronological periods
extending, according to my understanding of them, to the coming of the Saviour. I found
that predicted events, which had been fulfilled in the past, often occurred within a given
time. The one hundred and twenty years to the flood, Gen.6:3; the seven days that were
to precede it, with forty days of predicted rain, Gen.7:4; the four hundred years of the
sojourn of Abraham's seed, Gen.15:13; the three days of the butler's and baker's dreams,
Gen.40:12-20; the seven years of Pharaoh's, Gen.41:28-54; the forty years in the
wilderness, Num.14:34; the three and a half years of famine, 1Kings 17:1; the sixty-five
years to the breaking of Ephraim, Isa.7:8; the seventy years' captivity, Jer.25:11;
Nebuchadnezzar's seven times, Dan.4:13-16; and the seven weeks, threescore and two
weeks, and the one week, making seventy weeks, determined upon the Jews, Dan.9:24-
27; the events limited by these times were all once only a matter of prophecy, and were
fulfilled in accordance with the predictions.
When, therefore, I found the 2300 prophetic days, which were to mark the
length of the vision from the Persian to the end of the fourth kingdom, the seven
times' continuance of the dispersion of God's people, and the 1335 prophetic days
to the standing of Daniel in his lot, all evidently extending to the advent, with other
prophetical periods, I could but regard them as 'the times before appointed,' which
God had revealed 'unto his servants the prophets.' As I was fully convinced that 'all

19
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 6.
20
Ibid, 6.
9
 Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable,' - that it came not at any time by the
will of man, but was written as holy men were moved by the Holy Ghost, and was written
for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have
hope, - I could but regard the chronological portions of the Bible as being as much a
portion of the word of God, and as much entitled to our serious consideration, as any
other portion of the Scriptures.21

Let us now compare this with Ellen Whites statement.

"Another kind of evidence that vitally affected my mind," he says, "was the
chronology of the Scriptures. . . . I found that predicted events, which had been fulfilled in
the past, often occurred within a given time. The one hundred and twenty years to the
flood (Genesis 6:3); the seven days that were to precede it, with forty days of predicted
rain (Genesis 7:4); the four hundred years of the sojourn of Abraham's seed (Genesis
15:13); the three days of the butler's and baker's dreams (Genesis 40:12-20); the seven
years of Pharaoh's (Genesis 41:28-54); the forty years in the wilderness (Numbers
14:34); the three and a half years of famine (1 Kings 17:1) [see Luke 4:25;] . . . [note
that here she leaves out the sixty-five years to the breaking of Ephraim, Isa.7:8]
the seventy years' captivity (Jeremiah 25:11); Nebuchadnezzar's seven times (Daniel
4:13-16); and the seven weeks, threescore and two weeks, and the one week, making
seventy weeks, determined upon the Jews (Daniel 9:24-27),--the events limited by these
times were all once only a matter of prophecy, and were fulfilled in accordance with the
predictions."--Bliss, pages 74, 75.
When, therefore, he 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 secret things," says Moses, "belong
unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our
children forever;" and the Lord declares by the prophet Amos, that He "will do nothing,
but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets." Deuteronomy 29:29; Amos
3:7. The students of God's word may, then, confidently expect to find the most
stupendous event to take place in human history clearly pointed out in the Scriptures of
truth. {GC 324.1}
"As I was fully convinced," says Miller, "that all Scripture given by inspiration of
God is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16); that it came not at any time by the will of man, but
was written as holy men were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21), and was written
'for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have
hope' (Romans 15:4), I could but regard the chronological portions of the Bible as being
as much a portion of the word of God, and as much entitled to our serious consideration,
as any other portion of the Scriptures. I therefore felt that in endeavoring to comprehend
what God had in His mercy seen fit to reveal to us, I had no right to pass over the
prophetic periods."-- Bliss, page 75. {GC 324.2}

What are the various chronological periods that, according to his understanding of them,
extended to the second coming of Christ that she is referring to here. Miller plainly tells us that they
are three periods, the 2300 days, the seven times (2520) and the 1335 prophetic days. Whether or not
one takes this as an endorsement, we cannot say that she never even indirectly alluded to it [the
2520]. However, this is a solid endorsement, especially when we see how carefully she writes. Why

21
1853, Silvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller, 74-75.
10
 does she omit the reference to the 65 years to the breaking of Ephraim in Isaiah 7:8? The Millerites
interpreted this verse incorrectly. They saw Isaiah 7:8 as referring to Ephraim, or northern Israel, but
failed to see that its primary reference was to Judah, southern Israel. That is, the 65 years is fulfilled by
the kingdom of Judah and not by northern Israel. Ellen White either knew this or was directed by God
to expunge this reference when quoting Miller, not knowing why.
We also must note that when Bohr references other prophetic periods endorsed by Ellen White, he
neglects to mention that she did not directly endorse either the 1290 or the 1335 of Daniel 12. Are
these also not to be believed, since we do not have a clear endorsement?

8. THERE IS NO HISTORICAL BASIS FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE 2520 IN 677 BC.

According to the Millerites, 677 B.C. was the year in which King Manasseh (696-642 B.C.) was taken
as a prisoner to Babylon (2 Chron. 33:11) and the 2520 years of punishment of Gods people began. There
is no historical evidence, however, that Manasseh was taken to Babylon in 677 B.C. This year goes
back to the chronology of James Ussher in the 17th century.22

To support this assertion, Bohr attempts to quote Norman McNulty a medical doctor who has no
specific knowledge of the case. However, he is really quoting Gerhard Pfandl.23

Manasseh was coregent with his father Hezekiah for the first 10 years of his reign. His sole reign of 42
years began in 686 B.C. If his imprisonment and subsequent conversion occurred in 677 B.C., nine years
after the beginning of his sole reign, he still reigned for more than 30 years after his conversion and return
to Judah, but this is not the picture the Bible presents of Manassehs reign. The Bible gives the impression
that most of his life was spent in apostasy and that only toward the end of his life did he turn to the Lord.
Speaking about Manassehs conversion, Ellen White wrote that his repentance, remarkable though it was,
came too late to save the kingdom from the corrupting influence of years of idolatrous practices. Many had
stumbled and fallen, never again to rise.
Many Bible scholars believe that his imprisonment took place in connection with the rebellion of
Assurbanipals brother Samassumukin during the years 652648 B.C. Yet, even if the date 677 B.C. were
correct, it would not indicate the beginning of the punishment of Gods people, because only the king was
taken to Babylon, and only for a short time. He returned to Jerusalem, destroyed all the idols he had
erected, and restored the worship of God (2 Chron. 33:15, 16). The kingdom of Judah continued another 80
years, until in 586 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the temple of God. These 80 years
included the reign of good King Josiah (640609) whose reign can in no way be classified as a punishment
on Judah. In other words, the year 677 B.C. does not fit historically or chronologically.24

Let us take a careful look at this assertion. First, the chronology given, though it is a widely
accepted chronology does not agree with that that is given in Ellen Whites writings and has many
scriptural conflicts.

1. Manasseh was coregent with his father Hezekiah for the first 10 years of his reign.

This is nowhere recorded in the Bible. This is based upon a theory of Edwin Thiele that rejects
many biblical statements as erroneous. Thiele places the beginning of Hezekiahs reign after the fall of
Samaria in 721 BC. Notice that Pfandl has Manasseh beginning his reign in 686 BC. This is according to
Thieles chronology. Thiele has Hezekiah's reign between 715 and 686 BC. Almost every Bible scholar

22
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 5.
23
http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/94/archives/18-1/is-2520-a-prophetic-number
24
Ibid.
11
 places the fall of Samaria in either 722 or 721 BC. Thiele places it in 723. This means that Hezekiah
began to reign eight years after Samarias fall. According to the Bible, Samaria fell in the sixth year of
Hezekiahs reign which was also the ninth year of Hoshea, the final king of Israel.25

2. Many Bible scholars believe that his imprisonment took place in connection with the rebellion of
Assurbanipals brother Samassumukin during the years 652648 B.C.

What should be noted is that most Bible scholars consider Manassehs captivity pure fiction, if one
cares about their opinions. What is pure fiction is the placing of Manassehs captivity during the reign of
the Babylonian Samassumikin. Ellen White places the captivity of Manasseh during the time when
Babylon is the temporary capital of Assyria.26 The only time this occurs is under the reign of
Esarhaddon. Babylon is the temporary capital from the years 678 to 669 BC. Esarhaddon took the reign
of Assyria after the death of his Father in 681 BC. He then began rebuilding Babylon, while continuing
to reign in Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. After completing Babylon in 678 BC, He mustered 22
Palestinian kings and forced them to haul timber for him. This is recorded in an inscription made by
Esarhaddon himself called Prism B.

I [Esarhaddon]compelled (adkema) the kings of the country Hatti [Palestine]and

(of the region) on the other side of the river (Euphrates) (to wit): Ba'lu. king of Tyre,
Manasseh (Me-na-si-i), king of Judah (Ia-u-di) Qaushgabri, king of Edom, Musuri, king of
Moab, Sil-Bel, king of Gaza, Metinti, king of Ashekelon, Ikausu, king of Ekron,
Milkiashapa, king of Byblos. Matanba'al, king of Arvad. Abiba'al, king of Samsimuruna,
Puduil, king of Beth-Ammon, Ahimilki, king of Ashdod - 12 kings from the seacoast...10
kings from Cyprus (Iadnana) amidst the sea. together 22 kings of Hatti, the seashore and
the islands; all these I sent out [from Babylon?] and made them transport under terrible
difficulties, to Nineveh. the town (where I exercise) my rulership, as building material for
my palace: big logs, long beams (and) thin boards from cedar and pine trees, products of
the Sirara and Lebanon (Lab-na-na) mountains, which had grown for a long time into tall
and strong timber, (also) from their quarries (lit.: place of creation) in the mountains,
statues of protective deities (lit.: of Lamassu and Shedu)... 27

The most troubling aspect of this entire discussion of the date of Manassehs captivity is that those
opposed to the 2520 do not take the time to consider the implications of their objections. They will use
whatever source and reject whatever inspired statement that does not fit with their objections, simply
to place doubt upon the 2520. They then claim that it doesnt matter. Even if Manasseh was taken
captive in 677 BC, it would not fulfill the conditions of the commencement of the 2520. Why not just
start there?
Of course, the problem is that they do not really understand Leviticus 26 or how it was fulfilled. It
is the breaking of the pride of power for both Israel and Judah that marks the commencement of each of
their respective 2520 year periods. That is, it is the captivities of their kings and not the nations that
mark the beginning. For Israel, this was in the spring of 723, when Hoshea was taken captive in his
seventh year. For Judah, it was in 677 BC, when Manasseh was taken captive by Esarhaddon.

3. There is no historical evidence, however, that Manasseh was taken to Babylon in 677 B.C.
This year goes back to the chronology of James Ussher in the 17th century.28
25
And at the end of three years they took it [Samaria]: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea king of
Israel, Samaria was taken. 2 Kings 18:10
26
As an earnest of what would befall the people should they continue impenitent, the Lord permitted their king to be captured by a
band of Assyrian soldiers, who "bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon," their temporary capital PK 383
27
Prism B v (ANET 291) [Square brackets are mine]
28
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 5.
12
 Ussher placed the captivity of Manasseh in his twenty second year. Contrary to what opponents of
the 2520 claim, Ussher did not base his chronology for Manassehs captivity on the Seder Olam. He
simply marked 65 years from 742 BC, when the prophecy of Isaiah 7:8 begins. The Seder Olam placed
the captivity of Manasseh in his twenty second year, just as Ussher did; however, this is not the basis for
giving the year 677.

4. Yet, even if the date 677 B.C. were correct, it would not indicate the beginning of the punishment
of Gods people, because only the king was taken to Babylon, and only for a short time. He returned to
Jerusalem, destroyed all the idols he had erected, and restored the worship of God (2 Chron. 33:15, 16). The
kingdom of Judah continued another 80 years, until in 586 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and
the temple of God. These 80 years included the reign of good King Josiah (640609) whose reign can in no
way be classified as a punishment on Judah. In other words, the year 677 B.C. does not fit historically
or chronologically.29

Pfandl tries to make the case that Manassehs captivity could not have happened early in his reign
but must have occurred late in his reign, if the negative effects were to be felt. Of course, he places the
beginning of Manassehs reign ten years too late, making 677 BC Manassehs tenth year rather than his
twentieth. The real problem is that he fails to see that the first seven times of Leviticus 26:18-21 is a
period of 70 years probation that ends in 607 BC. Again, we will explain more about this later.

9. THE EXPRESSION IN LEVITICUS 26 IS A MISTRANSLATION OF THE HEBREW WORD SHEBA AND SIMPLY
REFERS TO INCREASED INTENSITY AND NOT A DURATION.

The expression seven times in Leviticus 26 is a mistranslation. The number seven in Scripture clearly
represents completeness, totality or fullness (Naaman was totally cured when he dipped in the Jordan
seven times, creation was completed in seven days, seven drops of blood were sprinkled on mercy seat for
total cleansing, Israel marched around Jericho seven times and it was totally destroyed, Nebuchadnezzar
heated the furnace seven times to its maximum heat). God warned Israel that if they did not repent, Gods
wrath in its fullness would fall upon them. In other words the word seven in Leviticus 26 does not denote
a time period but rather the emphasis falls on the intensity of the punishment. James White brings out
many important points from inspiration in his article which I will now share.30

Of course, we agree that sheba (the number seven) has all of these qualities (completeness,
totality, fullness) but this in no way contradicts or excludes the application of duration to the seven
times in Leviticus 26. We could enter into a tit for tat battle over the significance of sheba showing
that it is a duration; however, there is a simpler way to prove this. We need to simply answer the
question, Why was the seventy year Babylonian captivity seventy years? The answer can be found in 2
Chronicles 36:20-21.

And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they
were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia: To fulfil the
word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths:
for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.

That is, the Babylonian captivity was 70 years due to the fact that there were 490 years under
which the Jews failed to observe the Sabbath rest of the land. The basis for this is Leviticus 26 from
which 2 Chronicles is quoting.

29
Ibid.
30
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 9. quoting Gerhard Pfandl
13
 Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your
enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. As long as it
lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt
upon it. (Leviticus 26:34-35)

If seventy years is a duration and is based upon Leviticus 26, how can we say that Leviticus 26
does not deal with a duration? It is quite clear that the four seven times are periods under which
Gods people are given an opportunity to be reformed. It is here that a short exposition of Leviticus 26
must be given, if we are to understand the issues around the 2520.

A SHORT EXPOSTION OF LEVITICUS 26

There are four events that are marked in Leviticus 26. These were fulfilled by literal Judah and
have dates attached to them. They are the captivity of Manasseh in 677 BC (breaking of the pride of
power), the captivity of Daniel in 607 BC (the wild beasts robbing them of their children), the captivity
of Jehoiachin in 597 BC (the siege, famine and delivering of bread by weight) and the captivity of
Zedekiah in 586 BC (a repeat of the three previous chastisements, along with the destruction of the
sanctuary). Each of these chastisements follows a conditional if/then structure. If they are not reformed
by the chastisement, then they next chastisement will be worse. No one doubts the progressive nature
and the increase of intensity that follows with each successive chastisement. We just do not see how
this is inconsistent with these periods being marked as durations of seven times.

We can clearly see that between the first and second seven times there are seventy years. That is
the first seven times is seventy years. As Leviticus 26:18 says, 'And if unto these ye hearken not to
Me; then I have added to chastise you seven times for your sins; (YLT Leviticus 26:18). An even simpler
translation is 'And if unto these ye hearken not to Me; then I will prolong to correct you seven for your
sins.31
We also know that from the time that Daniel was taken captive to the accession of Cyrus was also
seventy years.32 This is the period of time mentioned earlier in 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 and is commonly

31
This is my translation from the Hebrew.
32
Cyrus succeeded to the throne, and the beginning of his reign marked the completion of the seventy years. Prophets and Kings,
558.
14
 known as the Babylonian captivity. The two periods of 70 years make a period of 140 years. These
paired sevens occur also in the story of the Noahs flood, Jacob and his two wives and the story of
Joseph. We also can see that the first period of 490 years is divided into a week of seventy year days.
If Judah had reformed during the Sabbath, from 677 to 607, the follow seventy year Sabbath, from
607 to 537, would not have been needed.

The third seven times began in 597, when Jehoiachin was taken captive. This period ends in 457
BC, with the decree of Artaxerxes and is 140 years, rather than 70. There are many reasons why this is
so. One reason is that it mirrors the 140 years created by the first two seven times.
Jehoiachins captivity also begins a period of 666 years. That is, Jehoiachin has a personal captivity
of 36 years, ending in 561 BC. The 666 years ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is
preceded by a 36 year period from the close of Jewish probation in 34 AD. The commandment to
restore and build Jerusalem, which ends the third seven times, is connected to the destruction of
Jerusalem through Jehoiachins captivity.

We can also see that the third seven times refers to the events regarding the siege and
destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (under which Jehoiachin was taken captive), while Deuteronomy
28: addresses the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Rome.

And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto
me; Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your
sins. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant:
and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among
you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. And when I have broken the
staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver
you your bread again by weight33: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. (Leviticus

33
10 to the king of Judah, Yaukin [Jehoiachin]; 2 1/2 sila to the offspring of Judahs king; 4 sila to eight men from Judea. Another
reads, 1 1/2 sila for three carpenters from Arvad, 1/2 apiece; 11 1/2 sila for eight wood workers from Byblos. . .; 3 1/2 sila for seven
Greek craftsman, 1/2 sila apiece; 1/2 sila to the carpenter, Nabuetir; 10 sila to Ia-ku-u-ki-nu, the son of Judahs king; 2 1/2 sila for the
five sons of the Judean king. Babylonian Chronicle (grain ration tablet)
15
 26:23-26)

The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as
swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; A nation of
fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the
young: And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be
destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy
kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee. And he shall besiege thee in all
thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst,
throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land,
which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 28:49-52)

These two nations, the first of the four kingdoms of Bible prophecy and the last, are connected by
the symbol of paganism 666, which is also the inheritance of papal Rome. The number 666 is derived
from the Babylonian magic square that contains the numbers 1 to 36 in six horizontal and vertical rows
where each row adds up to 111. The entire square adds up to 666.

From the destruction of temple in 586 BC (the commencement of the fourth seven times) to its
rebuilding in 516 is also a period of 70 years. This fulfilment of the fourth seven times was
understood to be a period of seventy years, prior to its completion. The rebuilding commenced under
the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah from the second year of the reign of Darius to the completion
of the temple in Darius sixth year. The angel who comes to Zechariah in the second year of Darius
refers to a period of the desolation of the temple as 70 years, even though 70 years had not yet been
completed from the destruction of the temple. Upon the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month,
which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius [February 16, 519 BC], came the word of the
LORD unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying. Then the angel of the
LORD answered and said, O LORD of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the
cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years? (Zechariah
1:7, 12) This statement of the angel was made only 66 years and 7 months after its destruction.
Comparing this with a similar statement in chapter 7:5, is further support that this is a reference to the
period of the desolation of the sanctuary. The fasts of the fifth and seventh months are commemorative
of the destruction of the temple and the death of Gedaliah, respectively. And it came to pass in the
fourth year of king Darius, that the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth
month, even in Chisleu [December 7th, 518 BC]. When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh
month, even those [Heb. these] seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?(Zechariah 7:1, 5)
Since the angel made this statement less than 68 years and 5 months after the temples destruction, this
means that it was understood that the period was to be 70 years, even before it ended. What was the
basis for this knowledge? It could have been knowledge given to the angel by God but it is more likely
that this understanding was based upon the prophecy of Leviticus 26, since it was not being revealed as
a prophecy but as an accepted fact that the period was to be 70 years. This period was completed with
16
 the decree of Darius in 516 BC.34

So then, when we apply it to literal Israel, it is clear that Leviticus 26 is fulfilled by Judah in a
period of 220 years from 677 to 457 BC and not by periods of 2520 years. However, the prophecies of
Daniel 8 and 9 extend the consummation of the restoration to the Millerite time period and transfer it
from literal to spiritual Israel. That is the three decrees that end the 220 years of Leviticus 26 are the
same three decrees that begin the 2300 days and the seventy weeks.

In the seventh chapter of Ezra the decree is found. Verses 12-26. In its completest
form it was issued by Artaxerxes, king of Persia, 457 B.C. But in Ezra 6:14 the house of
the Lord at Jerusalem is said to have been built "according to the commandment
["decree," margin] of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." These three
kings, in originating, reaffirming, and completing the decree, brought it to the perfection
required by the prophecy to mark the beginning of the 2300 years. Taking 457 B.C., the
time when the decree was completed, as the date of the commandment, every
specification of the prophecy concerning the seventy weeks was seen to have been
fulfilled.35

We can also see that just as the 2300 days begins with three decrees, it also ends with the three
angels messages. Just as all three decrees are needed to commence the 2300 days, all three messages
are need to end the 2300 days. That is, There cannot be a third without the first and second.36

34
A score or more of years passed by [from Cyruss decree in 536 BC], when a second decree, quite as favorable as the first, was
issued by Darius Hystaspes, the monarch then ruling. Prophets and Kings, 598.
35
The Great Controversy, 236.
36
2 Selected Messages, 105.
17
 THE 2520 PROPHETIC MIRROR

As you can see, Bohr fails to address our real position, in his attack upon the 2520. As he says in his
opening statements, Some 2520 proponents actually believe there are two 2520 periods, one
from 677 BC to 1844 and the other from 723 BC to 1844. We will not deal with this particular
nuance in this presentation because it goes beyond the time and space that we have for this
presentation.37 This is a fatal flaw to his argument. In not addressing this nuance, he fails to address
what is actually being taught. As you can see, he never addresses the fact that Leviticus 26 is seen as
being fulfilled by four events over a 220 year period by literal Israel. More importantly, from the very
beginning of the restudy of the 2520 that began in 2004, the significance of both 2520 year periods, one
for Judah and one for Israel, has been unfolding greater light upon Leviticus 26. If we are to understand
the significance of the 1863 chart, and the rejection of the 2520 in that year, we must understand both
2520 year periods and their connexion to all of the other prophetic periods. This is commonly spoken
of as the 2520 prophetic mirror.
As we have seen, the 2520 years for Judah begins with literal Israel and ends with spiritual Israel.
This transition is provided by the 70 weeks and, more specifically, the covenant week of Christ. For
northern Israel, there is also a period of 2520 years. This period counterfeits the seventieth week of
Daniel 9. The first half of this period (the scattering) is specifically mentioned in Daniel 12:7 (a time,
times, and an half) and refers to the 1260 years from 723 BC to 538 AD38. Literal Israel is scattered
from 723 to 34 AD and spiritual Israel from 34 AD to 538, by the pagan powers Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece and Rome. The second period of 1260 years in specifically mentioned in Daniel 7:25 (a time
and times and the dividing of time) and refers spans from 538 to 1798. This period is reserved from
the treading and trampling down of spiritual Israel under the papal power.

As noted earlier, Isaiah 7 gives the starting point for the 2520 for Judah. That is, from 742
BC to 677 is 65 years. Though we do not have time to give a complete exposition of Isaiah 7-12, we can
note a few points that show the 65 years applies to Judah and not to Ephraim. The prophecy of Isaiah 7
-12 is directed to Judah and it is the king of Judah that is being addressed by the prophet. Everything
that is happening to Ephraim (northern Israel) is going to happen to Judah (southern Israel). This is
echoed in 2 Kings 21:11-13.

Because Manasseh king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done
wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him, and hath made Judah
also to sin with his idols: Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am
bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears
shall tingle. And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of
the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and

37
Stephen Bohr, The 2520 non-Prophecy, 1.
38
See; William Miller, Dissertation of the True Inheritance of the Saints, and the Twelve Hundred and Sixty Days of Daniel and John,
45, 46.
18
 turning it upside down.

The line of Samaria (its 2520) is going be stretched over the line of Judah (its 2520). Notice, also,
that it is because of Manasseh that this occurs. Though Miller recognised the 2520 years for northern
Israel, he did not see its significance. His focus was upon the 2520 for Judah.

Israel began to be carried away in the days of Hoshea, 722 B. C., and from that time
to 1798 after Christ, is exactly 2520 years, or the seven prophetic years. How
remarkable, that when the seven years ended, God began to deliver his church from her
bondage, which for ages had been made subject to the kings of the earth. In 1798 the
church came out of the wilderness, and began to be delivered from her captivity. But the
completion of her slavery to the kingdoms of the earth, is reserved for another period.
Beginning B. C., 677 years, seven prophetic years, or 2520 common years, would end in
A. D. 1843.39

When we take into account both periods of 2520 years a new picture emerges that
sheds light upon more things than we can now enumerate.

Most notably, we are given a picture that helps us understand what occurred in 1863. The events
in the history of literal Israel are tied to events in the history of spiritual Israel. The events that occurred
in the start of the prophetic mirror are mirrored in the events that occur at the end. The prophecy that
was given a commencement in 742 BC, is now hidden 2604 years later. Note that this is not a predictive
time prophecy but an after-the-fact analysis of events. No new dates are being set. We are simply given
a new insight into prophecies that are already established.
We can now address the significance of the 1863 chart. Ellen White clearly sees the 1843 and 1850
charts as fulfillments of Habakkuk 2:1-4.

Among these prophecies was that of Habakkuk 2:1-4: I will stand upon my watch,
and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I
shall answer when I am reproved. And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision,
and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. 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;
39
1842 Willian Miller, A Lecture on the Typical Sabbaths and the Great Jubilee, 17.
19
 because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not
upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith.
As early as 1842, the direction given in this prophecy, to write the vision, and
make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it, had suggested to Charles
Fitch the preparation of a prophetic chart to illustrate the visions of Daniel and the
Revelation. The publication of this chart was regarded as a fulfillment of the command
given by Habakkuk. No one, however, then noticed that an apparent delay in the
accomplishment of the visiona tarrying timeis presented in the same prophecy.
After the disappointment, this scripture appeared very significant: 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. . . . The just shall live by his faith.40

Ellen White makes no such endorsement of the 1863 chart. This does not mean that the 1863
chart is to be considered useless or in error. It simply does not fulfill the conditions of the prophecy. It
does not speak. It contains no tarrying time. However, it does contain the 2520 and the prophetic
mirror, though these are hidden on the chart in the top right corner. Oddly, neither the 1843 or 1850
charts contained the 70 week prophecy. This exists on the 1863 chart, however. The most significant
aspect is that the seventieth week is clearly marked out as being made up of two periods of 3 years,
with the cross in their midst.

We can see that this week consist of 7 years, which is 2520 days. The covenant week clearly reveals
the 2520. Christ confirms the covenant in the midst of 2520 days.

Further, when we take into account the significance of Daniel 9:27, And he shall confirm the
covenant [12] with many for one week [7]: and in the midst of the week [31 AD] he shall cause the
sacrifice and the oblation to cease, considering the numerical symbolism of covenant, week and the
year of Jesus crucifixion, we have a mathematical key that unlocks further what is hidden on the chart.
On the 1843 chart there is a calculation for the 2520 that is written as 7 x 12 = 84 x 30 = 2520. This
calculation can be found nowhere else in Millerite history. It is seen on the chart thus,

40
The Great Controversy, 391-392.
20
 If we look at the key given to us in Daniel 9:27, we can then do this calculation 7 x 12 = 84 x 31
=2604. That is, from the giving of the prophecy in 742 BC to the hiding of the prophecy in 1863, there
are 2604 years. This period of 2604 years is hidden on the 1863 chart. Simply, the 1863 chart is a
fulfilment of Daniel 9:24, to seal up the vision and prophecy. This is done by the Messiah being cut off
in the midst of the seventieth week of 2520 days.

This also helps us understand why Ellen White only refers to the 2520 indirectly. The 2520 was
hidden and its significance is only now being made known. This was done in Gods providence, in that
the 2520 is a bulwark against the attacks on the 2300 days.

FURTHER SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REJECTION OF THE SEVEN TIMES OF LEVITICUS 26 IN 1863

Whether or not James White wrote the January 24, 1864 article attributed to him, or not, the 2520
was hidden in 1863 and it was rejected by Seventh-day Adventists in general. We believe that the
rejection of the seven times has symbolic significance, drawn from the destruction and rebuilding of
Jericho.

Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out,
and none came in. And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand
Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. And ye shall compass the
city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.
And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the
seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the
trumpets. And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the
camp: so they did six days. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose
early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner
seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times. And it came to
pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said
unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city. (Joshua 6:1-4; 14-16)

It is quite clear that the seven times is used in connexion with the taking down of the walls of
21
 Jericho is not a mere accident. More importantly, there is also curse given for the rebuilding of Jericho
and a record of its fulfilment.

And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD,
that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his
firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. (Joshua 6:26)

And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to
anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him. In his days did Hiel the Bethelite
build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates
thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by
Joshua the son of Nun. (1 Kings 16:33-34)

If the destruction of Jericho was done by the means of the seven times, the rebuilding of Jericho is
a symbol of the rejection of the seven times. There are many parallels between the history of Ahab and
the history of Adventisms rejection of Gods guidance. If 1863 was a rejection of the seven times, we
would expect to see a parallel that occurred in the rejection of the seven times in the rebuilding of
Jericho. The implication is that Hiel the Bethelites firstborn son and youngest son died during the
laying of the foundation and setting up of the gates, respectively. Hiel (the living of God) the Bethelite
(dwelling in the house of God) is a symbol of the Church. It is through the first born that the promises of
God are passed. Jesus is also called the firstborn. David was the youngest son of Jesse. Jesus was a son of
David. David represents the heritage. When the 2520 was rejected in 1863, both the heritage (name)
and prophetic foundation were rejected.
In May of 1860, the name Seventh-day Adventist was adopted by the Church. In December of 1860,
seven months later, James and Ellen Whites youngest son died. He dies in the setting up of the gates. In
May of 1863, the Seventh-day Adventist Church officially organised. In December of 1863, again seven
months later, James and Ellen Whites eldest son also passed away. He died in the setting up of the new
foundation.

In 1860 death stepped over our threshold, and broke the youngest branch of our
family tree. Little Herbert, born September 20, 1860, died December 14 of the same year.
When that tender branch was broken, how our hearts did bleed none may know but
those who have followed their little ones of promise to the grave.
But oh, when our noble Henry died, [THE DEATH OF HENRY N. WHITE OCCURRED
AT TOPSHAM, MAINE, DECEMBER 8, 1863.] at the age of sixteen; when our sweet singer
was borne to the grave, and we no more heard his early song, ours was a lonely home.
Both parents and the two remaining sons felt the blow most keenly. But God comforted
us in our bereavements, and with faith and courage we pressed forward in the work He
had given us, in bright hope of meeting our children who had been torn from us by death,
in that world where sickness and death will never come.41

We do not believe that God was punishing the Whites for the rejection of the 2520. However, we
do see the symbolism of the parallel. Also, we believe that the hiding of the understanding of Leviticus
26 was in Gods providence. We simply believe that we can see parallels of the past that help us to
understand the significance of those events. We would not use this parallel to prove the 2520 but we do
believe that it provides a caution to those who casually ignore Gods warnings.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

41
1Testimonies, 102-103.
22
 There is no doubt that we have much to learn. What we see in Stephen Bohrs appraisal of the
2520 is sloppy scholarship and irresponsible pastoring. If the 2520 is error, he has done nothing to
show this. The 2520 was indirectly endorsed by Ellen White, it was hidden for Gods people and it is
bringing an unfolding of established truths that make the old truths shine brighter. We believe that this
counsel of Ellen White needs to be followed.

If a brother differs with you on some points of truth, do not stoop to ridicule, do not
place him in a false light or misconstrue his words, making sport of them; do not
misinterpret his words and wrest them of their true meaning. This is not conscientious
argument. Do not present him before others as a heretic, when you have not with him
investigated his positions, taking the Scriptures text-by-text in the spirit of Christ to
show him what is truth. You do not yourself really know the evidence he has for his faith,
and you cannot clearly define your own position. Take your Bible, and in a kindly spirit
weigh every argument that he presents, and show him by the Scriptures if he is in error.
When you do this without unkind feelings, you will do only that which is your duty and
the duty of every minister of Jesus Christ.42

It is for this reason that it must be followed.

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.43

42
12 Manuscript Releases, 376.
43
Christs Object Lessons, 127.
23