X. Year-Day Principle Stands Unimpeached

Then they reason: It devolves upon you, our opponents, to disprove our year-day position, as we are only upholders and defenders of the old established belief of the church. If they are not years, then the Christian world all along has been astray, and the church is thus cut adrift from every chronological mooring, beacon, lighthouse, or star by which to determine her bearings or distances from the millennial haven toward which she is tending—to employ the thought of Bush.PFF4 871.5

They insist that events announced in simple historical terms are related to literal time periods, but symbolical predictions would require symbolic time. Thus they conclude:PFF4 872.1

“Therefore, yourselves being judges, these periods have not yet been disproved to be years; and until you bring some new and more conclusive arguments, you cannot ask us to relinquish this position.” ^{40Ibid., p. 25.}PFF4 872.2

And those who admit them to be years, and only dispute the dates of beginning, have failed to show more authentic and harmonious dates from which to reckon. Bowling simply says, “I do not feel myself bound to furnish any.” But neither Jarvis, Weeks, nor Pond would venture to hazard an opinion on the time placement of the 2300 years.PFF4 872.3