The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

1844 AD prediction of Bible Fulfilled by Bahai Faith

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,207 times Debate No: 59933
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I will let CON begin. My argument has 2 parts: 1. 1844 AD is predicted in Bible. 2. It is fulfilled by the Bahai Faith which began in 1844AD


Thank you, Badi-Nontheist.

I'm glad that Pro has broken his argument into two parts, as both parts must be discussed if the resolution is to truly be proven or disproven. I need only show that one part of the resolution has not been sufficiently upheld in order to negate the entire resolution, while Pro must sufficiently uphold both parts in order to affirm.


1. 1844 A.D. Claim Not Supported

My opponent's claim that 1844 A.D. is significant in Bible prophecy is most likely based on the Baha'i interpretation of Daniel 8:13-14.

Daniel 8:13-14 - 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 transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?” He said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.”

The Baha'i religion teaches that the "2,300 evenings and mornings" are actually years, and that the edict of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C. marked the beginning of those years, thus placing the end of the 2,300 years somewhere in 1844 A.D.

There is not sufficient evidence, Biblical or otherwise, to support such an assertion. First, the belief that the “2,300 evenings and mornings” are years instead of days is not supported by the text. The passage literally reads "evenings (Hebrew EREB) and mornings (Hebrew BOQER)", not "days".[1] Nowhere else in the Bible is "evenings and mornings" said to represent years, and there is no evidence to support the assertion that it is used as such in this passage.

Second, there is no textual evidence to support the belief that the 2,300 days began in 457 B.C. In fact, no indication at all is given of when the time period begins. In order to believe in any certain start date, assumptions must be made.

2. Baha'i Fulfillment Claim Not Supported

The Bible passage I quote above says that at the end of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, the "holy place will be properly restored". Other translations read, "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed". Baha'i religion teaches that this restoration or cleansing is referring to the second coming of Jesus Christ, and that this prophecy was fulfilled on May 23, 1844 when Siyyid 'Ali-Muhhamad (the Bab) was "manifested" and became the forerunner of Baha'u'lah, who would claim to be the incarnation of Christ and establish the Baha'i Faith.

First, even if it were accepted that Baha’u’lah was indeed Christ incarnate, he was born in 1817 [2] and did not receive his divine vision and begin establishing the religion of Baha’i until 1852.[3] Neither of these dates is 1844, the year Baha’i claims was prophesied in Daniel.

In Baha’i history, 1844 is important as the year that the Bab, a forerunner of sorts to Baha’u’lah, announced his mission to the world.[4] The Bab was not believed to be, nor claimed to be, the Christ, but was the “John the Baptist” to Baha’i’s “Jesus”. As Baha’u’lah had not yet appeared on the scene as the reincarnated Christ, it can not be said that the “cleansing of the sanctuary” from Daniel took place in 1844.

Second, and more important, is the lack of evidence supporting Baha’u’lah’s claim to be the Christ. Pro must show, among the other things discussed here, that Baha’u’lah was indeed the Christ. If he can not prove that, then he can not prove that Baha’i fulfilled prophecy. Even within the religious history of Baha’i, there is little evidence that Baha’u’lah’s claims should be trusted, considering that he and the Bab did not know each other and never met. The Bab was executed in 1850, two years prior to when Baha’u’lah claimed to receive the revelation that he was the Christ.

Over to you, Pro.

Debate Round No. 1


Part 1:

Con is making it seem that the 1844 interpretation is a Baha'i interpretation, but in fact this was a Christian interpretation that predates the Baha'i Faith. Reverend William Miller was the one who picked these dates and the mathematics involved in calculating 1844 as the time of the Great Return of Christ. See this:

Part 2:

Since the Baha'i Faith started in 1844, out of mere coincidence, the Baha'i Religion fulfills the Christian prophecy of Reverend William Milller (who's movement spawned both the 7th Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses), especially since in the opposite side of the world, out of the culture of Islam, a movement started which believes that Jesus Christ did return in 1844 when the Bab declared himself the Mahdi (of Islam) in 1844. Islamic teaching is that Mahdi's appearance inaugurates the return of Christ.

Over to you.



1. Pro does not contest the fact that the interpretation I described is used by Baha'i. Whether or not it has been used by other religions is irrelevant. Pro still has not provided evidence that the 2,300 evenings and mornings referred to in Daniel are indeed years, nor provided evidence that the 2,300 evenings and mornings began in 457 B.C.

2. First, Pro still has not provided evidence that Baha'u'lah was indeed the returned Christ. This must be proven in order to prove that Baha'i fulfilled a prophecy of Christ's return.

Second, as I pointed out in Round 1, Baha'u'lah was born in 1817 and allegedly received the revelation that he was Christ in 1852. If Baha'u'lah was indeed Christ, either of these dates could be considered his "coming". However, the significance of 1844 is that the Bab declared himself as Christ's forerunner. It's a stretch to say that Christ's forerunner declaring his mission equates to the coming of Christ himself.

Third, Pro states that the Bab's appearance in 1844 was a coincidence, but provides no evidence in support. Is it not possible that the Bab was aware of William Miller's famous prophecy and intentionally timed his actions?

The bulk of my arguments have gone unrebutted thus far. Back to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


Here are my concluding remarks. I will summarize my original position and address the common misconceptions raised by CON.

Firstly, it was a Christian minister named Revered William Miller (b. in Pittsfield, Massachusetts) who advanced the claim that the Time of the End and the Return of Christ will occur in 1844. Miller was originally a Freemason and Deist, and in 1838, advanced his idea about 1843 (later changed to 1844 because he forgot to add one year for "year zero") [1]. After what was dubbed "The Great Disappointment" because no one saw Jesus come down on a cloud in that year, the 7th Day Adventists revised their idea that the 1844 event took place in heaven rather than on earth. To this day the 7th Day Adventists believe that Jesus changed locations in heaven in 1844.

My argument was this: that due to mere coincidence, the Bab actually fulfilled the 1844 prophecy of William Miller and the American Christian movements who were disappointed by the un-eventfulness of 1844. CON suggests that this is a big conspiracy, that somehow an unknown man (aka: the Bab) who was a trader by occupation, in a completely different religious community of Shia Islam (who by the way believe that the Christian Bible is corrupted anyway), would use the logic of a random Christian minister (Miller) in the United States to determine that the year 1844 be the year for announcing his mission. Due to the extremely secluded nature of the society of Iran (look how secluded Iran is today, image what it was like then), how could the Bab possibly have heard of the claims made by Miller in 1838 regarding the year of 1844 in an obscure book? Only in hindsight do we see this as a link. As you have not advanced any evidence that the Bab somehow got a hold of Miller"s book, or came into contact with a Millerite missionary in Iran, it is best to assume that it was merely coincidence.

But the coincidence doesn"t end there! Shaykhi Muslims (a subgroup of Shia Islam) were also advancing prior to the year 1844 that the Promised One of Islam (who is coincidentally directly linked to the promised one of Christianity (i.e. Jesus)) would rise up in 1260 A.H. (of the Islamic calendar). Now you tell me this, how vast of a conspiracy theory are you proposing that both Shia Muslims and Protestant Christians picked the year 1844 A.D. (which is the same year as 1260 A.H.) as the year for the coming of the promised one of each of their religions?! This is a conspiracy of impossible proportions. The only option is that this was mere coincidence that spanned two different societies of Iran (and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia and Iraq) and the United States.

The second criticism of CON is this: how is the declaration of the Bab equivalent to the coming of Christ? Is not Baha"u"lalh believed to be the return of Christ and The Bab is merely Baha"u"llah"s forerunner? Is not the Bab, at best, a John the Baptist to Baha"u"llah? Should not Baha"u"llah have either been born in 1844 or declared in 1844? It was only the Bab who declared in 1844, not Baha"u"llah, so this is a failure of Miller's 1844 AD and Shaykhi's 1260 AH prophecy (which are equivalent dates).

But this criticism misses an important consideration of Babi (the religion of the Bab) and Baha'i (the religion of Baha'u'llah) belief: Although it is true that the Bab is described as being "similar to" John the Baptist in relation to Baha"u"llah BY BAHA'I TEXTS, and that it is Baha"u"llah who claims to be the return of Christ, not the Bab ---- this is only a relativistic or spiritual claim made by Baha"is. The Bab himself does not make such a claim. What am I saying? Please remember that Baha"is do NOT believe Baha"u"llah is Jesus returned physically. Baha"is only say that Baha"u"llah is Jesus spiritually. And of course Baha'is believe that Baha"u"llah is the Bab spiritually. So in fact, by merely claiming that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, the Baha'is are really saying that Baha'u'llah is the return of the Bab, since the Bab is really the Return of Christ. So yes, the Bab definitely fulfills the prophecy of the Return of Christ. But since Baha"u"llah has now appeared after the Bab, the Baha"is use "short-hand notation" to say that Baha"u"llah is the return of Christ when in fact Baha"u"llah is really the return of the Bab. In my other debate on DDO, I have shown that actually Baha'u'llah claims to be the appearance of the Father of Jesus. Please see that other debate to realize that indeed the Bab is the return of Christ.



Thank you, Pro, for an interesting debate.


1. Coincidence and Conspiracy

Although my comment about coincidence in R2 was just an afterthought, I would still like to point out a couple problems with Pro's rebuttal:

1a. Pro calls William Miller a "random Christian minister" and calls his book "obscure". However, in R2, Pro states that William Miller's "movement spawned both the 7th Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses". A minister whose writings inspired two major religions hardly seems random or obscure.

1b. Pro states the the Bab's appearance in 1844 must be "mere coincidence" because of the "impossible proportions" of a possible conspiracy. As we know very little about the Bab before his declaration in 1844, and Pro has provided no sources that shed light on his activities, it is very easy to conceive that there a possible explanations for the 1844 timing that go beyond mere coincidence.

Anyway, I see no reason to go further on this, as my main points concerned the rest of Pro's response.

2. The Bab and Baha'u'lah Were Both Christ

I would like to point out that Pro has provided absolutely no sources supporting his assertion that Baha'i accepts that the Bab was Christ and Baha'u'lah is the Bab incarnate. On the contrary, one of the sources I provided in R1 (a Baha'i source) clearly states that the Bab was the "Forerunner of Baha'u'lah", and goes on to tell that the Bab's message was that the "promised Teacher" was soon to reveal himself.[1] The Bab's entire purpose from 1844 until his death seemed to be paving the way for the "promised Teacher". This is not consistent with Pro's assertion that the Bab was Christ.

Dropped Arguments

The following are arguments I presented previously that have gone unanswered by Pro:

1. There is no proof that the 2300 evenings and mornings of Daniel were years, nor that they began in 457 B.C.

2. There is no proof that Baha'u'lah is indeed Christ. Neither his claim to be so, nor Baha'i's belief that he was, can be accepted as fulfillment of prophecy. Baha'u'lah must be proven to be Christ in order to prove that he fulfilled a prophecy of the return of Christ.


Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. My arguments that went unanswered, as well as the problems I pointed out in Pro's rebuttals, leave far too much doubt in the assertion that Daniel predicted Christ would return in 1844 A.D. and that Baha'i fulfilled that prophecy. The resolution has not been upheld. Thank you, readers and voters, for your time.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by doomswatter 7 years ago
Yes, very. Thank you.
Posted by Badi-Nontheist 7 years ago
Thanks contender, was fun.
Posted by Badi-Nontheist 7 years ago
Sorry my link in round 2 is messed up. Here is the correct link:

The parenthesis messes up the hyperlink
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed 1844 (a) not predicted {2300yr is bad translation} and (b) not fulfilled.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.