It's easy really, for something to become a "principle" which is a fundamental truth or law then every single time the word day is used in a prophecy it would have to mean a 1000 yrs. If there is one time when the word "day" does NOT mean a thousand years, then it can NOT be considered a principle, thus each prophecy should be judged on its own merits individually and not collectively. For example, every time the phrase, "that day", "the day of the Lord" is used, it would have to be the last 1000 yrs. but we know that is not the case. Jesus was in the grave for 3 literal days, NOT 3000 yrs.! Just because a belief has been in error for 500 yrs. doesn't make it true. There are a lot of long time false beliefs out there. The SDA's have made insignificant events and have had to lean on questionable symbolism to force them into being fulfillments of prophecies when they are not.
The logic you are using is based on the English translations which are all fallible. If however you consider the original Hebrew texts that the English texts were translated from, then there are a number of different words from the same Hebrew root, which have been translated into English as day but which have very different timespans associated with the different words.
The Peter statement that
a day, within God's timeframe of reference,
is as a thousand years within man's timeframe of reference is true, if the timeframe reference of 1,000 years represents the same relative time span as a day does within God's time frame.
Sadly the scribes where not consistent in their choice of the Hebrew words that they used and because we are attempting to understand the mind set of around 3,5000 years ago, and the language constructs in use at that time, we are forced to interpret the meanings of the various timeframes in use within the scriptures. The argument, often used, is that the context of the text provides the meaning. My experience is that the assumed timeframe applicable to a particular prophecy drives our understanding of what is meant within that prophecy. An example of that can be found in Genesis 12:1: -
Genesis 12:1: -
12:1 Now the Lord had said to Abram:
"Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father's house,
To a land that I will show you.
Now the Hebrew word in this verse translated as "land" in this verse is the same Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 that is translated as "earth". For consistency, the same English word should be used in both cases.
The argument used in 12:1 is that the context within the passage dictates that the timeframe reference for the fulfilment of this promise has a short time frame in that within a few weeks Abraham had arrived down in the Land of Canaan that the Lord wanted Abraham to go to.
If however, the context of the time frame was over a very long duration, i.e. around 5,000 years to fulfilment, then the Hebrew word should be understood to have the English meaning of the whole earth, which is consistent with the Genesis 1:1 translations. Was God wanting Abraham and his descendants to journey towards a land next to the Mediterranean Sea, or was God requiring Abraham and his descendants to travel towards a righteous earth that they could inherit at the end of the age of the ages after the GWTRJ.
The Biblical story indicates that we are all on a journey towards inheriting the whole earth, that will be made righteous, that is under the heavens if we become the Saints of God after the beasts and Satan will be judged and punished.
Now if we can have contextually screw up God's promise to Abraham because of our contextual constructs, the same is also true for the contextual constructs surrounding the Hebrew word "yō·wm".
I hope you do not mind if I disregard you illogical post in your attempt to justify your opinion with a false argument.
Shalom