# [geocentrism] Re: 666

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 08:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
```Again 596 BC is 596 years before Christ not 595 years no zero year. If there
were a zero year counted then 596 years before christ would be in actuality 597
years before Christ and or  70 AD would be actualy 71 AD.  Christ was born in
December of 1BC which was at the very most 30 days from January 1 AD that can
be proven as well.. I cant help it if people can??t count. But at the end of
the day 596 years before Christ which is what BC stands for by definition is
not 595 years. That would be a contradiction but 596 years before Christ plus
70 years begging in that same 1 January AD I mentioned earlier is 666 years +
11 months. I know very well the error you are attempting to point out. The
problem is you don?t seem to understand your own error you are not counting.  I
don?t say that to be curt but if you will draw out 12 months of 596 years on
one side of a time line and 70 year of months on another side of the time line
you will see that Christ was born on December of BC
just days before 1 AD and when you count up 596 years to September AD 70 years
you will always have 666 years 596 is not 595. I did not say 595 years before
Christ I said 596 years before Christ. If there were a zero year that would be
596 + 70 + 1(0 year)= 667...simple arithmetic 596 +70 = 666  on any number line
there is measurment of zero only a line of separation that separates -1 and +1
it is called zero but zero only separates the + and - it is not a actual
measurment of zero inches. 31 December is the dividing line between one BC year
and the next Year AD......I am afraid the "joke" is on you guys....:)

Allen

Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Allen Daves wrote:

Me in blue

You astound me on the one hand with your eloquence and on the other you
"gift" for your lack of understanding and missing any and all verbatim
correlation(s) "Trample via gentiles" "the city"within the relevant text as
well as the context as a whole itself....you seem to piecemeal Revelation
Daniel and Jesus as all separate not related topics and text in sipte of their
specific referenced staments ...see previous?

The mistake is straightforward. Your count is wrong (for several reasons),
because the span of time from 596 BC to 70 AD is not 666 years, but 665 years.
You're doing the count on the assumption there is a Year Zero.  I made this
clear, transparent, and gave TWO examples of how this is to be correctly
counted, and even SAID that the 666 year count is wrong, and you still missed
it.  I can't help you if you don't pay attention to what I'm communicating.

The other reason the count is wrong is because you have the wrong start point
for the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy. It begins with Nehemiah's prayer to
God, offered in the month of Kislev, the third month of the civil year, in the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes (455 BC).  The references to the rebuilding
occurring in Ezra are baseless (as if the decree emanated from the 7th year of
Artaxerxes, or from Cyrus, which hypotheses fall apart under scrutiny). The
483rd year of the 490 in the set begins at the outset of Christ's public
ministry, the middle of the 70th week occurs when Christ is crucified and cut
off, the remainder of the 70th week terminates at the stoning of Stephen. In
other words, the 490 years overlaps the 70 years, and this circumstance is
fatal to the consecutive treatment they receive in the Powerpoint slides.

Briefly, your 596+70=666 count is wrong because you need to subtract one year
for crossing the BC-AD divide because there's no discretization at that
threshold, and even if you hadn't made that mistake, you're off by more than
three decades by failing to pinpoint the correct terminus a quo for the
beginning of Daniel's prophecy concerning the rebuilding of the wall. Ezra was
only allowed to work on the temple -- he had religious freedom there to
rebuild, but no civil authority to raise up the defenses of Jerusalem, for
which reason the city remained a reproach. I won't go into detail here with the
scriptural proofs for this position, and the refutation of alleged
counter-passages in Ezra, Haggai, and Isaiah, but I'm ready to bring them into
the open if your response indicates this is needful. But I'm very, very
well-armed on this, scripturally.

So, when you write that "Year zero has nothing to do with those
calculations...."  you're mistaken. You should have verified this first before
reaffirming the same mistake a second time. Had you sat down with paper and
pencil and just looked at what you were doing, you'd have seen the problem
right away.  You merely assumed you were right, and I was wrong. Such
assumptions can come back to bite one, especially after you charge me thus:
"you did not read very carefully."  It takes more than a blunderbuss approach
to be a workman approved, not ashamed.

Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, is a master of Scripture unless they've first
been mastered BY the Scripture. You play so fast and loose with verses, it
truly shocks me to see so much boundless zeal put behind such feebly-supported
speculations, at the expense of the straightforward expositions and exegeses of
the passages. You downplay the "jots and tittles" in order to impose
preconceived ideas about context. You merely assume that (1) your take on the
context is correct and that (2) its bearing on Rev. 13:18 is determinative.
Assertion is not proof.  What's particularly annoying is that I, too, have made
an appeal to context within Revelation, and you've dismissed it without a
second thought. But you charge ME thus: "you don't even grasp the context of
what is going on and you want to understand it how?"  Having taught
verse-by-verse through Revelation as early as 1981 at the seminary level, I
know something about the context of what is going on. For that reason, I have
very little sympathy for the vast majority of popular "thinking" on the topic.
Too many of these folks need to go back and do a little homework before going
to press prematurely.

On the positive side, if (as I think you're saying) you're teaching that God
set up His kingdom prior to 70 AD, I would be in hearty agreement with this
view. That would be the correct take on the final parts of Daniel 2, that
during the ancient Roman Empire God would set up His kingdom, one that would
never be shaken. If this is your view (and it seems to be the case, based on
your slide presentation), you'd be in sharp disagreement with much of
evangelical Christendom, but you'd nonetheless be correct. The setting up of
that kingdom doesn't await some future event: it occurred twenty centuries ago,
and the demolition of the Roman Empire is proof of it (the stone cut without
hands strikes the statue, and it becomes like the chaff of the summer threshing
floors and was driven away by the wind).  If I've misunderstood you, and you
don't think God set up a kingdom of any kind at that point, we'd again be on
opposite ends of an issue.  Which tends to be a prevailing
situation. As Neville says, there's surely plenty of diversity on this forum.

Martin

```