Dear Martin and Neville, This quote from Allen Daves pretty much sums up what I was saying about the refusal to see any significance (as opposed to meaning) in the examples I gave regarding Biblical numerology. Quote: As long as men let that kind of "reasoning" persist they will be forever learning and never able to come to knowledge of the truth or even the capacity to understand it. I don't find it easy to say this Neville but that just about sums up your spiritual walk during the time I have known you. You cannot 'reason' meaning out of the Bible other than to use your reasoning to realise it! It takes something quite different. If the only people who claim to understand the meaning of the Bible are the eloquent, intellectual, logical and analytical thinkers, then what hope is there for the rest of us understanding the Bible? Martin Selbrede dismissed the phenomena with: Quote: While Neville and I have had sharp disagreements (although we weren't disagreeable in how we expressed them), I must say that I am in total, complete agreement with what he has written here. Numerology (unless explicitly referred to in the text) merely indulges man's penchant for esotericism, and justifies dabbling in Jewish Gematria and other Kabbalistic games. However the fact remains that the phenomena exists and no amount of 'arm waving' can change that. Therefore it is worthy of some comment as to why this appears to be the case. I know that the scriptural text is the most important aspect but one cannot overlook the amazing mutiples of 7 that just happens to exist by virtue of the Hebrew and Greek alpha-numeric values. My comparison with the epicyclical 'flower' patterns in Neville's cosmos model is exactly the same as is the coded structure of DNA or the unique position that the World is in relative to the sun and moon. They all exist and they cannot be the result of a non-intelligent source. How much importance one attaches to these phenomena is up to the individual. If they wish, they, the dabblers in 'Gematria' and other 'Kasbalistic' games etc. can extrapolate whatever they like out of them, that is their prerogative but the fact remains that this phenomena does exist. Could it be that somehow Satan managed to infiltrate God's Word with this novelty in an attempt to mislead us into more Satanic numerical gymnastics? I don't think so. I personally am content to acknowledge that they are not of Satan or a coincidence or an amazing result from pure chance but as an integral part of the Divine inspiration of scripture - God didn't just supply the words of the 'cake' but He also put some 'icing' on it. It is interesting that this phenomena does not appear in the non-canonical books of the Apocrypha or any other book in Hebrew, Greek or any other language. As I see it Neville's problem is likely to be that the phenomena appears in those scriptures that he has rejected. If this phenomena had been noted only in those scriptures accepted by Neville I would venture to suggest that he would view it with much interest but perhaps nothing more than that just as the 'flower' patterns. However because his rejected scriptures also contain this same phenomena then the phenomena must, by default, be suspect. This sounds like shades of 'Airey's Failure' along with Michaelson and Morley's. All that is needed to put an end to this is explain why or how it happens - surely it is that simple. However it can only be that simple if it is acknowledged to exist in the first place and if it is not acknowledged, then it has to be a case of wanton denial. These may be strong words but I see no other way of expressing the problem. I would like to finish by saying that I am open to persuasion that this phenomena can be explained in a way that I have not yet considered. Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Daves To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:30 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 666 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 This is the real point with all error....... Now you say it starts with Nehemiahs prayer to God but Scripture specifically states from the Going fourth of the command to rebuild and restore Jerusalem Daniel Ch 9:25 until mesial the prince You v Scripture .......You said something about being mastered by the scripture? Ch 5 identifies the completion of the wall which is part of restoration, now both the prayer and the completion took place in the 20th year therefore even if one were to buy into your description instead of scriptures description ow the when it was to be counted both events took place in the 20th year and still add up to 36 years total. Your point is completely moot even if it were true. The exact number of months is not given so to attempt to extrapolate some other time outline external of what scripture states as somehow voiding the one I have outlined for you based solely on what scripture does actually state only further demonstrates egregious error in both reasoning as well as conclusions. As long as men let that kind of "reasoning" persist they will be forever learning and never able to come to knowledge of the truth or even the capacity to understand it. The rest of the 70 weeks vision analysis you briefly put forward is just as erroneous.....hint the 70 weeks benchmarks 1 his birth (70 & 7) 2. His death (62) and 3. The middle of the week (1/2of one week or 3.5 years) destruction of Jerusalem. Time=70 weeks Times= 62 & 7 weeks and Half a time= middle of one week or 7 years /2= 3.5 years... If you bothered to sit down as you suggest that I do and look at what you are saying you would see the error in math is not mine here nor is the fast, loose and I would add twisting play with scripture. Allen Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 - Special message from TalkTalk - Please help in the search for Madeleine McCann Madeleine's aunt, Philomena McCann, has devised an email poster as she fears that Madeleine may have been taken to Spain where the girl's disappearance has generated less attention. You can download the poster from here http://news.aol.co.uk/web-appeal-over-missing-madeleine/article/20070510063809990001. Anyone with information should contact the Portuguese police direct on 00 351 282 405 400 (international call rates apply) or contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.