[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:31:33 -0500
On May 22, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Allen Daves wrote:
I did not say 596 years before Christ as Martian or anyone else
"counts" I said a real actual 596 years before Christ BC by
definition of the term
Honestly now, if you label your chart with "596 BC" and "70 AD," do
you think people should know you don't mean the actual years as they
appear on a Gregorian or Julian calendar? That you have your own
unique measurement system, based on a proposed actual birth of Jesus,
but didn't disclose it in advance to avoid confusion when you put
your labels on the chart? You don't use long-established labels and
expect people to read your mind that they don't mean what they say.
"Definition of the term" -- okay, you have the right to create your
own definition, but since the rest of the world knows AD and BC
according to calendars in use for centuries, you need to
disambiguate. Further, I fail to see how you avoid the problems
regarding the chronology in Luke with your model. The birth of Christ
is usually pushed farther back in time because of the political scene
Luke described as extant during the period of the Nativity. You
assert, but don't address the problem with the model. Unless, of
course, you're willing to throw Luke out of the canon. Is that a
tenable option for someone who is obviously as concerned with
Scripture as you are? Clearly not. But ignoring a problem doesn't
make it go away -- it merely makes it loom more prominently in the
minds of observers watching how you handle the problem. "Pay no
attention to the man behind the curtain" doesn't always work as a
strategy.
Martin
Other related posts:
