[geocentrism] Re: 666

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 10:46:32 -0700 (PDT)

The Gregorian calendar is correcting is meant! You who keep getting so wound up 
around 666 years apparently to the very month, day and hour I never stated or 
implied that I keep bring out the fact it outlines a number of years not months 
since it does not I can only give you round years and sept AD 70 is still 
considered the 70th year. 596 + a month or can still considered 596 years..at 
the end of the day only a total for years is given so I can only be as accurate 
as the outline I gave you 596 BC before Christ and AD 70 is 666 years I don?t 
know nor did i claim the exact number of months I even gave + 11 months so I 
have covered every bit part of the outline to as much detail as possible but I 
will say it again 666 years + 11 months just as i stated at the beginning so 
you objection here is misguided. 


"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
    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: