[geocentrism] Re: 666 middle ground....?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Might we all be engaging in an unnecessary splitting of the proverbial hair
.........if just on this point of years?
I am not claiming that 665 years and two months is 666 years although it
would be the 666th year ..... same net effect since 666 is "the number "...and
numbers and years are listed in the OT in both ordinal and cardinal forms (eg.
6 years v 6th year)..... However, in any case, I am stating that since
scripture does not outline the months exactly it only does so in years. I can
only tell you 666 years in round numbers. I don't know if it was 666 years and
two months or three months or if it were 7989 months which divided by 12 is
665.75 years which if you asked most people would say if you asked them how
long has it been?.......well lets see.... I reckon its been about 666years now.
But that whole issue is moot since we don????t know all the intermediate
months. I would venture to guess that it was probably 666 years and some months
but since I do not know that for sure and since you can't prove it one way or
the other it is a moot issue. If theoretically Neb could have
come to throne on 1 January of 596 or perhaps 90 days earlier, therefore to
Sept 23 AD 70 is only days from an exact 666, or a whole year, or 2/3 into the
70th year rounding to the year is not only appropriate it is the only honest
thing anyone can claim. Since you can??t know exactly to argue it is somewhat
moot. The only thing that can be demonstrated is 596 BC to sept of AD 70 th
year =666 years or 666th year take your pick. The claim stands 596 BC Neb of
Babylon to AD 70 = 666 years to the year not the month. I have already
demonstrated that this is what is to be counted therefore to argue that my
point is somehow erroneous is to argue about what you do not have while
ignoring the only textually given outline for the only demonstrated and
directly related number to the only man reckoned as a Beast found anywhere in
scripture. That man and beast are doing the same things that are referred to in
the text of 666 the number of the man/best .......Believe me I have
understood your point even before this debate but it is realy moot and
requires a far more difficult explanations for something that can?t even be
shown exactly, rather then just rounding to years since that is as close as the
outline gives and or you can get anyway because the text oulines years not
months ..........
However if you and Neville want to say September 23 of 597BC go ahead, and I
will understand what you are attempting to reconcile (although 666th year has
the same net effect) but I doubt anyone else would without a lot of
complicated and I would argue unnecessary argumentation since you would have to
explain in effect how one year is reckoned as only ~90 days rather then just
rounding to the nearest year with a + margin of error as I did ....?
Allen
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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:
