Lysimachus Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Gibs, please listen to me. My only point is that you are incorrect. If by 458 BC you mean 458/457 BC Tishri to Tishri, then you would be correct. But I think are saying 459/458? Or are you saying 458/457 Nisan to Nisan? You are not being clear enough. On page one of this thread, you say, "AD 34 of course then is a Jubilee yr." 33/34 Tishri to Tishri was a sabbatical year. Roughly nine months of that Jewish year fell in 34 AD. 34/35 AD would be the first year of a sabbatical cycle, but if this is what you are trying to say, it sure is a strange way of doing it. You said, "AD 34," which implies that you are referring to a Jewish year that mostly falls in 34 AD, and if that is what you are doing, then you are incorrect in your identification of 34 AD as being the first year of a sabbatical cycle. Note: Thanks to Mr. Pickle for helping me to understand this. ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
ClubV12 Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 The math just doesn't line up with what Sister White had to say on it. The only way out of that is to say she was wrong, a fatal spiritual error, fatal in the strongest terms Brother Gibs. Understand the principle you are applying when you determine that "she got it wrong", the brethren got it wrong, the church got it wrong, and now you stand alone. This is not how the Holy Spirit works in revealing scriptural truths. We are to build on the foundation layed down before us, we learn from others and move forward. When we become determined to move out alone,,, that is exactly what the Lord will allow you to do, alone.
Lysimachus Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Our only point is to help Mr. Gibs see that, while Ellen White was not a mathematician, the Holy Spirit impressed her to endorse these dates. God would not have been so careless as to allow her to forcefully stress these dates in her epic Great Controversy work, and yet be wrong in the end. History and math will only continue to show that the little old lady was right after all--even though she herself may not have understood why she was right in what she said. It's kind of like the prophet Daniel. He was right in everything he foretold, but truth be told, he himself did not ascertain or grasp the vast import of the prophecies he was guided to write. ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Gibs Posted November 25, 2011 Author Posted November 25, 2011 Sorry you all, the math don't lie and mistakes were made in their figures before, EGW said so, many are no good at math. 1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. A Freeman In Jesus Christ
ClubV12 Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 EGW said God held His hand over the figures of William Miller so his math mistake could not be seen. This was to promote the message and lead to the great disappointment, and early shaking of the people. A closed door to many, an open door to others. No mistakes were made outside of His direct intervention. The figures were as HE wanted them to be, not man.
Gibs Posted November 25, 2011 Author Posted November 25, 2011 Still the math does not lie, deal with it not with me, do the math argue with it, not with me, the math is absolute, do it. 1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. A Freeman In Jesus Christ
Lysimachus Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 But Gibs, I have shown you where you have erred in your math. You are right that the math does not lie. But, as I have shown, you have been incorrect with a small portion of your interpretation of it. Scholars and experts have hashed over these numbers now for the last 500 years. I guarantee you that the so called "error" in our calculations (positing the end of the 70th week in AD 34) would have easily been caught a long time ago. Thus far, the original postulated date of AD 34 stands vindicated. AD 33 does not stand the test of investigation for the terminus of the prophetic 70 weeks of Daniel 9. ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
ClubV12 Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Math does not lie. Neither does the prophect. Looks like you gotta make a choice, the questionable math of man or the sure word of prophecy. I don't see any other way out.
Recommended Posts