>There’s only one flaw in that interpretation...they start
>with the answer and work backwards to find the appropriate
>question to ask. They’ve defined the math to fit the idea
>that they were trying to describe much like the global
>warming alarmists do (ref: hockey stick). You can make the
>data fit the observations if you try hard enough and
>manipulate enough. You can’t conclude anything like this
>from a book as vague as the bible. Sorry but it just doesn’t
>work that way.
The math for all three prophecies works without violence being done to the language of the Bible.
Please support your assertion by naming exactly where the writer of the article, “defined the math to fit the idea that they were trying to describe”.
The accuracy of the calculations is complete conjecture as evidenced by the following:
The prophet Jeremiah around 600 BC predicted that because the Jews were turning away from God to idol worship and other Gods he would punish them for 70 years under Babylonian captivity
Around is the historians term for within a few hundred years. The source he cites for the 360 day year is himself. But it could have just as easily been the aforementioned 354 day year.
So basically it starts with a false premise and works from there. I still contend that the bible is so vague that I could come to another date with another set of equally valid assumptions. I don't have time right now to go into this any further. Maybe later.