It's About Time

Below are my answers to questions regarding issues surrounding creation, which are all related to the question "Is the world really about 6000 years old?"

QUESTION: You claimed that the world is probably only around 6,000 years old. Where did the dinosaurs 'fit in' with this timetable and what 'did them in'?

ANSWER: You are asking about dinosaurs. In Scripture they are called "Dragons" and they are mentioned at least 16 times by that name (Examples: Psalm 91:13, Isaiah 27:1, Isaiah 51:9, Jeremiah 51:34, Ezekiel 29:3). There may be other names for them, such as Leviathan. In Glen Rose, Texas (not too far from where I live) they found large human footprints superimposed over the footprints of dinosaurs. Yet Scientists believe dinosaurs became extinct long before the arrival of man!! To answer your question about the origin of the dinosaurs, they were created by Yahweh and WERE ON THE BOAT WITH NOAH (either as eggs or very small creatures) and after they were released they eventually either became extinct (the climate after the flood was not suited to them, and men hunted them for the glory of the chase!) or else they became reclusive (as, for example, the modern sightings of a loch ness monster suggests). That is why we have so many legends of ancients killing "dragons!!" See http://www.creationism.org/topbar/dinosaurs.htm for more information about the dinosaurs.

If you will go to my website, before introducing the subject of Bible Chronology I briefly touch on the controversy between those who believe in Evolution verses those who believe in Creation. See www.halos.com/ And if you want to earn a fast $250,000 all you have to do is present just 1 valid SCIENTIFIC piece of evidence proving evolution, and Kent Hovind's ministry will give it to you. Check out their website at www.drdino.com/

Whether you agree with my timeline or not, the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is clear--this world is certainly LESS THAN 10,000 years old.

QUESTION: You say that the Bible is full of codes. Isn't the Bible really just an encoded formula, not to be taken literally? I believe the Bible is only literal in the conceptual, metaphorical, figurative and mystical dimensional levels. The great Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai once said that anyone who takes the Bible literally is a fool. In other words he was letting on to the simple fact that the Bible is a mystery filled with all of the universe's secrets, and it's words are strategically placed in order to conceal such matters. What do you think about that?

ANSWER: The Bible is indeed full of "encoded formulas," as you can see from my teachings that I have found yet another in the book of Genesis. And yes, Yahweh intended to conceal many things from those who would not profit from the great mystical teachings that can be found there (for those willing to search it out). However, to say that the Bible cannot also be taken "literally," and that those who do so are "fools," is really a foolish statement in itself.

For example, many believe that the Genesis account of creation does not cover literally 7 days (which, I suppose is the point you are trying to make). If we really believe that the Bible account of creation cannot be taken literally, then what do we do with the order of days in Creation? Plants and trees are created on the third day, and the sun, moon, and stars are created on the fourth day. How can plants and trees be living on the earth for over two billion years without the benefit of sunlight? And how can those plants process the necessary carbon dioxide to produce oxygen if there are not men and animals around to provide the carbon dioxide? But the day age creationists say that each day represents millions or billions of years. If this is so, and each day represents millions, possibly even billions, of years--then what of the symbiotic nature of all living things? Is it not true that without a flower a bee cannot process the necessary ingredients to produce honey (for the service of man and the continuation of the hive)? And what of a flower? Can a flower be pollinated to produce seed without the help of the bee?

QUESTION: When you teach that the earth is young, that it was destroyed by a worldwide flood, and that man walked with dinosaurs, you only destroy your own credibility. The easiest of these to debunk is the flood. You only need to look at the biblical timeline. There are many websites where you can find when the flood happened. Then look at a world history timeline. Notice that in China there was a great civilization, also in Egypt, as well as other places. Now tell me why these civilizations didn't disappear at the time of the flood?

ANSWER: My credibility is firmly "intact" in regards to all of the above mentioned issues. Dr. Robert Gentry has given abundant evidence (and I mean documented "scientific" evidence) that proves that granites were created instantly less than 10,000 years ago. Dr. Robert Gentry, on his website at (www.halos.com/), clearly proves that granites (what scientists believe are the foundational rocks that existed long before man) were created instantly, since polonium-218 can only exist for about 3 minutes before it decays and soon fades away (as they say, without a trace). This is "rock" solid evidence of a young earth, despite what many so-called scientists wish to believe.

Regarding man walking with dinosaurs, may I suggest a Google search of "dinosaurs, human, footprints, Paluxy, Glen Rose." Here is one link to check out:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm And here is another, showing a human footprint on top of a dinosaur footprint: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-java.htm. Here is the actual photo: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b.jpg. This is just one of many examples, and contrary to claims by others they DO INDEED reveal human footprints either superimposed over or in the same layer as dinosaur footprints.

To answer the question regarding the "universal flood" I wish to point out that Scripture ITSELF says that the flood was "universal":

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. (Genesis 6:17

Now I wish to shoot straight, because my "credibility" as a student of Yahweh's Word is indeed on the line. So don't be offended when I ask--What part of "every thing" did you not understand? This text, (for those who believe in Scripture), plainly says that "everything" with the breath of life (mostly land creatures) died in the flood of Noah. [Noah did not need to bring fish or insects on the ark, because they do not possess the breath of life.] Scripture CLEARLY teaches a WORLDWIDE UNIVERSAL flood.

Now, if you don't believe Scripture, that is up to you. However, neither Science nor Archeology can disprove a universal flood about 4500 years ago. A "world history timeline" (as you make reference to) proves nothing whatsoever, since this is simply the best ESTIMATES from historians. It is well known, for example, that the Egyptian chronology (which introduces a chronology over 10,000 years old) is seriously inflated--especially prior to about 3500 years ago. Even tree rings can no longer be relied upon that far back because various changes in the weather can affect the number of tree rings produced in any given year. The reason that the civilizations of China and Egypt did not "disappear" is because they did not have to disappear: The flood came BEFORE these civilizations emerged. However, we do not dismiss the possibility that some "remnants" of a pre-flood civilization did remain (such as the pyramid of Giza).

We must remember that science is only good, valid, and true, when "scientists" continue to use valid proofs as their model. Once they venture onto the realm of "speculation" and "theories" they are no longer acting as true "scientists." The big bang remains a theory, just like the "big burp!" So, how do we explain that in our own solar system some planets are spinning in one direction, and others are spinning the opposite direction? Shouldn't they all be spinning in the same direction? I believe Yahweh put these anomalies out there to show us that it was by Creation, not Evolution, that everything came into existence.

Peter did not believe in the scientific model which says it takes millions of years for a species to develop and millions more for it to change into another lifeform. True science is based primarily upon observation: where is the "observation" of evolution in action? Where is the "missing link?" Now maybe you don't believe in "hardcore" evolution (where Yahweh has no part in the process), but it doesn't matter--the questions are the same for theistic evolutionists as well:

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Peter 3:4)

Peter is telling us to beware of those who believe in "uniformitarianism"--a term used by evolutionists to explain the origin of the species and the great 5-15 billion year old age of the earth. Yet, the true "scientific" evidence supports a young earth, a grand canyon carved out within a few weeks by the overflowing of a huge lake, a great "universal" flood which created the "uniform" appearance of the rock layers, and many other things which we cannot go into at this time. Obviously, Peter did not believe in evolution, nor the compromise teaching postulated by many Christians that Yahweh supposedly used "Evolution" to create the earth over billions of years. The Almighty that I serve is not so slow as to need billions of years to create something, nor is He so inept as to need to use a process of evolution where He must continually correct His mistakes over millions of years of time. This is simply our faulty attempt to bring Yahweh down to our level.

QUESTION: If we have questions about what we have always thought was sound doctrine, then should we be afraid to ask those questions? If we really want to know the truth, then we only need to look. We should not be afraid to look at science or anywhere else to find the answers. Science can only prove what is true.

ANSWER: I agree with you, "Science can only prove what is true." However, not all that claims to be "science" can also be classified as "true science." I am not afraid to look at science. And I am not afraid to ask questions about my faith. But the problem is that people have always confused true "science" and true "faith" with "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-faith." Much of what people like to call "science" is really "false-science." The sad part is that we have actually "devolved" as a species, and people now have serious problems distinguishing between fact and fiction--whether it is regarding science or religion.

Here is a classic example of pseudo-science producing circular reasoning: A science teacher tells his students that a certain rock is over 100 million years old, and that the fossil found in it is of the same age. Then a student asks "how do you know that the fossil is that old?" The teacher says, "Elementary, my son: we date the fossil by the age of the rock because that rock was found in a certain layer known to be X number of years old." A year later the same student attends another lecture on science, and another teacher holds up the same rock and tells the students that it is over 100 million years old, and that the fossil found in it is of the same age. Once again, the same student asks the teacher a similar question, "how do you know that the rock is really 100 million years old." The teacher smiles and says, "My son, we can know that the rock is about 100 million years old because we date the rock by the age of the fossil, by using our carbon dating methods." Is it any wonder that our children today come out of our educational system with a profound lack of discernment?

Trust me, I am not afraid to question either my own personal religious beliefs, or mainstream religion, or science, or history, or anything else. However, I always come back to the Word of Yahweh (Scripture) to get my bearings straight. Why do I do that, and recommend that for others? I do it because I believe this to be the only reliable form of communication we currently possess which leads us to understand our TRUE Creator, as well as our purpose for living. Everything else, including organized religion, has proven to me to be a dismal failure.

Below are my answers to questions regarding the issue of "Date Setting--Truth Verses Myths?"

QUESTION: Isn't the timeline you are introducing nothing more than date setting, and hasn't this approach always been proven to be false?

ANSWER: First of all, what I am proposing is the establishment of a Creation Calendar which I believe is very accurate in determining the year of Creation. I have already explained how the four keys can be used to accurately determine the year of Creation. Having determined that date, it is then projected into our own day (through historical alignments of the Jubilee cycles) to determine when the year 6000 would most likely be. Since it is commonly believed that 6000 years will transpire between creation and the establishment of a 1000 year Messianic kingdom, then we could use this information to determine the approximate date of certain end-time events to occur.

So, I am not really setting dates--only Yahweh our Creator can set dates. I am merely doing calendar research and comparing the results to certain heavenly signs. Amazingly, these signs appear to line up with the Jubilee Calendar. I honestly do not know when the Messiah will come, nor exactly how much time we have to prepare for the day of judgment. Please note the emphasis on the word "exactly," because what I am saying is we can know "about" how much time we have. And so I do know that we are nearing the end of this age, for the time is at hand!

QUESTION: Didn't William Miller of the 1800's use the prophecy of Daniel 9 to also determine when the end of the world would be, and wasn't he wrong about that also? If he was wrong about that prophecy, maybe you are also?

ANSWER: Well, I agree with you that I am certainly not immune to error. And yes, you are absolutely correct, William Miller used the prophecy of Daniel 9 to determine certain end time events, including the first and second coming of Messiah. But his basic understanding of that prophecy was not just his own. Many fine scholars of the time understood the prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 to be a time prophecy leading up to the first coming of the Messiah--and he used the same methods they did to determine the timing of that event (although there is some disagreement even today as to how exactly to calculate this prophecy). While he did not get his interpretation of Daniel 9 from his own understanding, William Miller made his crucial error by attempting to connect the prophecy of Daniel 9 with the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 (the 2300 "evenings and mornings"), to somehow project 2300 years from the same starting point as the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9. In attempting to link these two prophecies he came up with the date of 1843/1844. That is where he made his crucial error, for the prophecy of Daniel 8 is in regard to the desolations of the temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanies--an event which was fulfilled over 2000 years ago. For more information on this, please go to my study Seventh-day Adventists and the 1844 Dilemma.

QUESTION: Doesn't the Bible say that we cannot know the exact day or hour of the Messiah's return?

Yes it does, and here is the text in question:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Mathew 24:36)

Well, I do not claim to know the exact day or the hour of the Messiah's return. Therefore, it is not the same as knowing when the Messiah will come, or even when the world (or our current age) will end--for it is more likely that our day of mercy from Yahweh will end BEFORE that 6000th year, so that the time to prepare for it would be NOW!

I can understand the concerns of others regarding "date setting," as I myself was once a part of a church that was originally based upon "date setting"--the SDA church. The biggest problem is the fact that there have been so many examples of date setting which have proven to be dismal failures. However, this is not always the case. In regard to the fundamental principle of date setting in general, in both Daniel and Revelation there are numerous time prophecies which, if the correct starting dates were known, it is possible that someone could correctly determine the approximate ending dates--at least, theoretically. For instance, in Daniel 9:24 a prediction is given of when the Messiah would come (the seventy weeks prophecy), and that prophecy was fulfilled exactly as given--such that it is possible someone could have figured it all out and would have been ready for the Messiah's first coming. So, while I also urge caution regarding anyone who sets dates for certain Biblical events to occur--we have to at least leave some latitude since it is entirely possible that they could be correct.

The Messianic Writings (i.e., New Testament) seem to reveal that the righteous will not be in ignorance in the day of Messiah's coming, but instead they will know--it is the wicked that will be in darkness. Please notice how this text, commonly used to condemn date setting, actually leaves the door wide open for that very thing:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matthew 24:36)

Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. (Matthew 24:42)

Please notice that in verse 36 we are told that man (in general) cannot know the day and hour of the Messiah's coming. However, when he speaks more directly to his disciples he tells them to watch, because they do not know the hour of his coming. Why did he leave out the word "day" in this last text? Is he suggesting that the righteous might be able to know more concerning the timing of his return than the wicked? Well, in the next verse he plainly says that very thing:

Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. (Matthew 24:42-44)

These texts very plainly suggest that the righteous can know the general timeframe of his coming. It starts by saying that men in general cannot know the day or the hour, but then reveals that it is the wicked that really did not know (in contrast to the righteous--for example, Noah and his family). Look at it more closely:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:36-39)

Please notice that it is the "goodman of the house" that knows the approximate time in which the thief would come, just as Noah and his family knew at what time to enter the ark of safety. I submit to you that it is the wicked that do not know the times and the seasons, not the righteous. So, just because we cannot know the exact day or hour of the Messiah's return, it does not mean Yahweh wants us to be ignorant of the "season" in which that event (and others) will take place. Please take note of what it says of the "times and the seasons" in 1 Thessalonians:

But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-7)

Yes, the Messiah will come "as a thief in the night"--but only for the wicked! It is the wicked that will be surprised by the events taking place, not the righteous. Since the righteous are "not in darkness," does that mean we are to remain in ignorance regarding the "times and the seasons?" No, the righteous will not be ignorant of the times and the seasons--for unlike the wicked, we are not living in darkness. The righteous, therefore, can be expected to know the season in which these events will take place.

QUESTION: Are there examples of prophecies in Scripture that involve date-setting, and that people were expected to know the time of its fulfillment?

ANSWER: Yes, and here are some of those:

Noah was told that in 120 years the world would be destroyed by a flood.

"And Yahweh said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. . . . And it repented Yahweh that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Yahweh said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh. . . . And Elohim said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:3, 6-8, 13)

Some believe that this is in reference to the reduction of the lifespan of man. However, after the flood the lifespan of man was still very high, from 900 to 300 years in length on average. By the time of Abraham the average lifespan was already below 100, and it was only the exceptional ones who reached a lifespan of 120 years or more. Therefore, it is most likely this is a specific prophecy made 120 years prior to the flood. Since we know that Shem was 100 years old at the conclusion of the flood, such a view makes perfect sense, as it fits chronologically in the narrative sequence. Please note how the New English Translation supports this idea both in its translation and the footnote connected with it:

So the Lord said, "My spirit will not remain in⁵ mankind indefinitely,⁶ since⁷ they⁸ are mortal.⁹ They¹⁰ will remain for one hundred and twenty more years."¹¹ (Genesis 6:3)

_________________
¹¹tn Heb "his days will be one hundred and twenty years." Some interpret this to mean that the age expectancy of people from this point on would be one hundred twenty, but neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this. It is more likely that this refers to the time remaining between this announcement of judgment and the coming of the flood.

Both Noah and his family knew of the coming flood, and we can be sure that they warned others of what was to come. Noah surely had others assisting in the building of the ark, so we can also be certain that these knew of the prediction. Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that many people at least had a general idea (if not a more specific one) of when this prediction was to come to pass. And if it is true that Yahweh gave the people prior to the flood 120 years "fair warning," is it so difficult to see that He would do something similar in these last days (such as a 21 year warning through the sign of comet Shoemaker Levy)?

Jeremiah predicted 70 years of captivity for the Jewish people. Since the whole Jewish nation that was taken captive knew of the time the captivity began, they would have had no problem knowing when the 70 years were expected to end.

Daniel made many predictions involving time prophecies, some of them being fulfilled in his own day. Daniel also spoke of the prediction of Jeremiah regarding the 70 years, and was concerned about it because that time was soon to come when the 70 years would be fulfilled.

In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. (Daniel 9:2)

Daniel was a prophet, and while we are not prophets he, nevertheless, understood the timing of these events "by books," which means that whoever had access to those "books" would also be able to know when the 70 years would end. Surely, Daniel was not the only one who knew this information? The prophecies are written so that all the righteous can have an opportunity to understand them (if they are willing to search it out) including the timing aspects of certain prophecies. I am not claiming it is easy to figure all of this out, only that it is possible--or else Yahweh would not have put it in His Word.

But it is even more interesting that Daniel himself said that he did not understand some of the things the angel was trying to share with him, and then says that in the last days "the wise shall understand."

And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. (Daniel 12:8-10)

This text says that some will be able to understand these prophecies in Daniel, while the wicked will not understand. Many of these prophecies involve time predictions, such as Daniel 7 ("time, times, and half a time"), Daniel 8 ("2300 evenings and mornings"), Daniel 9 ("seventy weeks"), and Daniel 11-12 ("1260 days," "1290 days," and "1335 days"). According to the angel Gabriel, in the last days "the wise shall understand." It does not say only prophets can understand the time prophecies, for it is the prophets that have given us these time prophecies--presumably, so that we could understand them (even the timing aspects of them) and take heed when we see these predictions coming to pass.

QUESTION: If we cannot know the exact day or hour of the Messiah's coming, can we at least know the year?

ANSWER: Just because we can know approximately when the last millennium begins does not mean we can know exactly when the Messiah is coming, unless he should decide to reveal it to us. The Messiah can come at any time prior to that event, and assuming that my calculations are correct then we can be pretty certain he will return in or before the year 2016. We also need to be aware that the day of Judgment is more likely to take place over a period of at least one or more years, so we cannot even be certain of when exactly that will begin. So it is enough that we should prepare for the "season" of Messiah's coming, and of the judgments to come in connection with that event--and that "season" is now here. It is "About Time."

Below are my answers to questions regarding the issue of "Can we really find the year of Creation?"

QUESTION: You have been quoted [by the loyal opposition] as saying that "In all of my studies into Biblical Chronology I have learned that determining the exact years of Biblical events is like putting together a 10000 piece jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing (and you don't even have much of a clue as to what the puzzle is supposed to look like). One of the reasons I have yet to publish my Jubilee Calendar is that I fear someone will accept every single date I give as "gospel" and form some new religion around it!!. . . . as much as I believe in the Jubilee research I have done--I cannot be dogmatic regarding all of my conclusions." You also are quoted as saying: "Using my Jubilee Calendar I went back to the "beginning" (the year which I believe MIGHT be the year of creation, based upon the idea that the Jubilee cycles begin at creation). The year I have chosen is 3985 BCE. I believe it would have begun in the fall at around the time just after the fall solstice, so I plugged in October of that year. And sure enough, it seems that the moon was in it's "dark" phase in the exact middle of the week (October 23rd) of that year--which is the most likely time that the sun, moon, and stars were created (on the 4th day of creation). So, that would mean I could say that creation week was from October 20-26 in the year 3985 BCE!! Isn't that exciting? Well, yes, it would be exciting EXCEPT for the fact that you and I were not there at the creation, we have no SOLID evidence to prove that this is actually the date of creation. And so, for now, it remains a theory. I accept that year date as a POSSIBILITY, and other alignments within the Jubilee Calendar reinforce this POSSIBILITY. However, I would not be one to bet my last dollar on it. Chronology is not an EXACT science." What has changed since then in regard to your views?

ANSWER: First, I doubt that anyone can find fault with these statements of mine--they are useful in helping would-be researchers to get and keep their bearings straight. Yet, it is also important to have some background information regarding both of these particular quotes. These statements from me were quoted out of context. The purpose of these statements was not to illustrate doubts in regard to my research, but instead I was addressing a "lunar sabbatarian" about his own theory that he could prove lunar Sabbaths by knowing which year and day that a certain event took place--such as creation or the year and day the first temple was destroyed. This person I was debating was acting like it was easy to figure it all out, and he was simply assuming that the year the first temple was destroyed was 586 BCE, when in fact it could be either that year or the year 587 BCE. He was making the typical error of accepting at face value a certain date as found in the history books--dates which are often only unconfirmed approximations. We need to recognize that this is not a good way to determine exact historic dates. The truth is, as I have stated, it is actually very difficult to figure it all out with any degree of certainty. However, it is possible--at least it is possible to determine some of these exact years (generally not to the exact day, however, as I clearly indicated). So, having said this, let it be known that I have been looking at chronology in connection with the Jubilee cycles for about 20 years, so this is not some new adventure that I have started.

Second, I still believe that "determining the exact years of Biblical events" is extremely difficult--as any honest chronologist will admit. However, that does not mean it cannot be done, at least in some cases. For example, I believe that I have successfully determined that Ezra came into the land of Israel (with the decree that was recently issued by Artaxerxes) in the summer of 457 BCE. This is just one of several such historical dates which we can "nail down" for a certainty. So, yes, I cannot be dogmatic concerning everything, especially dates over 2000 years old. However, some of those dates we can be fairly certain of (like the first temple destroyed either 586 or 587 BCE), and other dates we can be very certain of (like 457 BCE and the decree of Artaxerxes)--it all depends upon how much and what type of corroborating evidence can be found to support it.

And third, I did avoid publishing the results of my Jubilee Calendar for many years for fear that those who are unstable would take this all in a direction I did not wish nor intend. Of course, it is not my goal to "form some new religion" around the Jubilee research that I have engaged in, nor can I be dogmatic regarding all of my conclusions--none of my concerns in these areas have changed. I do not believe that every single date listed on the Jubilee Calendar can be proven conclusively--but I believe that some of those dates can be proven conclusively, and I have highlighted those dates in red. Please notice also that while I strongly believe that 3985 BCE is the year of Creation, I did not highlight that date in red--because we cannot prove 100% conclusively that this is the year of Creation. After years of research, I strongly believe that it is the year of Creation--but you will have to look at all the evidence I have presented here [evidence which clearly points to that year as the year of Creation], weigh the evidence in your mind, and decide for yourself if this is indeed the best candidate for the year of Creation.

The only major things that have really changed are: my research and documentation of Jubilee evidence reached a point where I was much more comfortable sharing the information with a wider audience. Also, we are fast approaching the key pivotal dates, and all the signs I have mentioned appear to confirm the accuracy of the Jubilee code and its timing sequence. It could be that now is the right time to reveal this information.

QUESTION: Since you have admitted that there is no "direct historical confirmation of the keeping of Jubilee years," how can you be so certain to have found the actual Jubilee years?

ANSWER: There is no direct historical confirmation about a lot of things I stated simply that there is no "direct historical confirmation of the keeping of Jubilee years." I did not say there was no Scriptural confirmation, for there is Scriptural confirmation--i.e., Daniel 9. In regard to the keeping of Jubilee years, it is generally believed by Rabbinic Jews that the Jews did not actually observe Jubilee years in the post-temple era. However, while they did not observe the Jubilee years, it is believed that they did know when they were--prior to the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. More information to show this will be forthcoming both here and in other published excerpts on this website.

QUESTION: Assuming that you are correct, that the Jubilee and Sabbatical years start in the year of Creation, how can you be so certain of determining the exact year of creation since it is so difficult to determine exact historical dates going back over 3000 years?

ANSWER: When examining this issue it is important to consider all of the available evidence before rendering a determination. That is why the four keys (mentioned in this website) are so vitally important. Without those keys you would be absolutely correct, there would be no way to determine the exact year date of Creation. So, briefly, let me summarize and then give a link for the article that will deal with this issue more in-depth:

Key #1: Daniel 9 determines the Messiah's first coming through the 490 year prophecy, starting in 457 BCE (Ezra's entrance into the land because of the decree of Artexerxes). That particular date in history is well established, just as the date of the start of Messiah's 3.5 year ministry is also well established (483 years later, in 27 CE).

Key #2: By connecting Daniel 9 with the Jubilee cycles (as 49 year cycles) we are able to determine that 457 BCE would have been a year of Jubilee. As a second witness, we also have the Bar Kochba revolt starting in the year 132/33 CE (also a year of Jubilee). As a third witness we have the temple of Solomon being dedicated for service 980 years (or exactly 20 Jubilee cycles) prior to the crucifixion of Messiah in 31 CE (both in the midst of the last sabbatical week of the Jubilee cycle).

Key #3: When we examine closely the chronologic record of Genesis, we begin to see that many major Biblical events take place in direct connection with the Jubilee cycles, especially in a year 49 or a year 1 (which is also the 50th or Jubilee year). The Jubilee cycles seem to start at creation, and we can establish a generally stable chronology from the time of creation to at least the Exodus (or even to the year the Temple of Solomon is dedicated).

Having establish everything else, we are still lacking one very vital piece of evidence to give us a connecting link. Prior to the Exodus, we have a stable chronology which seems to follow Jubilee cycles. From the time of Ezra (457 BCE) we have the prophecy of Daniel 9 being fulfilled, as it points to the Messiah--this is also based upon Jubilee cycles, and can accurately determine for us when the Jubilee years are. However, between the Exodus and the time of Ezra it is a futile attempt to reconstruct a reliable chronology. So, how do we connect these dates together? Here is the answer:

Key #4: If we can find the exact year of the Exodus, then we can link the chain together and establish a stable timeline from creation to today. Since we know from our examination of the Jubilee cycles that the year of the Exodus had to have been in a year of Jubilee, and since we know based on Daniel 9 when a Jubilee year is, then it is simply a matter of finding the general timeframe of the Exodus. There is no historical reference or archeological evidence to determine the exact year of the Exodus. However, archaeologists can determine the approximate date of the Exodus based upon the 8 spoke chariot wheels found at the bottom of the Red Sea (by Ron Wyatt). The 8 spoke chariot wheels were only created and used in the brief decades of the 18th Egyptian dynasty. Since the 18th dynasty is well known to be between about 1500 to 1400 BCE, then it is simply a matter of tracing the 49 year Jubilee cycles back from 457 BCE. The closest Jubilee year to that era would then be 1437/36 BCE, making that the year of the Exodus. Now the link in the chain is restored, and we now have a way to determine the most likely year of Creation.

Here is a link to a printable PDF version, Knowing the Seasons.

Here is the actual Jubilee Calendar in ExcelÔ format and a Synopsis of that Jubilee Calendar for those who want the short version.

A 30 minute video has also been created by me from a Powerpoint Presentation, and can be downloaded for viewing on your computer. It is a 280kb Flash Video file (It's About Time), and can be viewed with a flash video player available free from www.download.com . A good one to use is the FLV Player.

There has historically been much confusion regarding the Jubilee Cycles, mainly over the question of whether they are 49 year or 50 year cycles. Many times students of the word read the text regarding Jubilees and (based upon their assumptions) believe that they know for a certainty the true length of a Jubilee cycle. Some make the assumption that it is 49 years in length, but can provide no clear evidence. Others assume it is 50 years, but again can provide no clear evidence. Here we will examine this question in great detail, as we look at both sides of this issue, and the evidence needed to make an informed decision. Is the Jubilee cycle 49 or 50 years in length? That is the question we will attempt to answer as we progress through this study.

In Exodus 20 the Sabbath is commanded in honor of the fact that Yahweh created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day. Leviticus 25 is a direct parallel, as it also indicates that the land is to have a Sabbath rest after six years of work, which also ties it in directly with the first week of creation. Please notice what it says:

And Yahweh spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto Yahweh. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for Yahweh: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land. (Leviticus 25:1-5)

Please take note of how this is clearly a parallel to Creation week, as we are likewise told in Genesis that Yahweh worked 6 days in creating this earth, and rested on the 7th.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Genesis 2:1-3)

Since the weekly cycle is continuous and has remained unchanged from the beginning of creation (please see my online study proving this entitled In Search of the True Sabbath, we can only conclude (based upon these clear facts) that the Sabbatical cycles have also remained unchanged from the time of creation. If this is so, then you cannot have a 50 year Jubilee cycle--for that would interfere with the continuously repeating 7 year cycles.

Another piece of evidence which we feel is very important in showing that the seven year sabbatical cycles should be continued uninterrupted beyond the year of Jubilee is the meaning and usage of such words as "week" and "sabbath" as they are used in the Scriptures. The Hebrew word for "Sabbath" (shab-bawth') appears to be closely related to the Hebrew word for "week", and in the Greek shabbaton is translated as both "week" and "sabbath." The Hebrew word for week is shaw-boo'-ah and it literally means something that is "sevened". The word can mean both "seven" and "week" and can even be used to mean "weeks of years." In the two examples given above, we have a week (shaw-boo'-ah) and the plural form of that word (shaw-boo-oth). So let us consider the fact that a "week" is a period of something (like a day) which has been "sevened" (or multiplied by seven). A week is therefore a period of seven days. The plural form of that word (shaw-boo-oth) means "weeks" and indicates more than one week, or consecutive multiple periods of seven days. Again, the same word is used to represent both a week of days and a week of years, and as we all know a week of days is (and has always been) a continuously repeating cycle which is not interrupted by the division of months or years. Conclusion: The very word itself to describe a Sabbatical year gives evidence that it must be the last day of consecutive multiple periods of seven days and seven years. Such an understanding does not allow for an interruption to this cycle in the 50th year.

But let us not stop there. We have many other indicators that a Jubilee cycle is 49 years with the 50th year being the 1st.

In the book of Daniel, chapter 9, the 70 week prophecy gives solid evidence of being connected with the Jubilees. The reason Daniel is given the prophecy of the 70 weeks is because he was concerned about and praying about the 70 year desolation prophesied by Jeremiah, a prophecy clearly connected with the Jubilees and Sabbaticals. It even mentions a period of "seven weeks" in the prophecy itself, a very clear and direct connection between the 70 week prophecy and the Jubilee commandment of Leviticus 25. Since that prophecy is in harmony with 49 year cycles instead of 50 year cycles (70 X 7 = 490, not 500), it is another strong piece of evidence to support 49 year Jubilee cycles.

Historically, Sabbatical cycles have been tracked by Bible chronologists all the way from 332 BCE to 139 CE. Evidence for this can be found toward the end of my Jubilee Calendar, in the tab called Sabbatical Year Documentation. It is also found in my upcoming book, Discovering the Jewish Messiah. These cycles clearly follow repeating 7 year cycles, which would prove that the Jubilees would also have to follow 49 year cycles as well.

The Book of Jubilees written by a Jew (likely from the priestly class) in the 2nd century BCE, demonstrates that Jubilee cycles were historically understood by normative Judaism to be 49 year, not 50 year, cycles. This book was published 2 centuries before the Messiah, and was very popular among many Jews. Later we will demonstrate how exactly the Book of Jubilees uses 49 year cycles to represent Jubilee cycles.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and several other related documents also shed great light on the significance of a Jubilee cycle and how it was to be counted. For example, The Melchizedek Scroll plainly indicates that the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 9) were to be understood as 10 Jubilee cycles of 49 years each. Again, we will talk about this in more detail later. The important thing to remember here is that all of these ancient documents can be dated to the 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE. (Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Craig Evans and Peter Flint (eds). Eerdmans:1997.) [Collins, p. 83.]

The evidence as presented in my book The Jubilee Code indicates that there are several major historical alignments between the Jubilee cycles and the chronology of Genesis. For instance, Adam is 930 years old when he dies, so he dies in his 931st year. 931 divided by 49 is exactly 19 cycles. Shem is born 100 years before his son Arphaxed, which is two years after the flood ends. 100 minus two equals 98, which is equal to two Jubilee cycles since 98 divided by 49 equals two. That means the birth of Shem is in alignment with the end of the Flood taking place two Jubilee cycles after his birth. Likewise, the calculation of genealogies from the end of the Flood to the birth of Isaac comes to a total of 392 years. Since 392 is divisible by 49 exactly 8 times, that means the birth of Isaac, the end of the Flood, and the birth of Shem are all in perfect alignment with 49 year Jubilee cycles. In fact, the period of time between the birth of Shem and the birth of Isaac is exactly 490 years, what we call a Grand Jubilee Cycle. All of this information is plainly recorded in the record of Genesis 5 and 11, and yet very few (if any) have ever taken note of these amazing alignments. Since these alignments are based upon 49 year cycles, this would clearly rule out cycles of 50 years. It is true, we might assign one or two of these alignments to coincidence, but after finding seven or more alignments (as I have explained in more detail on my website, www.itsaboutthattime.net) it becomes clear that it is not just a coincidence.

The Jubilee cycles of 49 years with a special 50th year added are paralleled by the Pentecost cycle of 49 days with a special added 50th day of Pentecost. Since the Pentecost cycle does not alter the typical weekly cycle on the day of Pentecost, neither does the Jubilee cycle change the timing of the Sabbatical cycles on the year of Jubilee.

Rabbinic opinion is conflicting, sometimes supporting 50 year cycles and sometimes supporting 49 year cycles. However, the Rabbinic practice (over a period of several centuries) has consistently demonstrated their belief in 49 year cycles. When we actually follow one of the main formulas from the Talmud used to determine Sabbatical years (as given near the end of my Jubilee Calendar, in the tab called Talmudic Sabbatical Yr. Formula), we find that it is in complete harmony with the Sabbatical years given in my Jubilee Calendar. Since such evidence upholds repeating cycles of 7 years, it would also uphold repeating cycles of 49 years. We also have evidence of several Sabbatical years which line up with both this Talmudic formula (dating from the start of the Seleucid Era) and the Jubilee Calendar.

Judaism is foundational to an understanding of Torah. As such, the practices of Judaism (at the time of the Messiah) must be considered central to a better understanding of Torah. When the Messiah came about 2000 years ago, he did not introduce sweeping changes in the Jewish faith. Instead, the Messiah only corrected the people and their leaders concerning the finer points of the law. As such, it is only reasonable to conclude that He would have been in agreement with them concerning the timing of the weekly Sabbaths as well as the Sabbatical years, since He never once hinted that a change was needed in those areas. We already spoke of the Talmudic formula and the fact that the Jewish practice of Sabbaticals prior to and including the days of Messiah were continuously repeating seven year cycles. We know for a certainty that the Jews at the time of Messiah were keeping Sabbatical cycles based upon repeating seven year cycles, therefore (since he did not speak out against it) the Messiah would have been in agreement with them. Such would also be an implied agreement with the repeating 49 year cycles, since these cycles, along with the 7 year cycles, were also continuously repeating.

The 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9 not only gives us 490 years (10 - 49 year Jubilee cycles), but such years are clearly based upon the 70 year desolation predicted by Jeremiah (which is itself based upon the Jubilee cycles). We know this by comparing that prophecy with the statements made in 2 Chronicles 36 and the prophecy of Ezekiel 4:4-6. In Ezekiel 4 a period of 390 + 40 days (a day representing a year) are given. Since the sum total of 390 + 40 = 430 (based on Ezekiel 4), and the 430 years are connected with the 70 years of desolation predicted by Jeremiah, it follows that the 70 Sabbatical years which were not kept would be found within the 430 years. Using 49 year cycles, 70 land-rest years can indeed be found within 430 years--whether starting the count from the year of Jubilee or from the Sabbatical before a year of Jubilee.

One more very important point needs to be established. Having determined that the Sabbatical cycles are repeating, and that Daniel 9 establishes that fact, it is also important to tie together Daniel 9 with the Jubilee cycles. All of these prophecies (2 Chronicles 36, Ezekiel 4, and Daniel 9) are based upon the Jubilee cycles at their very foundation. Therefore, because of this, and because the language of the Jubilees is used in Daniel 9 itself (i.e., "seven weeks") we can also be certain that the 490 years are in direct alignment with the Jubilee cycles--such that we can know for a certainty that 457 BCE (the year Ezra came to Jerusalem, and the year the 70 weeks begins) is indeed a year of Jubilee.

Based upon the evidence as presented here, the Sabbatical cycles are clearly understood to be continually repeating cycles of 7 year periods. If the Sabbatical cycles are continuous, this is conclusive evidence that the 49 year Jubilee cycles are also continuous.

But let us now address some other more direct questions people have raised in which they believe the Jubilee cycles should be 50 years, and not 49 years (as I and many others believe). Here are those questions:

Below are my answers to questions regarding the Jubilee Cycles, which are all related to the question "Is the Jubilee cycle 49 or 50 years in length?"

QUESTION: You said that the book of Jubilees supports 49 year cycles. Where in the book of Jubilees does it plainly show that the Jubilee cycles were considered 49 year cycles?

ANSWER: While the author of that book does not come right out and tell us that the Jubilee cycles are 49 year cycles, we can know that it is true based upon how he uses those cycles to determine the lifespan of various patriarchs--which we can compare to the parallel accounts as given in Genesis 5 and 11.

There are four clear and unmistakable references which show an unbroken cycle of continuous 7 year weeks, cycles which extend beyond the 49 years (or 7 weeks) leading up to the year of Jubilee--as shown in the Book of Jubilees

" . . . And then spake Jacob to Rebecca, his mother, and said unto her: 'Behold, mother, I am nine weeks of years old, and I neither know nor have I touched any woman, nor have I betrothed myself to any, nor even think of taking me a wife of the daughters of Canaan. For I remember, mother, the words of Abraham, our father, for he commanded me not to take a wife of the daughters of Canaan, but to take me a wife from the seed of my father's house and from my kindred. I have heard before that daughters have been born to Laban, thy brother, and I have set my heart on them " (Jubilees 25:4-6)

Let's look at this. Seven weeks is the limit of a cycle of less than 50 years. Nine weeks is in excess of that, but there is no mention of an additional year to cover the year of Jubilee. Again, this shows that the Jubilee year was considered in the book of Jubilees to be included within the seven year cycle, such that the seven year cycle should be dominant. However, this is not the only evidence supporting Jubilee cycles of 49 years. Look closely at this one:

". . . And Isaac slept on his bed that day rejoicing; and he slept the eternal sleep, and died one hundred and eighty years old. He completed twenty-five weeks and five years;" (Jubilees 36:18)

Twenty five weeks would be 25 X 7 for a total of 175. 175 plus 5 is 180 years. Without any doubt, this is over 3 jubilees long and the count of years confirms that an extra 50th year is not in the count (showing that the 50th year was included within the 49 year cycle). Again, this supports a continuous weekly cycle (of years). But the best evidence is yet to come:

" . . . And Joseph took of the corn of the harvest the fifth part for the king and left four parts for them for food and for seed, and Joseph made it an ordinance for the land of Egypt until this day. And Israel lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years, and all the days which he lived were three jubilees, one hundred and forty-seven years, and he died in the fourth [2188 A.M.] 14th year of the fifth week of the forty-fifth jubilee. . . . (Jubilees 45:12-14)

This is one of the best evidences to show how the author of Jubilees calculated the Jubilee cycles. Not only does the author speak of weeks of years, but he also states plainly that three jubilees is equal to 147 years. If he really believed the Jubilees were 50 year cycles, he would have said that three cycles were 150 years. 147 divided by three is exactly 49. The numbers from Jubilees add up exactly, and show 21 continuous weekly cycles (of years).

One more reference from Jubilees will establish beyond question that this ancient author believed the Jubilee cycles were 49 and not 50 year cycles. Please note what he says:

"And at the close of the nineteenth jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he was the first to be buried in the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die.'" (Jubilees 4:29)

Adam dies (according to the author of Jubilees) near the end of 19 Jubilees. Scripture confirms that the number mentioned in connection with Adams lifespan was 930 years. 19 Jubilees using a count of 50 years per cycle would be 950 years, not 930. And yet, the author of Jubilees says that Adam died just short of 19 Jubilee cycles. This could only be true if that author were using 49 year cycles for Jubilee cycles. This confirms once again that the Jubilee cycles (as given in the book of Jubilees) are 49 year, not 50 year cycles.

QUESTION: You believe that you have extensive evidence showing that the Jubilee cycles are 49 years, not 50 years (as many rabbis teach). If the Sabbatical cycles are composed of six years of sowing and reaping (as Leviticus 25:3 plainly states), then what about the year of Jubilee? If it is (as you believe) both the 50th and the 1st year of the next cycle, then wouldn't that system disrupt the plain instruction of Scripture that we are to sow and reap for six years, in which case you will only have five years of sowing and reaping?

ANSWER: Six years of sowing and reaping is the general rule, but the year of Jubilee gives an exception to the rule. Following a year of Jubilee, you will only have five years of sowing and reaping.

QUESTION: How can you be so sure that there are five years of sowing and reaping following a Jubilee year, when Scripture plainly states that there has to be six years of sowing and reaping? Do we simply dismiss the text that says we must have six years of sowing and reaping? Look at what it says:

Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for Yahweh: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. {Leviticus 25:3-4)

It seems clear that by making the 50th year the same as the first year, you cannot fulfill the Scriptural requirement of sowing and reaping for six years following your Jubilee year.

ANSWER: I completely agree--we cannot dismiss the text of Leviticus 25:3-4. It would be a serious mistake to do that. We do not dismiss the text which says there will be six years of sowing and reaping. Instead we simply compare this text to another related text which speaks of how many years of blessings there will be. Please note what it says here:

And if ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase: Then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years. And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat yet of old fruit until the ninth year; until her fruits come in ye shall eat of the old store. (Leviticus 25:20-21)

This text specifically deals with the issue of Sabbatical years, and what Yahweh promises he will do for Israel as they keep those Sabbatical years. He says he will bless them in the sixth year, so that the next two years (the 7th and 8th) they would continue to eat the old fruit until the new harvest returns. How many years does it say that they will receive this blessing? It plainly tells us three years. During a normal Sabbatical cycle, this is clearly true. However, what of the years prior to and after a Jubilee?

In the years connected with a Sabbatical year there will be three years of blessings, the sixth, seventh, and eighth. In the sixth year the land will produce enough for that year plus two more years. In the eighth year they will begin to sow again and reap the harvest in the ninth year, which will normally be for a period of six years total of sowing and reaping. However, if a Jubilee year is connected with it you will have four years of blessings, not three. When it is almost time for a Jubilee to begin, you will have the blessings of the sixth year, the Sabbatical year, the Jubilee year, and the year following while they wait for the new crops to come in--a total of four years. This number appears to contradict the number given in Scripture, which is three years. Therefore, an exception to the rule is also required here. This text plainly states "And ye shall sow the eighth year. . . " If the seventh year happens to also be the seventh Sabbatical year, could it be true that you would be permitted to sow in "the eighth year?" No, because that eighth year would also be a year of Jubilee, and you cannot sow or reap in a Jubilee year, just as in a Sabbatical year.

Rabbi R. Judah explains it this way also [in the Talmud, Nedarim 61a] in his response to those who argue that there must always be six years of sowing:

Nedarim 61a The scholars propounded: What if one vows, 'Konam, if I taste wine a Jubilee': Is the fiftieth year [counted] as before the fiftieth or as after? Come and hear: For a conflict of R. Judah and the Rabbis has been taught: And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year: [Leviticus 26:10] you must count it as the fiftieth year, but not as the fiftieth and as the first year [i.e., of the next Jubilee cycle]. Hence they [the sages] said: The Jubilee is not part of the septennate. R. Judah maintained: The Jubilee is counted as part of the septennate. [i.e., seven years] Said they to R. Judah, But Scripture saith, six years shalt thou sow thy field, whereas here there are only five! He replied: But on your view, Surely it is said, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years.' whereas here there are four. But it can be referred to other Sabbatical years; hence mine too [i.e., the verse which speaks of three years of blessings] must be thus explained.

Here again we have another example of a place where we need an "exception to the rule"--for a total of two exceptions: four years of blessings instead of just three, and not sowing in an "eighth year" which also happens to be a Jubilee year. What's the big deal, you ask? It is an exception that is not specified, because it does not explain how to do this before a Jubilee year. Yet we are led to believe that there cannot be exceptions to the rule (of sow and reap six years) unless it is specified. Consistency says that what is true of one must be true of all, or else it cannot be made into a rule that applies to all cases. Therefore, those who say you cannot have only five years of sowing and reaping, must also be willing to sow on the year of Jubilee because verse 22 clearly states that one must sow in the eighth year, which will fall on a year of Jubilee one out of seven times. Since we are clearly commanded not to sow in a year of Jubilee, we must also face the reality that there are other places in the text of Leviticus 25 which will (out of absolute necessity) require an "exception to the rule." Likewise, the text says there must be three years of blessings--yet there will clearly be four years of blessings at the time of a Jubilee. [Here is a very interesting discussion of the Yovel (Jubilees), by Greg Killian, that gives us some Jewish insights regarding these and other related issues.While I do not agree with every assessment he makes in his article, I find it (for the most part) extremely interesting to our study of the Jubilees.

CONCLUSION: The supposed unconditional rule of sow and reap six years cannot possibly be a hard and fast rule for all cases--simply because we have two other situations which also require exceptions to that very same rule!

QUESTION: Do you believe, or have you ever stated that you believe, that first century Judaism taught and/or practiced a 50 year cycle for the Jubilees? Someone has said that you "privately expressed agreement" with them that "first-century normative Judaism regarded the Jubilee cycles as consisting of 50 years." They also said that you agreed with them that "ancient Judaism understood that it was a Jubilee year when the Israelites entered into the Promised Land." Do you have anything to comment about these statements?

ANSWER: First, that person is mistaken--I never said these things. All I said is that there was a dispute between various Rabbis over this issue of 50 verses 49 year cycles. And no, "ancient Judaism" did not teach that Israel came into the promised land in a year of Jubilee--that was later "rabbinic Judaism" (fourth and fifth century CE, and later Maimonides of the twelfth century) where both of these issues are brought to our attention. We have no "ancient" text (post-temple era or prior) that says the Jews typically believed they came into the promised land in a Jubilee year, nor that they kept or believed in 50 year cycles (at least that I am aware of, and I have studied this extensively). While the Samaritan "Book of Joshua" also teaches the Jews came into the land in a Jubilee year, that document is of much later origin (from the middle ages). And so no, I don't believe that first century Judaism originally followed a 50 year cycle--nor did I ever state that. The truth is that we can only confirm that later many Rabbis believed in the 50 year cycles, while others followed a 49 year cycle. There may have been a few during or prior to the post-temple era that believed the Jubilees started when they came into the land, or believed in 50 year cycles (for example, Philo), and many today theorize that the original cycle was 50 years, but to say this was a common belief or practice of that era is really impossible to prove. So, regardless of the beliefs of the Rabbis of the fourth and fifth century (when the Talmud was compiled), and regardless of the statement of Philo, in practice the Jewish nation between 332 BCE and 139 CE followed continuous 7 year cycles (which would also indicate their agreement with continuous 49 year cycles). And if you want to find a truly "ancient" Jewish writing which gives examples of how Jubilee cycles were typically understood, please do some research into The Book of Jubilees (from the second century BCE) and regarding the "seven days equals seven thousand years" theory see The Book of Enoch. While I do not believe that these books are without error, nor that they are inspired, I have reason to believe that they are very useful in helping us know how the Jews felt about such subjects.

The information we have concerning this rabbinic debate comes from the Talmud which was compiled in the fourth and fifth centuries CE. While some of the information it contains comes from the first century CE and prior, it is impossible to determine the exact source or timeframe for each statement. Regardless of all of this debating, and regardless of all the opinions expressed by rabbis from that general time, chronological research has shown that the Jewish PRACTICE both before and during the post temple period (starting at least two centuries before Messiah) was to follow consecutive 7 year cycles--with no breaks in that cycle during the 50th year.* Since the proven practice of Judaism during this time did not include the keeping of a 50th year (as confirmed from various chronological studies in this regard), and since such an observance also did not cause a break in the continuous seven year cycles, it cannot (therefore) be a distortion of the facts to say that the majority of Judaism supported the 49 verses 50 year cycles. And in regard to the Judaism which came out of Egypt, we have no solid evidence that they kept 50 year cycles for the Jubilees--this, again, is simply rabbinic opinion as expressed by the authors of the Talmud. We can seriously look at and carefully weigh their opinions, since these are our ancient Jewish sages, but with the understanding that they are not infallible nor did they agree among themselves in many areas (especially in the area of Bible chronology).

[*Please understand that I am not speaking of the practice of following specific Jubilee years here, since we have no direct evidence that Judaism of the temple and post-temple era actually kept Jubilees (although it is believed that they may indeed have known when the Jubilee years were). This is strictly a reference to the observance of Sabbatical years, which, according to all the chronological information available to us, was clearly continuous in nature, and, therefore, would not have allowed for the observance of a 50 year cycle.]

QUESTION: You say that you believe the Jews did not begin counting the Jubilees from the time they entered the promised land, but that it began later and aligns with the year of the Exodus. The text says: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD." (Leviticus 25:2) How do you reconcile this with your belief that they did not enter the land on a year of Jubilee?

ANSWER: It is true that some Bible scholars believe the Jubilee cycles began when Israel came into the promised land. However, Leviticus 25:2 doesn't actually say that they came into the land on a year of Jubilee--it just says that the land would keep a sabbath when they came into the land. This is merely an assumption that has been handed down to us from Jewish tradition (many of which may or may not be correct). Based upon my research, the Jubilees actually begin at creation, since the chronologies of several key patriarchs line up along 49 year cycles. However, since I have already covered that subject in another presentation we will not present the evidence for that here.

Reading Leviticus 25:2 may, on the surface, suggest to some that the count to the Jubilee starts when they enter the land. [See Cycle 53 in the Jubilee Calendar Synopsis for a complete overview.] However, if you understand the statement to be a detailed instruction list of what they were actually to do when they come into the land--then it could be understood from an entirely different perspective. In the second year of the Exodus they refused to listen to Joshua and Caleb and, as a result, were told to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. If the year of the Exodus was indeed a year of Jubilee (as I believe the chronological evidence of the lives of the patriarchs indicates), and in the second year of their journey they are told to wander in the wilderness another 38 years (see Deuteronomy 2:14), then the time they enter the land would be the 41st year from the Exodus, only about six months prior to the upcoming Sabbatical year. Since that 42nd year was a Sabbatical year, does this line up with the Scriptural account? Yes it does!

And the space in which we came from Kadesh-barnea, until we were come over the brook Zered, was thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host, as Yahweh swore unto them. (Deuteronomy 2:14)

Deuteronomy 2:14 plainly states that it was 38 years from that time when they began to cross over into the promised land. This places their entrance into the land just months from the start of another Sabbatical year. The Jubilee cycles, as I have presented the evidence for their existence on my website (The Jubilee Code), indicate 49 year cycles which align with such historical events as the birth of Shem and Isaac, the year of the Exodus itself, and the completion and dedication of the temple near the end of 10 Jubilee cycles from the Exodus. Please see my more complete study of this chronology on my website in the article A Newly Revised Bible Chronology which gives much greater detail on how the Jubilee cycles found in the chronology of Genesis actually demonstrates the exodus clearly took place in a year of Jubilee.

Actually, starting the 40 years count from the time of the exodus works perfectly. Following this method of counting the 40 years, the children of Israel enter the land about six months prior to a Sabbatical year. This is a perfect fulfillment of the command of Yahweh that "When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto Yahweh." For more information about this, please see my updated chart and study How Long Did the Children of Israel Wander in the Wilderness?

FYI: Since the Sabbatical year is patterned after the keeping of the Sabbath day, it is reasonable to conclude that Israel would be expected to keep ALL of that Sabbatical year, just as they would keep ALL of the Sabbath day. Can one keep half a Sabbath, and still be said to have kept the Sabbath day? Their entrance into the land about six months prior to the Sabbatical year would, therefore, make sense as it would serve as a sort of "preparation day," just as they would be expected to prepare in like manner for the weekly Sabbath.

QUESTION: How do you explain the fact that, according to your view, they would have to ignore a year of Jubilee that would have come before the first officially kept year of Jubilee?

ANSWER: This is a good question. What of the fact that this proposal causes the Israelites to "skip" a year of Jubilee 8 years later? Well, the answer is actually quite simple: It is simply a matter of reading the text of Leviticus 25 to determine if the Israelites actually observed what would have been the upcoming Jubilee year in the Jubilee cycle. The first (and most obvious) fact is that the seven sabbatical year count does not begin with any statement regarding the observance of a Jubilee year at or just before the start of the 49 year count. Nor is there any definitive statement which says that the Israelites entered the land of Canaan in a Jubilee year (other than Jewish tradition). Scripture says that the land was to rest the year that they entered it, which could have been a Sabbatical year.

Another problem which presents itself is the fact that it took many years to finally conquer the land and drive out the illegitimate inhabitants thereof. Regarding the time that it took to conquer and divide the land, there is no direct chronology of that event. The only chronological evidence that we have to examine is the information regarding the inheritance of Caleb. The book of Joshua says that Caleb was 40 years old at the time the 40 years wandering began, and that he was 85 years old when they they began to divide the land.

As Yahweh commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did, and they divided the land. Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua in Gilgal: and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said unto him, Thou knowest the thing that Yahweh said unto Moses the man of Elohim concerning me and thee in Kadeshbarnea. Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of Yahweh sent me from Kadeshbarnea to espy out the land; and I brought him word again as it was in mine heart. Nevertheless my brethren that went up with me made the heart of the people melt: but I wholly followed Yahweh my Elohim. And Moses sware on that day, saying, Surely the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall be thine inheritance, and thy children's for ever, because thou hast wholly followed Yahweh my Elohim. And now, behold, Yahweh hath kept me alive, as he said, these forty and five years, even since Yahweh spake this word unto Moses, while the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness: and now, lo, I am this day fourscore and five years old. (Joshua 14:5-10)

Based upon this text, and the whole context of the book of Joshua, from the time they entered the land to the time Caleb received his inheritance, is a timeframe of 5 years. During that time many of the tribes had received their inheritance. Later in the account of Joshua, it is discovered that sometime after Caleb received his inheritance, seven of the tribes had still not yet received theirs. Here is what the text says:

And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there. And the land was subdued before them. And there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes, which had not yet received their inheritance. (Joshua 18:1-2)

Allowing for a few more years for the whole land to be conquered and divided among all the tribes, it is not unreasonable to believe that it could have taken 8 years for them to finally conquer and divide the land. While there is no way to be certain of the exact amount of time involved in the conquering of the land, one commentator actually suggests the time from the entrance to the final conquest was 8 years (Sacred Chronology, Faussett, p. 295). Other commentators suggest anything from 7 to 14 years for the complete conquest of the land of Israel. Please review the order of events regarding the Sabbatical and Jubilee years as mentioned in Leviticus 25:

And Yahweh spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto Yahweh. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for Yahweh: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. . . . And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. (Leviticus 25:1-4, 8-10)

Based upon the plain reading of this text, the first full year they came into the land would be a Sabbatical year. Then followed six years of sowing and reaping, followed by another Sabbatical year. Then they were to begin the count to the year of Jubilee, seven Sabbatical years, which makes 49 years, followed by the 50th year--the year of Jubilee. Since it took about 8 years to conquer the land, and the years prior to their entrance they did not possess the land, it would make no sense to keep a year of Jubilee 8 years into their occupation since they did not possess the land for the entirety of the 49 years previous to that.

Since the Israelites were to "proclaim liberty throughout all the land" in the year of Jubilee, how could they effectively do this at a time when they had not yet completely cast out the other inhabitants, and at a time when they had not fully conquered, fully divided, and fully occupied the land? Would they have been required to restore the land back to the Philistines--who, to a large extent, still occupied the land when that year came (eight years after they came into the land)? I don't think so.

QUESTION: How do you get around the plain meaning of 50? Scripture says the Jubilee year is the 50th year, therefore the Jubilee cycle is a 50 year cycle.

ANSWER: How do you get around the plain meaning of Scripture that clearly states that the seven year cycle must be a continuous cycle, with no allowances for a 50th year to interrupt that cycle?

It is not commonly known, however, the Torah plainly states that every seventh year (a Sabbatical year) it was required that they were to read the Torah in the sight of all the people, from one day to the next, during the feast of tabernacles which is "in the solemnity of the year of release." This requirement said nothing of doing this on a Jubilee year. Note what it says in Deuteronomy:

And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, When all Israel is come to appear before Yahweh thy Elohim in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear Yahweh your Elohim, and observe to do all the words of this law: And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear Yahweh your Elohim, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it. (Deuteronomy 31:9-13)

There are other texts, like the one above, that clearly teach of continuously repeating seven year cycles:

At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. (Deuteronomy 15:1)

At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee: but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. (Jeremiah 34:14)

First, please notice that they are commanded to read the law in the Sabbatical year which occurs "every seven years." Note that it does not specify any exceptions for the year of Jubilee. In fact, it does not even mention the year of Jubilee at all, and nowhere in Scripture (including Leviticus 25) does it use the phrase "every fifty years" like it says "every seven years" in these texts from Deuteronomy. If ever there was a smoking gun regarding the true pattern of the Jubilee cycles, it is here.

The term "every seven years" also means just what it says--a continuously repeating seven year cycle! If the seven year cycles are continuous, then it only stands to reason that the Jubilee cycles must be subordinate to the Sabbatical cycles [i.e., Jubilee cycles are 49 (not 50) years in duration]--otherwise, this directive from Moses cannot be fulfilled properly when they reach the year of Jubilee. In addition, we have several examples from Scripture of not only repeating cycles of seven, but seven times seven, and seven times seventy:

If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. (Genesis 4:24)

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (Daniel 9:24)

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, . . . (Daniel 9:25)

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Yahushua saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. (Matthew 18:21-22)

Second, this commandment of Moses was fulfilled soon after Israel came into the land. In Deuteronomy 27 Moses specifically tells them what they are to do when they come into the land:

And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day. And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which Yahweh thy Elohim giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister: And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which Yahweh thy Elohim giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as Yahweh Elohim of thy fathers hath promised thee. Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaister them with plaister.. . . And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly. (Deuteronomy 27:1-4, 8)

This is the command Moses gave to Joshua and the children of Israel. They did according to what they were commanded, which was to write the Torah on stones. In Deuteronomy 31 they were commanded to read the law of Moses every seven years, in the Sabbatical years. After they came into the land, and had spent about 6 months conquering certain major cities, they fulfilled both of these things.

The first city they destroyed after coming into the land was Jericho, the next city they destroyed was Ai. From the context we can determine that it only required a few months to accomplish this. It was very soon after these two events that Joshua read the law according to the commandment--and based upon the context it was at the start of a Sabbatical year.

And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them. (Joshua 8:34-35)

Please note that everything Moses commanded was to be followed. Based upon these simple facts, Joshua fulfilled all of the commandments of Moses--first, to set up an alter and write the law on stones (Deuteronomy 27). Next, he was to read that law before the people (Deuteronomy 31) in the Sabbatical years so that they may learn the ways of Yahweh. While the law can be read at any time, the fact that it happens here strongly suggests that the tribes of Israel came into the land just in time to observe a Sabbatical year, not a Jubilee year. We find confirmation of this from the book of Nehemiah, which confirms that Joshua did indeed arrive in time to celebrate a year of release (a Sabbatical year) as Ezra is said to have read from the Torah in like manner as Joshua, from the first day of the seventh month (the day of blowing Trumpets).

And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. (Nehemiah 8:2)

This confirms that Ezra came before the people on the first day of the seventh month, the day known as the day of blowing trumpets. The following confirms the connection between the reading of the law by Ezra and the reading of the law by Joshua:

And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness. Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of Elohim. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner. (Nehemiah 8:17-18)

Moses specifically commands that the law is to be read day by day at the feast of Tabernacles. Ezra did this also according to the law of Moses. And Ezra confirms that this had not happened before except in the time of Joshua--a clear and obvious connection between the reading of the law by Ezra compared with that taking place by Joshua in Joshua 8. Since this was to take place in a Sabbatical year, this reference also confirms that the keeping of the feast of tabernacles and the reading of the law in Nehemiah 8 is in connection with another Sabbatical year.

They were told that when they come into the land they would observe a Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25) and we have evidence to confirm that soon after this the law was read in the sight of all Israel, in the feast of Tabernacles (at the start of the civil year). We have evidence to confirm this from Joshua 8 (it does not say it was a Jubilee, and there is no command to read the law in a Jubilee year). It therefore fits perfectly with the scenario as given here. Then they are told to work the land 6 years and keep another Sabbatical year--which, by now, would be a 49th year on the calendar. [While not all of the tribes had received their inheritance, some of them did and these would have been able to sow and reap a harvest in the land during those early years.] Then they are told to keep 7 Sabbatical years for a total of 49 years, and the 50th year from that would be a year of Jubilee. Please note how this appears on Jubilee Calendar Cycle 53:

QUESTION: Did the Sabbatical and Jubilee years exist before Israel came into the land? From our understanding, the command to keep Sabbatical and Jubilee years did not begin until Israel came into the land of promise. And yet you have stated that the year of the exodus was a year of Jubilee, even though the Jubilee was something they were not commanded to observe until after they came into the land. How do you explain this?

ANSWER: You already answered your own question. They were not "commanded" to observe these things until they came into the land. Likewise, they were not specifically "commanded" to observe the Sabbaths until after they left Egypt, and yet the Sabbath was introduced to us in Genesis 2 of the creation account. Since, as stated previously, the Sabbatical cycles are based upon the creation account (six days of work followed by a day of rest), it is only reasonable that they also had their beginning at the time of creation.

It is commonly believed that the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles did not exist prior to their entrance into the land of promise. But, can that really be proven? Here is some more evidence that these cycles did indeed exist prior to the time of the exodus.

Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. (Exodus 21:1-3)

The commandment regarding the keeping of the Sabbatical years is given in Exodus, however, this is not the first time the concept of keeping Sabbatical years is given. In the Sabbatical year a Hebrew servant is to be released. This same concept is spoken of several centuries before the time of the Exodus, in the time of Jacob. Jacob served seven years for Rachel to become his wife, seven years for Lea, and seven years for his just pay, which was cut short by divine intervention in the sixth year.

And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. (Genesis 29:18)

Here is a direct connection between the service Jacob gave to Laban, and the service a Hebrew servant was to give until the Sabbatical year.

This is the thing which I have spoken unto Pharaoh: What God is about to do he sheweth unto Pharaoh. Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt; and the famine shall consume the land; And the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine following; for it shall be very grievous. And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass. Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt. Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years. (Genesis 41:28-34)

Here is another connection between the Sabbatical years and historical events prior to the Exodus. Please notice that the seven years of plenty and seven years of famine are similar to the legislation of the Sabbatical years. During the Sabbatical and Jubilee years they were miraculously provided for, just as Yahweh (through the ministration of Joseph) provides for the Egyptians during the seven years of famine. There are other connections which the astute researcher should consider (The Sabbatical/Jubilee Cycle and the Seven-Year Famine in Egypt, by C. Carmichael). And since both of these events have shown amazing alignments with the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles (as can be seen in my online study the Jubilee Calendar Synopsis), it is clear that these patterns of seven and 49 year cycles had existence prior to the time of the Exodus.

Here is more evidence showing that the institution of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years existed prior to the time of the entrance into the land of Canaan

Notice what it says in Leviticus 23:10-11:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before Yahweh, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. (Leviticus 23:10-11)

Now consider the problem here: Leviticus 23 plainly states that the children of Israel were to perform the "wave sheaf offering" when they come into the land. However, they spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness of sin prior to their entrance into the land. Israel did not observe the wave sheaf offering while they were living in the wilderness, because they did not have crops of barley to "wave" before Yahweh. As far as we know, they also did not observe Passover (except for when they left Egypt and in the second year, a total of two times). And yet, the institution of the Passover date (the evening of Abib 14) and the calculation of the months had already been established, at least as far back as the time of the Exodus. So when the text says "When ye be come into the land . . ." you will observe such and such date, that does not mean the timing of that event had not already been established prior to its first observance when they came into the land. Likewise, the same is true of our other text which uses almost exactly the same language, where it says:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto Yahweh. (Leviticus 25:2)

To the best of our knowledge the children of Israel did not observe Passover again (and therefore did not observe the wave sheaf offering, called firstfruits) until after they came into the land. We know they did not, because Joshua had to have them circumcised before they could keep the Passover after they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years (Joshua 5:2-5). Numbers 9:13 clearly states that an uncircumcised man must not be allowed to keep Passover, therefore they could not have kept Passover until they came into the land. If the institution of Passover and firstfruits had already been established prior to the command to keep it "when ye be come into the land . . .", then it stands to reason that the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles also had already existed prior to the time "when ye come into the land . . .", just as the keeping of the Sabbath also existed prior to the Exodus. In fact, this is the most reasonable conclusion.

We know, for instance, that in Exodus 20 the children of Israel are commanded to keep the seventh-day of the week as the Sabbath. Is that the first they had ever heard of it? No, in Exodus 16:20-25 they are commanded to gather the manna for six days, and rest on the Sabbath. And in Genesis 2:2-3 it is plainly stated that the Sabbath had its beginning at creation. Moses was the one who wrote about that first Sabbath, so we can only presume he and the Israelites were well aware of the Sabbath long before it was officially given in the Decalogue--for the teaching had been handed down from Adam to Noah to Eber and to Abraham. We know for certain that Abraham kept the Sabbath, for it says plainly that he kept Yahweh's commandments, statutes, and His Laws (Torah) before it was put into writing by Moses:

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:4-5)

CONCLUSION: If Abraham kept the laws of Yahweh, then that would include the laws concerning not only the Sabbath day but also the Sabbatical and Jubilee year system. Otherwise, we will have to ignore the plain meaning of this text in Genesis 26:4-5. Therefore, the Sabbatical and Jubilee years did indeed exist prior to the entrance of Israel into the land of promise.

QUESTION: You say that the Jewish "practice" in the post-temple period was that sabbatical years were to be figured consecutively, and that the Jubilee cycles themselves would therefore consist of 49 and not 50 years. And yet the only significant reference you have that supports this is the book of Jubilees, while there are other historical accounts which seem to support 50 year cycles. This seems like weak evidence. Can you do better than this?

ANSWER: Yes, we can do much better than this. In fact, we can even find documentation from the first and second century BCE which shows the Jewish people understood that: 1) "weeks" in apocalyptic literature are intended to mean Sabbatical weeks (weeks of years), 2) seven of those weeks represent a complete jubilee cycle, and 3) Daniel's 70 weeks in particular were intended to mean 10 Jubilee cycles. Here is the documented evidence:

A "Week" in Apocalyptic literature means a Sabbatical week (a week composed of seven years).

Then after that Enoch happened to be recounting from the books. And Enoch said, "Concerning the children of righteousness, concerning the elect ones of the world, and concerning the plant of truth, I will speak these things, my children, verily, Enoch, myself, and let you know (about it) according to that which was revealed to me from the heavenly vision, that which I have learned from the words of the holy angels, and understood from the heavenly tablets." He then began to recount from the books and said, "I was born the seventh during the first week, during which time judgment and righteousness continued to endure. After me there shall arise in the second week great and evil things;' deceit should grow, and therein the first consummation will take place. But therein (also) a (certain) man shall be saved. After it is ended, injustice shall become greater, and he shall make a law for the sinners. "Then after that at the completion of the third week a (certain) man shall be elected as the plant of the righteous judgment, and after him one (other) shall emerge as the eternal plant of righteousness. "After that at the completion of the fourth week visions of the old and righteous ones shall be seen; and a law shall be made with a fence, for all the generations. "After that in the fifth week, at the completion of glory, a house and a kingdom shall be built. "After that in the sixth week those who happen to be in it shall all of them be blindfolded, and the hearts of them all shall forget wisdom. Therein, a (certain) man shall ascend. And, at its completion, the house of the kingdom shall be burnt with fire; and therein the whole clan of the chosen root shall be dispersed. "After that in the seventh week an apostate generation shall arise; its deeds shall be many, and all of them criminal. At its completion, there shall be elected the elect ones of righteousness from the eternal plant of righteousness, to whom shall be given sevenfold instruction concerning all his flock. (1st Enoch 93:1-10--The Apocalypse of Weeks).

This reference can be dated from between 200 BCE and 100 CE. Regardless of whether we are in agreement with the authors interpretation of prophetic events, this reference clearly shows that a 'week' in apocalyptic literature was intended to represent a Sabbatical week of years. It also shows that such 'weeks' were intended to represent long periods of time (not a brief period of only seven literal days).

and there will come the dominion of Belial upon them to deliver them up to the sword for a week of years...During this jubilee they will brake all my laws...and they will begin to argue with one another for seventy years... (The Pseudo-Moses Apocalypse) [4Q390, 4QpsMoses]

This reference from the Dead Sea Scrolls once again clearly defines a prophetic week as a seven year period.

Seven Apocalyptic Weeks represent a complete Jubilee cycle.

Now these references establish what a prophetic week is. But do seven prophetic weeks equal one jubilee cycle, or is a Jubilee cycle 50 years? The best historical evidence to show how Israel understood this is with the book of Jubilees itself. We have already demonstrated that the book of Jubilees clearly uses 49 year cycles to represent a Jubilee cycle. So, the best way to easily illustrate this (without reading the entire book) will simply be to reference the introduction as provided by the translator:

Although months and seasons are accounted for in the calendar of Jubilees, it was the recurring cycle of seven-day weeks that was used as the basic model for structure larger periods of time. Each period of seven years is referred to as a 'week of years' or simply as a 'week'. Each period of seven weeks of years, i.e. forty-nine years, is designated a jubilee. (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols), Charlesworth (ed), Doubleday: 1983.)

Daniel's 70 weeks is intended to mean 10 Jubilee cycles.

Please note also that in the ancient Testament of Levi 17 a Jubilee cycle is defined as a period of seven weeks:

Because you have heard about the seventy weeks, listen also concerning the priesthood. In each jubilee there shall be a priesthood: In the first jubilee the first 'person to be anointed to the priesthood will be great, and he shall speak to God as father; and his priesthood shall be fully satisfactory to the Lord, and in the days of his joy, he shall rise up for the salvation of the world. In the second jubilee the Anointed One shall be conceived in sorrow of the beloved one, and his priesthood shall be prized and shall be glorified by all. The third priest shall be overtaken by grief, and the fourth priesthood shall be with sufferings, because injustice shall be imposed upon him in a high degree, and all Israel shall hate each one his neighbor. The fifth shall be overcome by darkness; likewise the sixth and the seventh. In the seventh there shall be pollution such as I am unable to declare in the presence of human beings, because only the ones who do these things understand such matters. Therefore they shall be in captivity and will be preyed upon; both their land and their possessions shall be stolen. And in the fifth week they shall return to the land of their desolation, and shall restore anew the house of the Lord. In the seventh week there will come priests: idolators, adulterers, money lovers, arrogant, lawless, voluptuaries, pederasts, those who practice bestiality. (The Testament of Levi 17, found in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.)

This document comes from the second century BCE, and it gives very strong evidence in support of the idea that a 'week' in Apocalyptic prophecies was then understood as being long periods of time. It also clearly makes a direct connection to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, and it also shows that a Jubilee (according to him) was intended to be understood as an integral part of seventy weeks of years (i.e., just as given to us in Daniel 9) The context of this passage indicates that a much greater amount of time is intended than just 7 or 49 literal days.

The Melchizedek Scroll

The Dead Sea Scrolls also shed great light on the significance of a Jubilee cycle and how it was to be counted:

The Melchizedek Scroll.

'Now the d[ay of expia]tion i[s the en]d of the tenth [ju]bilee, when expiation (will be made) for all the sons of [light and] for the m[e]n of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek.' The end of the tenth jubilee is, of course, the culmination of seventy weeks of years or 490 years. (Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Craig Evans and Peter Flint (eds). Eerdmans:1997.) [Collins, p. 83.]

2 [...] And as for what he said: Lev 25:13 « In [this] year of jubilee, [you shall return, each one, to his respective property », concerning it he said: Deut 15:2 « Th]is is

3 [the manner of the release:] every creditor shall release what he lent [to his neighbour. He shall not coerce his neighbour or his brother, for it has been proclaimed] a release

4 for G[od ». Its interpretation] for the last days refers to the captives, who [...] and whose

5 teachers have been hidden and kept secret, and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, fo[r ...] … and they are the inherita[nce of Melchize]dek, who

6 will make them return. And liberty will be proclaimed for them, to free them from [the debt of] all their iniquities. And this [wil]l [happen]

7 in the first week of the jubilee which follows the ni[ne] jubilees. And the d[ay of aton]ement is the e[nd of] the tenth [ju]bilee

8 in which atonement shall be made for all the sons of [light and] for the men [of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek. [...] … over [the]m … [...] accor[ding to] a[ll] their [wor]ks, for

9 it is the time for the « year of grace » of Melchizedek, and of [his] arm[ies, the nat]ion of the holy ones of God, of the rule of judgment, as is written

10 about him in the songs of David, who said: Ps 82:1 « Elohim will [st]and in the assem[bly of God,] in the midst of the gods he judges ». And about him he sai[d: Ps 7:8-9 « And] above [it,]

11 to the heights, return: God will judge the peoples ». As for what he sa[id: Ps 82:2 « How long will you] judge unjustly and show partia[lity] to the wicked? [Se]lah. »

12 Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot, wh[o ...] turn[ing aside] from the commandments of God to [commit evil.]

13 But, Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of Go[d's] judgments, [and on that day he will fr]e[e them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of his lot.]

14 To his aid (shall come) all « the gods of [justice »; and h]e is the one w[ho ...] all the sons of God, and … [...]

15 This [...] is the day of [peace about whi]ch he said [... through Isa]iah the prophet, who said: [Isa 52:7 « How] beautiful

16 upon the mountains are the feet [of] the messen[ger who] announces peace, the mess[enger of good who announces salvati]on, [sa]ying to Zion: your God [reigns. »]

17 Its interpretation: The mountains [are] the prophet[s ...] … [...] for all … [...]

18 And the messenger i[s] the anointed of the spir[it] as Dan[iel] said [about him: Dan 9:25 « Until an anointed, a prince, it is seven weeks. » And the messenger of]

19 good who announ[ces salvation] is the one about whom it is written that [...]

20 « To comfo[rt] the [afflicted », its interpretation:] to instruct them in all the ages of the wo[rld ...]

21 in truth … [...] … [...]

22 [...] has turned away from Belial and will re[turn ...] … [...]

23 [...] in the judgment[s of] God, as is written about him: [Isa 52:7 « Saying to Zi]on: your God rules. » [« Zi]on » i[s]

24 [the congregation of all the sons of justice, those] who establish the covenant, those who avoid walking [on the pa]th of the people. And « your God » is

25 [... Melchizedek, who will fr]e[e them from the ha]nd of Belial. And as for what he said: Lev 25:9 « You shall blow the hor[n in] all the [l]and of

The Melchizedek Scroll,A fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls called DSS 11Q13

. . . The figure of Melchizedek is introduced into this context of a jubilee year. What then is meant by "the year of jubilee" in this manuscript? Fitzmyer interprets the year of jubilee mentioned in this manuscript as follows:

'In the course of the midrashic development the year of jubilee mentioned first in line 2 becomes "the last jubilee" (line 7), or "the tenth jubilee" (line 7, at the end). In other words, it seems to refer to the end of the 490 years, or "the seventy weeks of years" of Dan 9:24-27. It is called the year of "release" (šmth) proclaimed for the Lord (lines 3-4) and of "liberation" (drr), such as was announced to the captives of Isa 61:1.'

The translation is taken from Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (eds.García Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, 1209). Highlights in the translation indicate the parts of the Old Testament verses. [Go to Melchizedek in 11Q13 (11QMelch), for more information.]

The Ages of Creation documents (4Q180-181)

The use of 70 and 490 in structuring history is known elsewhere; from the Flood to the end is seventy generations (1 En. 10:12) or seventy weeks of years (4Q181 2.3; cf. 4Q 180 1.4-9); 11Q Melch envisages a period of ten jubilees or 490 years up to the final judgment. (Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Willem A. VanGeren (gen. Ed.), Zond:1997 (5 vols).

Now, as anyone can plainly see after reading this, the idea that a Jubilee cycle represents seven weeks of years (49 literal years, not 50 years), and the idea that a continuous seven year period represents Sabbatical cycles is not strictly a new idea at all. These concepts were well understood by the Jewish people some 200 years prior to the birth of Messiah. For further information please check out this link to Good Question...Did the Jews understand the 'weeks' of Daniel to refer to 'years'?

QUESTION: Why did Yahweh specify the 50th year as a Jubilee year?

ANSWER: Because He is using the 50th year to represent eternity.

QUESTION: If the 50th year represents eternity, how can it also be the first year of the next cycle? It seems to be an interruption of the "continuously repeating" pattern of Sabbatical years, such that it should stand alone outside of the Sabbatical cycle. To follow up on that thought, it would seem you would have to do the same thing regarding the weekly cycle and the Sabbatical year cycle, such that year seven should also be year one of the next weekly cycle. How do you answer this?

ANSWER: The best way to explain this would be to consider the musical scale. In music, we have an octave consisting of eight notes, and the eighth note is also the first note of the next octave. So in the process of demonstrating this scale, we say DO-RE-ME-FA-SO-LA-TI-DO. When we do this it is commonly taught that we are to hold the last note longer. Is this possibly a representation of eternity? There have been many scales proposed over the centuries, but this eight note scale has remained the most enduring. It would seem that music and sound are a natural part of Creation, and therefore reflect the order of Creation which emphasizes the number 7. Even the five note and other major scales are based upon some of the same notes found in the 8 whole note scale (which, again, contains 7 unique notes). Yes, there are different scales, but the pattern is similar to the one above--the last note representing the same as the first note. Please notice that the first and last note in the musical scale are the same exact notes. There are seven unique whole notes in the scale, and the eighth note is the same as the first--only an octave higher. Please see this excellent article by Greg Killian to get some more Jewish insights into The Significance of The Number Seven. While I do not agree with every assessment he makes in his article, I find it (for the most part) extremely interesting to our study of the number 7.

So, to answer the follow up question, it is not the seventh day (nor the Sabbatical year) which represents eternity (and supposedly equal to the first day). No, it is the eighth day which is also equal to the first day, and likewise the eighth year is also equal to the first year of the next Sabbatical cycle--as can be plainly seen when reading the text of Leviticus 25:21, where it actually calls it the "eighth year." Therefore, it is not so difficult after all to understand how the 50th year could also be a representation of eternity--as confirmed through our basic understanding of music.

The Apostle Peter confirms the idea that a day is like a thousand years--which reinforces the idea that there will be 7000 years from creation to eternity:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

With this understanding, please notice how this thought that the eighth is equal to the first (and represents eternity) is also plainly shown in chapter 33 of the book of Enoch:

And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first-created after my work, and that the first seven revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.

Thus, the "continuously-repeating" pattern of Sabbatical years is not interrupted by the picture or symbol of eternity, but instead it is inter meshed and interlocked as a chain connecting one link to the next within the cycles of time. Likewise, it is just as the musical scale is inter meshed within it's own cycles--cycles which also give us a representation of eternity.

Below are my answers to questions regarding broken vows and arrogance [as reported by both myself and the loyal opposition]

QUESTION: Recently (2008), [the loyal opposition] has written an extensive rebuttal on his website against your beliefs regarding the period of the Jubilee cycles, as well as concerning the issue of date-setting. In your rebuttal to that, you even challenged him to show an example of how 70 land-rest years can be found within the 430 years (based upon 50 year cycles) predicted by Ezekiel in Ezekiel chapter 4. After he answered your challenge by showing it is possible to have 70 land-rest years within that period using 50 year cycles, you admitted you were in error--but you did not follow through with your vow to accept the 50 year cycles as valid if he should do that. Why is that? As he has said, "It is not wise to make rash vows before Yahweh."

ANSWER: When I made this challenge, I had looked at the count of 430 years from several starting points and I assumed that I covered all the relevant possibilities. When I could find only 70 land sabbath years based on 49 year cycles, I was confident that this would work with ALL configurations. However, after issuing my challenge he successfully found a configuration which could work with 50 year cycles--and now he would like for me to honor my vow that I would accept the 50 year cycles. While it is not wise to make rash vows, it is even worse to follow through with such a vow which would cause one to deny the truths of Scripture. Since this admission on my part does not add any true evidence in favor of the 50 year cycles, and since it clearly does not disprove 49 year cycles, there is really not much that can be done except to acknowledge the error.

What if a man makes a rash vow, and the fulfillment of that vow involves doing something good or evil? What is he supposed to do? Scripture plainly tells us what he is supposed to do:

Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto Yahweh for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. (Leviticus 5:4-6)

I speak of this in more detail in this study called "Vows and Oaths According to Scripture." Basically, we are to ask forgiveness for the rash vow.

Jephthah (in Judges 11) made a rash vow, but it would have resulted in him committing a more grievous sin if he literally fulfilled it (the human sacrifice of his own daughter). While many believe he did follow through with his vow, I am inclined to believe that he may not have--at least, not in the way originally intended.

[Some commentators believe that he did not actually sacrifice his own daughter, but instead commanded her to remain celibate the rest of her life, and sacrificed a bullock in her place. Regardless of our opinions regarding this, it is not completely certain whether he did or did not sacrifice his daughter.] Likewise, while Joshua made a covenant with the Gibeonites, he later realized his error in not consulting with Yahweh first (since Joshua was commanded to kill and/or drive out all the inhabitants of the land). In this particular case, Joshua and the Israelites decided to keep this vow with the condition of making the Gibeonites into servants.

It can make no sense to me to follow through with a rash vow which requires one to acknowledge an erroneous interpretation [and, therefore, an erroneous practice] of Scripture. Messiah says we cannot make even one of our hairs black or white, so how can I change the meaning of Scripture? If I am correct regarding the Jubilee cycles, and honor a vow which forces me to teach error, how does this honor Yahweh? Of course, I will certainly be more careful in the future regarding vows--but I think most people can see the inherit problem here. [It would appear from my examination of this issue that in Scripture there are different ways in which to correct the problems of rash vows. I have posted an 8 page study on that issue called "Vows and Oaths According to Scripture." Since the loyal opposition has chosen to continue the debate with pointless criticism, even after I have stopped responding to his accusations, I see no other option than to stop providing links to his slanderous remarks.]

Here is why the 430 years is so important: Since Chronicles 36 and Ezekiel 4 constitute the FOUNDATION of the prophecy of Daniel 9, and Daniel 9 is a prophecy involving 490 years--it, therefore, constitutes one more significant piece of evidence to establish the Jubilee cycles as 49 year cycles. The fact that using a limited few configurations [as he demonstrated] it is possible to fit 50 year cycles into the 430 years of Ezekiel 4 does not negate the fact that the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9 is based upon that prophecy (along with Chronicles 36) and is directly connected with the Jubilees--a fact confirmed by those same prophecies. Since Daniel 9 is connected to the Jubilees, the cycles represented in that prophecy must also be in alignment with the Jubilees (490 is 10-49 year cycles, not 10-50 year cycles). To ignore this, and all the other evidence I have presented, shows even far greater lack of wisdom than making a rash vow.

The loyal opposition scored some "extra points" with this particular insight regarding the 430 years, but he is still way behind overall. I have presented a wide assortment of compelling evidence in support of my position, however, he has not satisfactorily answered the bulk of my questions. I would also like to point out that he has continued to make this "rash vow" a major issue in his rebuttal to my study of the Jubilee cycles. The problem with this, however, is simple--this does not contribute in any way to the determining of the truth regarding the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles--a fact which he admits. The only purpose I can see for continually harping on that would be to divert attention from the real issues. However, it is of no benefit for any of us to continue to belabor the issue. The horse is now dead, and any more continuous beatings would be futile!

Let me add more. There are tell-tell signs that are frequently exhibited by people when they think that they are doing the right thing and yet are actually blindly fighting against the truth. One thing that happens quite frequently is that when people are confronted with truth that they are unwilling to face, they may seek to find fault with the messenger--thus taking the heat off themselves. We need to be watching for these signs in anything that we see or hear, for they are but indicators of the fruit of their actions. Here are the signs to help us know when someone (whether myself, or another) is fighting against the truth:

"All Truth Goes Through Three Stages.

First, it is ridiculed.

Then, it is violently opposed.

Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

What Arthur Schopenhauer is saying is that, when presented with truth, many of those that hear that "truth" (whatever it may be) will begin to go through three stages as they attempt to somehow deal with that truth. Those who adopt ridicule and violent opposition to someone or some idea often do so because they are resisting the truth. Those who become angry, violently oppose it and seek to "kill the messenger" (whether literally or metaphorically), show that they are in stage two of their recognition of truth. Those who do not sear their conscience and make it to stage three have no choice but to accept it as "self-evident." Sadly, many people become stuck in stage two and never make it to stage three. I have seen this type of opposition many times in my life, so when I saw this same response [stage one and the beginnings of stage two] being exhibited by criticism to me from my friend in emails and/or in print, it was a cause of great concern, grief and sadness to me. And it was not because he disagreed with me on the Jubilees or any other subject, nor because of the "vow" issue, but because of the way he did so--using continuous sarcasm and false accusations [such as, accusing me of being a liar, questioning my scholarship skills with sarcasm--and these prior to and not connected with my rash vow]. Faultfinding and character assassination are the tools that the world uses to gain ground on their enemies, but these are not the tools of the righteous. The use of such arguments constitutes a "red herring" logical fallacy--a distraction from the real issues to focus on the real and/or imagined character faults of the one presenting the argument. If you or I were to look closely at anyone, you will likely be able to find fault with them in some area. However, this is not proof that their basic teaching is in error, nor that they are inherently evil.

For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief. (Proverbs 24:16)

I will give examples of the unjust use of sarcasm and false accusations in the following question and answer segment.

QUESTION: . . . you stated that both Noah and Daniel understood the time prophecies and that it is therefore possible for you to do the same. [The loyal oppositions] response in his revised statement is that your statement was not valid, unless you are claiming to be a prophet. How do you respond to that?

ANSWER: Oh, well, that is mild compared to what he has told me in several of his email exchanges. In one recent email response to me on November 16, 2008, he says this:

Your arrogance is very disturbing to me. I've told you this before, and now your arrogance came out AGAIN in your latest response. For one, you are in essence elevating yourself to prophet status. You believe the fact that since such Biblical characters as Noah and Daniel were "date setters," this means you can be a "date setter," too! Does that make you arrogant? Yes, I believe it does. We should both know from Whom Noah and Daniel received their "date settings." You may as well come out and state that you believe Yahweh has given you your "revelation," too. (Excerpt from email received November 16, 2008)

Here is my response to that comment:

I do not claim to be a prophet. I did not receive a special revelation. So your statement in this regard was really unnecessary. To say that I am arrogant does not prove anything, because I am sure that if someone wanted to be hyper-critical they could make the claim that anyone is arrogant for any number of spurious reasons. My statement regarding Noah and Daniel does not make me arrogant—that observation on your part is strictly based upon your own private definition of "arrogance." If Noah and Daniel gave prophetic messages, I am certain that their messages were intended to be understood (at least by some people—people who are also not prophets). At the time of Daniel we know for certain that Daniel was aware of the time that the 70 years of desolation would come to an end, as we can know that by reading Daniel 9:2.

In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. (Daniel 9:2)

Yes, Daniel was a prophet—but he understood the timing of these events "by books," which means that whoever had access to those "books" would also be able to know when the 70 years would end. Surely, Daniel was not the only one who knew this information? The only reason I can figure that you think I am arrogant is that you ASSUME that I am claiming to be a prophet because I have great confidence in my chronological timeline, and use Daniel and Noah to validate that we can know the approximate time. Again, that is an assumption on your part. The prophecies are written so that all the righteous can have an opportunity to understand them, if they are willing to search it out—including the timing aspects of certain prophecies. I am not claiming it is easy to figure all of this out, only that it is possible—or else Yahweh would not have put it in His Word.

He has said that I am "arrogant," but he only shows by his statements that he is falsely judging me. The dictionary definition of arrogance is "1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: . . . having an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance or ability." [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrogant] Does that definition apply to myself? In what way have I claimed to be superior to others? Is there any evidence to support that? I have even admitted when I have been wrong. Is my knowledge and understanding valid and reliable, or is it based upon an "exaggerated opinion" of my abilities? He basis this claim of arrogance on the fact that I claimed to understand some of the prophecies that the disciples evidently did not fully understand, and because I said that Noah and Daniel would also qualify as "date-setters." However, when you actually read what is written in the book of Daniel about our ability to understand truth in these difficult last days, it is quite revealing. Here is the continuation of my response to this accusation of arrogance:

Claiming to know something the disciples did not know is not proof of arrogance. My statement was never intended to give that impression, and if you look closely at the gospel accounts you will see that yes, on several occasions the disciples exhibited not only a lack of knowledge in some areas, but wisdom as well. The disciples were common people (fishermen, tax collectors, etc.)—they were not from among the Pharisees, Sadducees, or lawyers. You and I are common people also, however, we live in a different age with access to a whole new set of resources to help us better understand the Scriptures. Not only that, but we now have available to us knowledge that they really could not have had at their disposal—and I am not talking just about our advanced technology. We have genealogical, archeological, and historical information which makes it possible to understand many of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation much better than they could have—simply because they did not have all the information available to them as we do today. It is not arrogance to say so, just a statement of fact.

But let's look at the testimony of Daniel the prophet, one who admitted that he did not even understand some of his own prophecies:

And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. (Daniel 12:8-10)

Will you [Larry] contradict the words of Daniel and the angel speaking to him? This plainly says that in the "time of the end" (which we are most certainly in now) "the wise shall understand"—even though Daniel admitted "I understood not." This text says that some (not all, and certainly not the wicked) will be able to understand his prophecies (such as the great image, the beasts, the 70 weeks, and the very difficult concluding chapters 11-12). Is it really, then, arrogance on my part to say that I understand the prophecy of Daniel 9?

I am not infallible, and I will admit my errors. I have had to make many corrections to my understanding of Scripture over the years, and expect that I will have to do so in the future as well. If anyone can show me errors in my current understanding, they are welcome to contact me and honestly, humbly, show me where I am wrong (however, please, without the ridicule and sarcasm freely exhibited by so many people, including the loyal opposition). If they can do this, I will make the necessary corrections--something that an arrogant person would never even consider. I do not claim to have "the final definitive truth!" While I do believe I have a solid understanding of many of the prophecies (including Daniel 9), I have never claimed to understand everything in Scripture. I am not a prophet, and have never claimed to be one--in spite of the opinions and doubts expressed by some. And, if I should ever seek to upgrade my status to that of a prophet (as he has sarcastically, and erroneously, stated that I have practically declared myself to be a prophet), I will surely let everyone know. Just remember, while it is true that "Knowledge puffeth up . . ." (1 Corinthians 8:1), the angel Gabriel also declares that the "wise shall understand" (Daniel 12:10). This clearly shows that they will have legitimate "knowledge" of the prophecies, yet they will not fall into the temptation of allowing that "knowledge" to create within them an intolerant, and arrogant, spirit.

Let me say just one more thing about this issue of "arrogance." Is it possible that arrogant people may go around accusing other people of being arrogant?

QUESTION: Is it possible that this intense debate . . . could cause others to become discouraged with your research?

ANSWER: Oh yes, that is certainly possible--and, in fact, I expect many "surface readers" will elect to use this as an excuse to ignore or downplay this very valuable information. However, dialogue such as this can only result in the "fine tuning" of my studies and the eventual expulsion of most errors. As I have said before, I do not claim to be perfect nor to have all the answers. I would have preferred that this dialogue was on a more friendly note, done in private, instead of openly and in an adversarial framework. Indeed, that is how it began initially, as a friendly discussion and private research. But, regardless of this, this will also work as it will assist others in their search for truth. And I must commend him on his attention to detail and sharp mind. Of course, it is of no benefit to answer every single accusation or personal insinuation--as such will only detract from the focus of this website. I prefer to answer the major issues/questions for now and leave other less important issues for another time--or sometimes give no response at all, for those areas which involve obvious personal attacks and appear to contribute little or nothing to our understanding of Scripture.

Below are my answers to questions regarding the issue of "Does the 9th of Av play a pivotal role in divine intervention?"

QUESTION: Does the 9th of Av really play a major role in history and Scripture, such that the Almighty tends to especially intervene in human affairs on that special date?

ANSWER: The 9th of Av is clearly a significant date in the history of both man and the ancient Jewish people. Essentially, what this amounts to is the fact that there is extensive evidence of prophetic signs even within the Hebrew Calendar. In Grant Jeffrey’s book, Armageddon--Appointment with Destiny, he gives eight examples of disastrous events taking place on a certain date of the Jewish calendar—the 9th of Av. This in itself constitutes an amazing sign (even without heavenly signs to accompany it):

1. Ten of the 12 spies returned with a bad report on the 9th of Av. (c. 1435 BCE).
2. Solomon’s temple was destroyed by the Babylonians on the 9th of Av (c. 587 BCE).
3. The second temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE on the 9th of Av.
4. In 71 CE the Roman army plowed the city of Jerusalem with salt on the 9th of Av.
5. Bar Kochba was killed and his army destroyed on the 9th of Av, in the year 135 CE.
6. In 1290 CE, England expelled all Jews from the country on the 9th of Av.
7. In 1492, Spain expelled all Jews from their country on the 9th of Av.
8. In 1914, on the 9th of Av., World War I was declared. In Eastern Russia, the Russian government began a campaign of severe persecution against the Jews at that time.

In addition to this, at a time well after researching and establishing the Jubilee Calendar and the dates that are associated with it, I discovered (to my amazement) that there was one more sign that was in alignment with the 9th of Av. It appears that the comet Shoemaker-Levy crashed into Jupiter between July 16 and July 24 of 1994. According to the current Jewish calendar, the 9th of Av for that year came on July 16.

However, this is not where the similarity ends. This is only the beginning. Please notice the number of "coincidences" which are associated with this last event as well as the date associated with it:

1. It came on a day of the Jewish calendar known for terrible events—the 9th of Av. The 9th of Av is most often associated with the judgments of Yahweh.
   
2. It came only about 50 days prior to the start of the next civil year (Tishri 1). That next year, according to the evidence presented in the Jubilee Calendar, is a year of Jubilee.
   
3. During that event (on July 18, 1994) a major bombing took place in Buenos Aires at the Jewish Community Center, killing 85 people. The next day a suicide bombing of a Panamanian commuter plane killed 12 Jews and 9 others. Seven days later a car bomb exploded in front of the Israeli Embassy in London.
   
4. Shoemaker-Levy began striking Jupiter exactly 49 years to the very day after the first testing of the atomic bomb on July 16, 1945, at the Trinity test site near Alamogordo, New Mexico. About two weeks later, the bomb was used in Japan, and the nuclear era had begun. Like 1994, 1945 is a 49th year in the Jubilee Calendar.
   
5. Based upon the various evidences presented both here in the Jubilee Code, and in the Jubilee Calendar itself, the year 1994 is very likely to be the year 5978 from Creation. When you add 21 years (each year represented by one of the strikes of Shoemaker-Levy) it takes you to the year 5999 on the calendar. Clearly, the 21 strikes of this comet were intended to convey the message that we have 21 years to repent and turn our hearts back to Yahweh prior to the final millenium.

For more detailed information on this and other related questions, please read this article: Comets and Eclipses: Signs of the End.

There is some question regarding when exactly the temple was destroyed--the first temple (in c. 587 BCE) and the second temple (in 70 CE). Scripture says that they were destroyed on the 10th of Av and Jewish tradition says it was the 9th of Av. when the fires began while the 10th was when the temple was finally destroyed. Here we will explore this question, as it not only has a bearing upon the significance of the 9th of Av., but may also be important in establishing Sabbatical and Jubilee years.

QUESTION: Serious doubts have been raised [by the loyal opposition] regarding the historical accuracy of the dates you give for Sabbatical years, and even the Sedar Olam text which it is based upon. For example, it has been pointed out that the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE would have taken place in a Sabbatical year (based upon Sedar Olam), not in a post-Sabbatical year (as you maintain). Do you have any information that will shed some light on this issue?

ANSWER: The Sedar Olam is an important, but certainly not infallible, witness concerning ancient chronology. It is also called by the title of "the Large Chronicle of the World," and it is an ancient Jewish Talmudic study of world chronology as seen through the eyes of the Jews. The key to determining when in the Sabbatical year cycles the second temple was destroyed is the Sedar Olam as it relates to the Jewish day of gloom (the 9th of Av). Historically, many terrible events are noted to have happened on that date in Jewish history--including the destruction of both the first and second temples. Here is another link regarding the 9th of Av. Since we can use moon calculation programs to determine exact dates in ancient history, it is possible for us to also determine the 9th of Av for certain historical dates. But before we look at that, please take note of this reference work which indicates the dating problems:

Not all scholars, however, accepted Zuckermann's dates. The most significant challenge has been from Ben Zion Wacholder, who placed the shemitah associated with Alexander one year later than did Zuckermann. For the time associated with the fall of the Second Temple, Zuckermann's calendar began a Sabbatical year in the fall (Tishri) of 68 CE, whereas Wacholder's calendar began it in the fall of 69. Since the destruction of the city and the Temple occurred in the summer of 70 CE, this would have been within the Sabbatical year by Wacholder's calendar of shemitot, but in a post-Sabbatical year by Zuckermann's calendar. Which of these two options does the SO support?

To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the relevant passage in SO [Seder Olam] 30 with some care. It will first be given in Guggenheimer's translation:

R. Yose says: A day of rewards attracts rewards and a day of guilt attracts guilt. You find it said that the destruction of the First Temple was at the end of Sabbath, at the end of a Sabbatical year, when the priests of the family of Yehoiariv was [sic] officiating, on the Ninth of Ab, and the same happened the second time.

Wacholder used the following translation of this same SO passage:

Rabbi Jose says: 'Favorable judgment forbode favorable days and guilty judgments guilty days. You find it said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that happened on a day after the Sabbath (Sunday), during a post-Sabbatical year, and during the Watch of Jehoiarib, and on the ninth of Ab; and so also when the Second (Temple was destroyed).'

The first translation says that the destructions were within a Sabbatical year and on a Sabbath day, whereas the second translation says they were in a year after a Sabbatical year and on the day after the Sabbath." (The Jewish Bible Quarterly, July-September 2006, "Seder Olam and the Sabbaticals Associated With the Two Destructions of Jerusalem.")

Now let me get to the point quickly so we can continue. This article (when read in full) takes the position that the destruction of the temple had to have happened in a Sabbatical year based upon the usage and meaning of the word motsae within the Sedar Olam, which is translated as either "after" or "at the end of." The author of that article favors the meaning of "at the end of." There is much disagreement by scholars as to the correct translations of that. But instead of arguing over linguistics here, I think it is best to simply bypass that issue for now and instead focus on the actual calendar dates used by Sedar Olam. Please remember, according to several reliable sources the actual destruction of the temple took place on the ninth of Av--so any verifiable calendar evidence will certainly override any linguistic uncertainties.

Please note that Sedar Olam clearly states the belief that the second temple was destroyed at the conclusion of 490 years, and that this is based on the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy: "The 420 years of the Second Temple are divided into the following periods: the domination of the Persians, 34 years; of the Greeks, 180 years; of the Maccabees, 103 years; of the Herods, 103 years. It will be seen that the allowance, contrary to historical facts, of only thirty-four years for the Persian domination is necessary if agreement with the Biblical text is to be insisted upon; for it is stated (Dan. ix. 24) that the second exile was to take place after seventy Sabbaths of years (= 490 years). If from this number the seventy years of the first Captivity be deducted, and the beginning of Alexander's domination over Palestine be placed, in accordance with Talmudical evidence, at 386 years before the destruction of the Second Temple, there remain only thirty-four for the Persian rule. From the destruction of the Second Temple, which, according to the "Seder 'Olam," occurred at the end of the last week of the Sabbatical year, to the suppression of Bar Kokba's revolt, or the destruction of Bethar, was a period of fifty-two years. . . ." (JewishEncylopedia.com, SEDER 'OLAM RABBAH, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=428&letter=S&search=Seder+Olam )

The chronology of Sedar Olam is not always accurate, for it leaves only 34 years for the rule of the Persians. However, this is believed by most scholars to be an attempt to make the prophecy of Daniel 9 somehow apply to Bar Kochba. It is very likely that the rest of the Sedar Olam dating of events is correct. With all of this in mind, take note of seven important points which will help us identify the exact date of the destruction of both Solomon's and Herod's Temple:

1. The author of Sedar Olam believed that the prophecy of Daniel 9 was based upon the Sabbatical years--which would make them continuous Sabbatical years (490 years is divisible by 49, not 50), with no allowance for an additional 50th year.
2. The author of Sedar Olam believed that both temples were destroyed on the 9th of Av in the Hebrew Calendar.
3. The author of Sedar Olam believed both temples were destroyed either on or after the Sabbath day, depending upon which translation you accept.
4. The author of Sedar Olam believed both temples were destroyed either on or after a Sabbatical year, depending upon which translation you accept.
5. Since we know the temple was destroyed in the year 70 CE, it is simply a matter of determining when the 9th of Av was in that year and also 490 years earlier. If we can discover the actual date, we can also discover the day of the week that it happened on.
6. If we can determine which day the 9th of Av that year was on (either a Sabbath or a Sunday), then we can also deduce how motsae was intended to be translated as it relates to the Sabbatical years.
7. Since the Sedar Olam also taught that the first temple was destroyed exactly 490 years prior to the destruction of the second (both on the 9th of Av), we also have a means of comparing the two dates (August 5, 70 CE and August 22, 421 BCE [i.e., the presumed (not actual) date of the first temple's destruction].

There is a website which gives lunar cycles that are very accurate going back even 2000 or 3000 years, and it is with this important information we will be able to determine when the 9th of Av was in both 70 CE and 490 years earlier, in 421 BCE. We will also be able to see what calendar day of the week that date falls on. Here is the lunar calendar for 70 CE (both July and August of that year), from the website of Paul Carlisle http://paulcarlisle.net/mooncalendar/ :

While it is true that the Jewish calendar eventually was based upon the calculations of Hillel (which is closer to a conjunction moon), this was not the case at the time the temple was destroyed, nor prior. Therefore, all new moon calculations are based upon an observable crescent. The date underlined in RED indicates the earliest possible sighting of a new moon. The numbers listed afterwards in BLUE indicate the actual Jewish calendar dates for the month of Av, 70 CE. Here now is the next Gregorian month, which will indicate both the 9th of Av and the date of the destruction of the temple (as indicated by the Sedar Olam):

Please note that the 9th of Av in 70 CE would have fallen on a Sunday, not on a Sabbath day.

Before going any further, let me say this regarding the difference between Gregorian and Julian dates: Even though a Julian date will be slightly different than a Gregorian date, the day of the week will remain the same. This discrepancy will sometimes show up as historians will state that the temple was either destroyed on the 5th of August, or the 10th of August 70 CE. This moon calendar program simply shows us the lunar cycles going back over 2000 years using the Gregorian calendar--it doesn't matter if our Gregorian date is one, two, or five days out of sync from the Julian date, for the lunar cycles and the days of the week do not change.

Based upon this very accurate moon calendar, the 9th of Av in 70 CE could not possibly be anytime earlier than Sunday, August 5 (Gregorian date). But the Sedar Olam indicates that 490 years prior to this date, the first temple was also believed to have been destroyed on the 9th of Av. Could that have (hypothetically) happened on a Sabbath day, or was it the day after the Sabbath? Here is the moon calendar for the year 421 BCE, the month of August, and the earliest possible sighting of the moon is underlined in RED:

Please note that the 9th of Av in 421 BCE [490 years before the destruction of the second temple] would have fallen on a Sunday, not on a Sabbath day.

Counting the days from the first possible sighting of the crescent moon until the 9th of Av, 421 BCE (which is 490 years prior to 70 CE) we find a strange coincidence--the 9th of Av falls on a Sunday, just as it did in 70 CE. Now we know (based upon confirmed historical records) that the first temple was actually destroyed in either 586 or 587 BCE. While the Talmud is not always a reliable source of historical information, it is likely that these are not coincidences, but instead show the actual calendar date for the destruction of these two temples did indeed take place on the 9th of Av. And since we know that the 9th of Av in both of these dates was most likely a Sunday, that would indicate the translation of Sedar Olam is more likely to be "after the Sabbath" instead of "at the end of the Sabbath."--for the astronomical observation shows it to actually be "after the Sabbath!"

If we use the calendar date of 586 as the year of the first temples' destruction, we will not have either a Sabbath or a Sunday for the 9th of Av--instead, it falls on Friday that year.

But please notice now how the 9th of Av appears for the year 587 (the second of two possible historical dates for the destruction of the first temple):

Once again, the 9th of Av in 587 BCE [one of the two most likely years that the first temple was destroyed] would have fallen on a Sunday, August 27, not on a Sabbath day.

Amazing! Coincidence? Probably not. But, how does this help us determine whether the second temple was destroyed the year after a Sabbatical year? Simply, the same Sedar Olam text which indicates both temples were destroyed the day after the Sabbath day, also tells us that they were destroyed the year after the Sabbatical year, using the same word in both of these statements: the word motsae! Since the Sedar Olam states these things happened on the 9th of Av, and that date could only have been from Saturday night to Sunday night, therefore the only other possible meaning for motsae would be "after the Sabbath"--for to translate it as "at the end of the Sabbath" results in the temple being destroyed on the 8th of Av, instead of the 9th of Av.

But remember, while the Sedar Olam chronology is not completely accurate (it looses 165 years from the Persian rule), and the destruction of the first temple could not have been on a Sabbatical year (because the number of years between these two events is actually different from that expressed in the Sedar Olam) it does line up in many other areas, such as both temples being destroyed on a day after the Sabbath, and both being destroyed on the 9th of Av. Regardless of the linguistic arguments surrounding an apparent discrepancy in the meaning of the word motsae, the second temple (based upon that same Sedar Olam text) could not have been destroyed in a Sabbatical year, anymore than it could have been destroyed on the Sabbath day--for the direct astronomical evidence shows that the day of the week it would have actually been destroyed on was a Sunday, the 9th of Av, and the day "after the Sabbath." That means also (according to that same text of Sedar Olam) the year it was destroyed would also have to be a post-sabbatical year.

CONCLUSION: Benedict Zuckerman (contrary to the opinions of others) was correct all along! The dating of a Sabbatical year by him from the fall of 68 to the fall of 69 CE is the correct date! In fact, the Jews today follow this same system to establish Sabbatical years in the land of Israel. "The last Shemittah year began on the Jewish New Year in September 2007. . ." (Wikipedia article on Shmita under Since the establishment of the state) Thus, the last Sabbatical year celebrated in Israel was from the fall of 2007 to the fall of 2008, and is in perfect alignment with a Sabbatical year from the fall of 68 to the fall of 69 CE. The Sedar Olam (in conjunction with the astronomical alignment of lunar cycles in antiquity) confirms that the second temple was destroyed in a post-Sabbatical year (70 CE) on the 9th of Av, which was the day following the Sabbath in that particular year.

QUESTION: There is a text in Jeremiah 52:12-13 that plainly states that the Babylonians, led by Nebuzar-adan, destroyed the first temple on the 10th day of Av, not the 9th of Av as you have asserted. As the loyal opposition has said, "For anyone to suggest that the Temple was destroyed a day earlier than the 10th is nothing short of a blatant disregard of the Scriptural account." What is your response?

ANSWER: That is not the only text which directs our attention to this issue. The other text which speaks about that event is found in 2 Kings 25:8-9. Here, let's quote them both:

Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem, And burned the house of Yahweh, and the king's house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, and all the houses of the great men, burned he with fire: (Jeremiah 52:12-13)

And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: And he burnt the house of Yahweh, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire. (2 Kings 25:8-9)

How do we reconcile these two apparently conflicting texts? The most logical answer is that the occupation itself began on the 7th day of the 5th month, and ended on the 10th day of the 5th month. Previously I had used the term siege to describe this event, however, this was an error on my part--my reference (which follows shortly) clearly shows my intention was to describe an occupation--not a siege. Furthermore, 2 Kings 25:1-3 shows that the actual siege had begun about a year and a half prior to this.

Regarding this issue, it would appear that the rabbinic answer to this apparent contradiction (in Judaism 101) is worthy of our highest consideration:.

"How then are these dates to be reconciled? On the seventh the heathens entered the Temple and ate therein and desecrated it throughout the seventh and eighth and towards dusk of the ninth they set fire to it and it continued to burn the whole of that day. ... How will the Rabbis then [explain the choice of the 9th as the date]? The beginning of any misfortune [when the fire was set] is of greater moment. -Talmud Ta'anit 29a [http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayd.htm]

So, if the temple was set ablaze toward the end of the 9th day, it could have continued on into the 10th day, and that date would then be listed as the date of the destruction. While there are those who may wish to assert that the temple could not have been destroyed on the 9th of Av (because of the text in Jeremiah 52). this would seem (based upon 2 Kings 25) to be a premature conclusion, since the text of 2 Kings indicates it took place on the 7th day of that month.

Now I would like to ask a question of my own: How is it that the previously cited author would state that my study regarding this was a "blatant disregard of the Scriptural account," while simultaneously ignoring the other parallel account in 2 Kings 25, which says it happened on the 7th day of the 5th month? Obviously, the author of that quote has failed in the very area in which he has accused me--a blatant disregard of both of these Scriptural accounts. His response is that he does "not believe . . . there was any need for [himself] to include the passage from II Kings." However, it is apparent that he failed to include the other text in his original analysis. But it is clear from reading these two texts that they are both direct parallel texts that directly address this issue! Therefore, the inclusion of both in this study is of vital importance. Regardless of which date we believe is of premier importance regarding the destruction of the first temple (the 7th or the 10th), these apparently conflicting texts naturally require us to reconcile them and not just assume that one or the other is the actual date that the destruction of the temple began.

CONCLUSION: It is entirely plausible that the actual burning of the temple began on the 9th of Av and concluded on the 10th of Av! This is the traditional Jewish understanding of that event, both from the Talmud and the Sedar Olam, and none of these Scriptural accounts can be used to prove otherwise.

QUESTION: Did the account of Josephus regarding the time of the destruction of the second temple really state that the temple was destroyed on the 10th of Av?

ANSWER: Josephus states that the temple was destroyed on the 10th of Av, just as the first temple had also been destroyed on the 10th of Av. However, upon carefully reading the account of Josephus, it appears that he could be understood as telling us the fire started on the 9th of Av. I have personally studied this statement of Josephus very carefully, and find that there is no clear indication that the fire which destroyed the temple started on the 10th of Av. It is clear that the report of Josephus leads us to understand that the destruction of the temple was completed on the 10th (just as the first time the temple was destroyed), but there is still room for doubt regarding when the fire actually began. The statement of Josephus clearly shows that the fire on the walls and parts of the city began on the 8th of Av., such that it is left up to the reader to determine if the temple itself was set ablaze by the 9th of Av, or the 10th of Av. His statement here from section 4 (regarding events from the 8th of Av) is of interest: "4. Now it is true that on this day the Jews were so weary, and under such consternation, that they refrained from any attacks. But on the next day they gathered their whole force together. . ." As stated by Josephus, the fighting had been going on exactly six days prior to this particular day (the 8th of Av.). Was it just because they were weary, or was that day a Sabbath day in which they were not so inclined to fight a battle? Please review the lunar calendar showing when the 9th of Av was in 70 CE (from the website of Paul Carlisle http://paulcarlisle.net/mooncalendar/) that demonstrates clearly that the 8th of Av in 70 CE was in-fact a Sabbath!

We know from the history of the Jewish people in the post-temple era that they very frequently refrained from doing battle on a Sabbath. If the argument is over when the temple was first put to the torch and whether the temple was destroyed on a Sabbath day, or directly after the Sabbath day, this reference might well prove to be very significant. Based upon a comparison between the statement of Josephus, the lunar calendar shown above, and the Sedar Olam account, we can ascertain that the final most significant battle most likely started on the 9th of Av (the day after the Sabbath) and was concluded on the 10th of Av. While some may be of the opinion that Josephus is saying the temple was set on fire on the 10th of Av, this is not as clear as it may appear. Let's lay out a simple timeline based upon Josephus' account:

"1. AND now two of the legions had completed their banks on the eighth day of the month Lous [Ab]. . ."

Here it states the 8th of Av is the date that two Roman legions completed their building project intended to storm the city of Jerusalem.

"2. In the mean time, there deserted to him Ananus, . . ."

In section 2 it is stated that it is still the 8th of Av. Continuing later in that same section it talks about the fire to the gates:

"... And now the soldiers had already put fire to the gates, and the silver that was over them quickly carried the flames to the wood that was within it, whence it spread itself all on the sudden, and caught hold on the cloisters. Upon the Jews seeing this fire all about them, their spirits sunk together with their bodies, and they were under such astonishment, that not one of them made any haste, either to defend himself or to quench the fire, but they stood as mute spectators of it only. However, they did not so grieve at the loss of what was now burning, as to grow wiser thereby for the time to come; but as though the holy house itself had been on fire already, they whetted their passions against the Romans. This fire prevailed during that day and the next also; for the soldiers were not able to burn all the cloisters that were round about together at one time, but only by pieces."

What day is this "next day?" It is most likely the 9th of Av because the bulk of the previous paragraph is in regard to the 8th of Av and the context strongly suggests that the "next day" in both sentences is referring to the same day--for the fire continued into the next day and Titus sought to quench the fire on that next day. Continuing...

"4. Now it is true that on this day the Jews were so weary, and under such consternation, that they refrained from any attacks. But on the next day they gathered their whole force together, and ran upon those that guarded the outward court of the temple very boldly, through the east gate, and this about the second hour of the day. . ."

What is "this day?" Is it still the 8th of Av or is it now the 9th of Av? It is very unlikely to be a reference to Av. 9, because we know that a similar refrain from battle is mentioned in section 1 regarding the 8th of Av. where it is said ". . .Upon the Jews seeing this fire all about them, their spirits sunk together with their bodies, and they were under such astonishment, that not one of them made any haste, either to defend himself or to quench the fire, but they stood as mute spectators of it only. . . " Therefore, "this day" is much more likely to still be the 8th of Av., as he had previously spoken of such a refrain from attack on the 8th of Av in section 1. And such a conclusion is logical because we know that the 8th of Av. in 70 CE was indeed a Sabbath day--a day in which faithful Jews would not be engaging in any pre-emptive battle (as this narrative plainly says they did not initiate any attacks on that day). If this is true, then the "next day," the day that they "gathered their whole force together" against the Romans, was on a Sunday, the 9th of Av. Now notice the rest:

"But as the Romans were going off, the Jews turned upon them, and fought them; and as those Romans came back upon them, they retreated again, until about the fifth hour of the day they were overborne, and shut themselves up in the inner [court of the] temple. . . ."

This takes place on the day after "this day" (the 8th of Av.), and so we can conclude that the Jews took refuge in the inner court of the temple (and later that day, the temple itself) on the 9th of Av. The "fifth hour of the day" is about 10 to 11 AM,, and it was still several hours before sundown on the 9th of Av. Continuing on it says this regarding the events which transpired that afternoon, after the fifth hour of the day (about 11 AM):

"5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. . ."

Please notice that it does not say Titus went to sleep in the night, but that he simply "retired." We can "retire" at any hour of the day without it having to be night. And it simply says he "resolved" to attack the temple the next day--not that he actually did it. Because of the fire that came soon after his "retiring," he was forced to change his plans somewhat. Remember, the day Titus retires into the tower of Antonia is still the 9th of Av. We know it is the 9th of Av because it plainly says that the 10th of Av is "the next day. . . that fatal day. . ." Now note what follows:

"... But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon. . ."

Please note Josephus is now merely reflecting upon the fact that both temples were destroyed on the same day, the 10th of Av., which he implies is that "next day" after Titus retired, the day he intended to storm the temple. But remember, this is simply telling us what day the temple was ultimately destroyed. As we are about to discover, Titus was forced to change his plans and attack sooner. Now let's read the rest:

"... although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus's retiring, . . ."

We previously identified the date that Titus "retired" as the 9th of Av, sometime after 11 AM in the morning. Please look carefully at those words--"upon Titus's retiring" and "So Titus retired." Are both of these statements talking about the same event? Yes, the context clearly shows that these are the same events. Since the time "Titus retired" is the same as the time "upon Titus's retiring," it is only natural that we should understand the date of these events to be the 9th of Av., and the statement in-between (referring to the 10th of Av.) would simply be a parenthetical statement. So now Josephus is about to tell us exactly what happened when Titus retired, on the 9th of Av:

". . .for upon Titus's retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; . . ."

How long after Titus retired did the "seditious lay still?" For a "little while." Does this mean it is still the same day? Yes, it is still the same day--the 9th of Av. So on what day was the inner court of the temple on fire? It was the 9th of Av. And yes, that fire was being quenched. And yes, Titus was "retiring"--but it was still before the "next day."

Here is the full statement up to this point:

"5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus's retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; . . ."

Look at the context very carefully please. The narrative goes from Titus retiring, to a reflection regarding the destruction of the temple on the 10th of Av [i.e.., the "next day"], and then goes back to the original timeline that says "upon Titus's retiring. . ." Clearly this indicates that the fire to the inner court began and was quenched on the 9th of Av., soon after Titus had retired. But what about the fire that started to burn the temple? Let's read the rest of Josephus' commentary regarding the events of the conclusion of that fateful day (the 9th of Av), and please remember that the context places the following events on the same day as the fire which was now in the process of being quenched a little earlier in the inner court of the temple:

". . . for upon Titus's retiring [my comments: soon after 11 AM on the 9th of Av., since it is the same time "Titus retired" on the afternoon of that day--the day before the 10th of Av.], the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time [my comments: "at which time" indicates that this happened very soon after they began to quench the first fire set in the inner court of the temple.] one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, [my comments: where did this soldier get the fire from? Obviously, it came from the fire that was in the process of being quenched, the only fire we are aware of that was in close proximity to the temple itself. But even if it came from another source (assuming the temple court fire was already fully quenched) the timeframe is clearly referencing the same approximate time--the afternoon of the 9th of Av.] and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. [my comments: this "holy house" is none other than the temple itself ] As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it."

The contextual evidence here appears to strongly indicate that the fire that burned the temple down was started in the afternoon of the 9th of Av. In fact, we know that the same fire in the inner court of the temple provided some of the material that was used to also burn the temple itself--"snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire." While I cannot say beyond all doubt that the testimony of Josephus proves the fire started on the 9th of Av., it would seem that there is sufficient doubt from his testimony to conclude that it could indeed have started on that date. The narrative we have just read very strongly suggests that it was indeed the 9th of Av when the fire began. Of course, by the 10th of Av. (as Josephus clearly states) the city and temple were completely destroyed, and thus it was on this date (the 10th of Av.) that the destruction of that magnificent city and temple was completed (just exactly as Josephus notes it had been done the first time by the Babylonians.). [See War of the Jews, Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 4, Sections 1-6]

QUESTION: Do you have any other evidence which shows the second temple was destroyed in a post-Sabbatical year?

Yes, and it was mentioned briefly under my point #10 of reasons why the Jubilee Cycle is 49 and not 50 year cycles. When we actually follow one of the main formulas from the Talmud used to determine Sabbatical years (as given near the end of my Jubilee Calendar, in the tab called Talmudic Sabbatical Yr. Formula), we find that it is in complete harmony with the Sabbatical years given in my Jubilee Calendar. In addition to showing that the Jubilee Cycles follow 7 and 49 year continuously repeating patterns, it also shows the temple was destroyed in a post-Sabbatical year, and it shows that the second year of the Seleucid Era (and every seventh year afterwards) was to be considered a Sabbatical year (which can be confirmed when looking at the bottom of Cycle 75 of my Jubilee Calendar). Here is the bulk of that explanation found in the Jubilee Calendar:

"He who would determine what relation a year holds to the Sabbatical cycle, should ask the public notary which year is current. Let him then deduct two from the existing date or add five unto it; let the hundreds be omitted and two be added to the remainder for each of the omitted hundreds. Let the result be divided by seven, and the remainder of this division will give the place of the year within the series of the Sabbatical cycle." (the Talmudic book Abodah Sarah, 9b)

In Tosafoth to the Abodah Sarah 9b, it plainly states that this rule applied to the Seleucid era. Since the Seleucid era begins on August 12 of 312 BCE (and since it is very closely aligned with the Jewish fall to fall year which starts in the first or second week of September) it is clear that the Seleucid era is that which is referred to. When the calculations are made (according to this Talmudic rule) the result is repeatedly the same—not only do Sabbatical years always line up as repeating cycles of seven years, but they do so in harmony with the Sabbatical dates which we have already determined to be correct (based upon historical confirmation). These dates are shown below, based upon the Seleucid era.

To demonstrate this fact, please note the formula below along with the entry form. This formula is based upon the formula given in the Talmud as previously noted. [In the Talmud and other ancient Jewish literature, the month to begin calculating Sabbatical years is Tishri, not Nisan. Therefore, while the Seleucid era could sometimes be dated from the Babylonian system (the spring), as it is in 1 Maccabees, since the Talmud specifically starts the Sabbatical years from the fall, we would have to use the fall to fall Seleucid era to calculate this formula] (See Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, by Roger T. Beckwith, p. 83.)] Enter any date of the Seluecid era in the box provided (according to the stipulation given above it), and it will give you the exact number of years after a Sabbatical Year it is.

[Note: This calculation matrix entry form is located in the actual Jubilee Calendar spreadsheet.]

This dating method uses the number 5 from the Talmudic formula, but the number -2 could have also been used with the same results to follow. For each 100 years added, 2 years are subtracted from the formula, 5 years added, and the remainder of that number divided by 7 is given. The preset dates given here show that the years 149, 177, 275, 380, and 450 (SE is of the Seleucid Era) are clearly Sabbatical Years, since they return the number 0. 381 SE is the year the second temple was destroyed, one year after a Sabbatical year. When the dates change the numbers can range anywhere from 0-6, representing the order in the Sabbatical cycle that the year in question represents.

Here is an updated chart of known Sabbatical years that shows how this Talmudic formula lines up with the Seleucid Era (Macedonian Court dating), the Sabbatical years, and the year the second temple was destroyed (clearly a post-Sabbatical year). It also includes information regarding the dates for Messiah Yahushua's ministry, as well as dates for the Bar Kochba revolt.

Below I have attempted to answer questions raised by the loyal opposition regarding the issue of "Am I engaged in something called "selective scholarship?" And let me add that while his responses have been mostly personal attacks, they have also (in some ways) been very helpful. It would appear that the more he attacks my position, the stronger my position becomes.

QUESTION: What is "selective scholarship?"

ANSWER: Selective scholarship (for purposes of this discussion) is simply ignoring evidence which could be detrimental to a certain case you are trying to make. One website, for example, refers to this term when speaking of those who uphold the belief in using only the King James Version of the Bible, where they tell us that one who practices selective scholarship "picks and chooses among the facts to decide which ones to present." When it comes to historical research, however, it is sometimes much more difficult to determine the truth of a certain matter because even the best sources of information can be flawed. That is why we should not believe only one view of a situation or event, because there are other views which may be in disagreement--and as we should know, they cannot all be right. When all is said and done, the honest researcher has to weight all the evidence available to him or her to make a decision regarding the validity of any argument. Even with all the care being exercised in such research, those who disagree with their conclusions may also seek to make the charge of "selective scholarship," when in fact such a charge may be unwarranted. Also, let's be honest with ourselves--we need to recognize that we are all (to some degree or another) biased with our opinions, and we could be wrong. I have been wrong about a lot of things throughout my life, and I am sure I will be wrong about something in the future. However, this is not (in itself) proof of selective scholarship on my part. In fact, it may be considered evidence of an unbiased researcher to be willing to admit of possible bias--but, again, it remains to be seen how much I allow bias to cloud my judgments, at least in regard to the issues at hand.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the Talmud, the Seder Olam, and/or the Book of Jubilees are inspired writings, with authority which is above that of Scripture? And have you engaged in something called "selective scholarship" in regards to the use of these writings, as claimed by the loyal opposition?

ANSWER: No, I believe that these writings are important but not inspired. For example, the Sedar Olam is one of the most important documents to evaluate when it comes to Biblical chronology--for it is the oldest complete chronological study of Scripture in existence. The really humorous part of this whole debate is that I am accused of exalting the Sedar Olam above Scripture because I refer to it often (the Loyal Opposition says: 'one-third of his "supportive evidence" consisted of either the Talmud or the Sedar Olam'), when in fact I and several others have pointed out that the Sedar Olam is a 'redacted' text which also received its chronology from an unknown original and altered it to make Bar Kochba fit the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 9. So, it is very important for us to study this while recognizing that it has subtracted over 160 years from the actual Bible chronology. Having said all of that, it could hardly be said that I have exalted this writing above Scripture.

These historical documents are important because they 1) Provide valuable historical information, and 2) Provide valuable cultural information regarding the Jewish people, which gives us background information regarding the life of the Jewish people in Bible times. Other writings which fall into this category would include the writings of Josephus and Philo, as well as the books of Enoch and 1 & 2 Maccabees. So, when studying Scripture in light of Jewish history and culture, (and when Scripture clearly and directly contradict something in these writings) we should accept the Scriptural account as of supreme importance above all others. Please note, however, that there are always possible conflicts in our interpretation of Scripture as well as passages from these key historical/cultural writings. And please note also that historical documents (such as the book of Enoch, the writings of Josephus, etc.) have their own particular biases and potential errors--so we must examine many historical documents before coming to final conclusions, especially in regard to Bible chronology and calendar issues.

Regarding the issue of "selective scholarship," such a charge is easy to throw around, but difficult to prove. If we were honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that we have all (at one time or another) engaged in some type of "selective scholarship," for we all tend to study an issue based upon our own perspectives and preconceived ideas, focus on what we want to see, and filter out the rest. Such is human nature--but we should try to avoid doing this. For example, it has been stated that I have not fully considered the testimony of Josephus regarding the events surrounding the destruction of the second temple (and Jerusalem). However, I have studied this statement carefully, and find no clear indication that the fire which destroyed the temple started on the 10th of Av. It is clear that the report of Josephus leads us to understand that the destruction of the temple was completed on the 10th (just as the first time the temple was destroyed), but there is still room for doubt regarding when the fire actually began. Go to the tab above labeled "Does the 9th of Av fit with the fulfillment of last day events?" for a more detailed explanation of that issue.

QUESTION: Am I really engaged in something called "selective scholarship," as [the loyal opposition] has claimed?

ANSWER: This is a very critical accusation. My answer, of course, is no. However, such an answer does not (in and of itself) prove anything. While it is not my objective to spend a lot of time defending my research methods, I would like to point out that one of the hallmarks of those engaged in "selective scholarship" is that they ignore all the evidence which does not support their view, while upholding evidence which does support their view. I could, in light of that definition, throw it right back at him--and, indeed, there is evidence to support that (such as the outright rejection of any evidence coming from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which he calls such presentation of evidence by myself as "data dumping").

While I believe we should consider all the possible evidence regarding the issues we are studying, in practical terms none of us will ever exhaust the research necessary to do that completely. We can attempt to look at all the evidence, but in reality no one ever looks at all the evidence--because no one is omniscient. And none of us can claim to be completely without bias. We simply do the best we can, and continue to update, revise, and sometimes even reverse our position based upon our research as more information becomes available. But since this accusation is pointed at myself, let's take a closer look at the writings which are used to help us better understand Scripture.

The Talmud

The Talmud is an important historical document (compiled from the second to the fifth century CE) to use in the study of Scripture, for it gives us the opinions of ancient Jewish sages and give us a good idea of the Jewish culture of the post temple era. Some of those opinions are found to be worthy of our attention, and others not so worthy. It even gives support for belief in Messiah, for it appears to historically validate his first coming (or, rather, the fact that the Messiah was supposed to come within a certain timeframe, but supposedly did not come), while condemning Yeshua as an evil-doer. It is not to be considered inspired or infallible.

The Sedar Olam

The Sedar Olam (Seder Olam Rabbah, Wikipedia) was put into writing about 160 CE and is one of the most important documents to evaluate when it comes to Biblical chronology--for it is the oldest complete chronological study of Scripture in existence. The really humorous part of this question regarding selective scholarship is that I am accused of exalting the Sedar Olam above Scripture because I refer to it often, when in fact I and others have pointed out that the Sedar Olam is a 'redacted' text which also received its chronology from an unknown original and altered it to make Bar Kochba fit the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 9. So, while it is very important for us to study to help us understand chronology, we also recognize that it has subtracted over 160 years from the actual Bible chronology. Having said all of that, it could hardly be said that I have exalted this writing above Scripture. Like the Talmud, it also should not be considered inspired or infallible.

The Book of Jubilees

The Book of Jubilees was written in the second century BCE. It is a proto-Essene text which was written prior to the time of the division between the various sects, such as Sadduces, Pharisees, Essenes, etc. "It was well known to Early Christian writers in the East and the West, as well as by the Rabbis." (Book of Jubilees, Wikipedia) It is not inspired, it is not infallible, and it contains its own share of errors. (See Is the Book of Jubilees Inspired?) It is (along with other ancient Dead Sea Scroll documents, such as the Melchezedek Scroll) useful in helping to determine the typical understanding of the Jubilee cycles, as it supports 49 year cycles. However, it also supports the idea of a 364 day year (which is a strictly solar calendar; interesting, but not by itself Scriptural. The Scriptural calendar is lunar-solar), and it's history and chronology contains several well known errors. (See A Brief Survey of the Book of Jubilees, by Robert C. Newman, for more information on the Book of Jubilees.)

The Book of Enoch

"The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch[1]) is a pseudepigraphic work ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared (Genesis 5:18). While this book today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches, it was explicitly quoted[2]:8 in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical. . . .It is argued that all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in thought and diction.[5]" (The Book of Enoch, Wikipedia) Like the other writings listed above, I do not believe that the book of Enoch is inspired or infallible.

First and Second Book of Maccabees

"The first book of Maccabees is a book written by a Jewish author after the restoration of an independent Jewish kingdom, probably about 100 BC. It is included in all Christian Bibles ("canons") except most Protestant ones. Jews and most Protestants regard it as generally reliable historically, but not a part of Scripture." (1 Maccabees, Wikipedia)

"2 Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book of the Bible which focuses on the Jews' revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes and concludes with the defeat of the Syrian general Nicanor in 161 BC by Judas Maccabeus, the hero of the work. 2 Maccabees was written in Koine Greek, probably in Alexandria[1], Egypt, c 124 BC.[2] It presents a revised version of the historical events recounted in the first seven chapters of 1 Maccabees, adding material from the Pharisaic tradition, including prayer for the dead and a resurrection on Judgment Day.[2] Catholics and Orthodox consider the work to be canonical and part of the Bible. Protestants and Jews reject most of the doctrinal innovations present in the work." (2 Maccabees, Wikipedia)

Philo

Philo is a Hellenistic Jewish writer and philosopher from Alexandria Egypt who gives frequent commentary on the books of Torah. "Philo used allegory to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His work was not widely accepted." (Philo, Wikipedia) He lived in the time of Yahushua. His commentary has great historical value. But, I will repeat again for clarification--he is not inspired, and he is not infallible.

Josephus

Josephus "was a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism." (Josephus, Wikipedia) He is a well known Jewish writer who was captured by the Romans and later released to serve as historian of the Roman-Jewish war about a generation after Messiah came. His historical statements are considered generally reliable. Again, while he is a Jewish historian he is also connected with the Romans, as he even became a Roman Citizen--so his viewpoint may tend to favor the Romans above the Jews in certain matters. He is not inspired, and he is not infallible. He is a generally reliable historian of the first century CE.

Please understand this is not an exhaustive list of authors and their works. However, before continuing I am certain that there is even disagreement regarding these brief biographies concerning who is more or less reliable in religious or historical matters. While this is true, and we may disagree on how much "weight" of authority each of these should have, let us focus on the basic fundamental point that I am attempting to make here--none of these are inspired and none of them are infallible.

Answering the Charges

Let's start with the book of Jubilees. I have stated that this book offers proof that the Jubilee cycles were understood by most Jews of the temple and post temple era as being 49 year cycles, not 50 year cycles. Since the book of Jubilees is such a well known book, written prior to the time of the division of the various sects of Judaism (proto-Essene), we have reason to think that his understanding of the cycles is probably accurate. However, the unusual calendar which he introduces (364 days per year) marks his work as being based upon the book of Enoch--a book which the loyal opposition has curiously left out of his list of books to consider, which leads me to wonder. . . ? Well, anyway, the fact that the chronology of the book of Jubilees differs from that of my chronology is not a valid point, since there is no single chronology of Scripture (that I am aware of) which is in total agreement on every point. My chronology stands or falls based upon its own merit, and should be studied as such (not compared to either the book of Jubilees, the Sedar Olam, the Septuagint, or James Ussher). When you compare the chronologies in each of these works you will find that they all have differences, sometimes significant differences, and yet I am certain the loyal opposition will not (for instance) accuse the translators of the Septuagint of "selective scholarship"--even though the chronology of Genesis it contains adds several hundred years to the chronology found in the Masoretic Text. [Many scholars have reason to believe that the Masoretic text provides the most accurate chronology, for reasons we will not explore at this time.] And since I never claimed the book of Jubilees was inspired or inerrant, such an accusation as selective scholarship for that work is really not a valid charge.

Let's talk now about Philo. Philo says this regarding the command regarding the Jubilees: "(114) Therefore, the law invites the man who is able to recover his original property within the period of fifty years, or any one of his nearest relations, to use every exertion to repay the price which he received, and not to be the cause of loss to the man who purchased it, and who served him at a time when he was in need of assistance." (Philo, The Special Laws, II, Chapter 22, Section 114) Because I said so very little about Philo's statement, this supposedly makes me guilty of selective scholarship. However, such an accusation as this proves nothing here--for Philo is certainly granted his opinion in his commentary, just as he is granted to have many other opinions--some of which I agree with and others which I disagree with. Just remember, when we are examining the works of historians we are not pitting one historian against another (unless there is a very good reason). We are examining all of the available evidence and then rendering a decision based upon the weight of evidence. If Philo says the cycles are 50 years, but the book of Jubilees, the book of Enoch and Maccabees (both of which the loyal opposition conveniently left out of the list), the Melchezedek Scroll, the chronology of the Sedar Olam, and the chronology of Josephus point to or outright declare the use of continuous seven (or even 49) year cycles--then what do we do? Can we make Philo right and all the others wrong? Is it good scholarship to accept the words of Philo and reject all of these other testimonies? Let us not forget that Philo was a "Hellenistic Jewish writer and philosopher." Let us also not forget: Josephus is more of an historian, whereas Philo is more of a philosopher. His view of Scriptural matters may not necessarily be the correct view, and we would certainly like to have more confirmation from other sources when considering his views.

I have already mentioned in another place how the Sedar Olam used the prophecy of Daniel 9 (with its 490 year cycles) to establish jubilee cycles. While I mentioned the Josephus statement regarding "every seventh year," what I did not mention is the fact that Josephus gives various dates upon which the Jews celebrated Sabbatical years. When those dates are determined and plotted on a timeline, they very clearly show continuously repeating seven year cycles over a period of about two centuries!! Obviously, if the Jubilee cycles were 50 years in duration, such a discrepancy would be clearly seen over a period of several centuries. [This does not include the additional evidence that can be found in the books of Maccabees, the Sedar Olam, and the Talmud] In addition, when properly understood, they agree completely with the Sabbatical years given in the Jubilee Calendar.

Josephus Confirms Repeating 7 Year Cycles with his Own Recorded Chronology

Well, what about Josephus? First, it has been said that my interpretation of Josephus' account of the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE is flawed. However, I disagree. While Josephus mentions the date of the 10th of Av for the destruction of the first and second temples--the context clearly suggests that the fire started on the 9th of Av (at least for that second temple). But let's save some time, you can review this in the tab above called "Does the 9th of Av fit with the fulfillment of last day events?". What about the rest of Josephus' testimony? Does Josephus tell us that the sabbatical cycles are continuous--to be repeated "every seventh year?" Yes, he does--and he does it twice.

So, let us consider more of what Josephus has to say about the Sabbatical years--a subject that is paramount to this research. Josephus has much more information to share with us that many may not be aware of. He tells us something regarding another prior siege in Israel:

And as the siege was drawn out into length by this means, that year on which the Jews used to rest came on; for the Jews observe this rest every seventh year, as they do every seventh day; (Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, Book 13, Chapter 8, Section 1)

And as the siege was delayed by this means, the year of rest came on, upon which the Jews rest every seventh year as they do on every seventh day. (Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 4)

While the testimony of Josephus concerning exactly which day the fire began to engulf the temple is clearly in doubt (as I have more fully demonstrated in my answers regarding the 9th of Av), there can be no doubt regarding these two statements. Josephus is plainly telling us that the Sabbatical years were celebrated in unbroken sequence every seventh year, just as the seventh day Sabbath was observed in unbroken sequence every seventh day. Does this line up with what Scripture says?

And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, When all Israel is come to appear before Yahweh thy Elohim in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. (Deuteronomy 31:10-11)

At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. (Deuteronomy 15:1)

What does "every seven years" mean? Does it mean an unbroken sequence of seven year cycles? Or does it allow for an additional year after 49 of those years expire? Philo also said the sabbaticals came every seven years, but not as emphatically as Josephus--and the testimony of Philo I have already quoted above seems to indicate his agreement with fifty year cycles. Josephus here tells us the same thing as Philo regarding the seven year cycles--only much more emphatically ("every seventh year, as they do every seventh day"), so all we need is evidence that Josephus spoke of Sabbatical years covering several centuries, plot their dates accurately, and line them all up in sequence. If they truly are consecutive unbroken cycles of seven years each, we will surely know.

Josephus gives several references to Sabbatical years. In some of those references, we have enough historical and chronological information to determine when exactly each of those years were. Since this section contains so many large charts showing the dates in question, it would be better to put it in a separate webpage. The link to that page can be found here: Josephus Confirms Repeating Seven Year Cycles

Josephus gives several references to Sabbatical years. In some of those references, we have enough historical and chronological information to determine when exactly each of those years were. Since this section contains so many large charts showing the dates in question, it would be better to put it in a separate webpage. The link to that page can be found here: Josephus Confirms Repeating Seven Year Cycles

As a followup to this Answers to Objections section, I have included a chart along with historical evidence which gives evidence indicating the way the Jews kept Sabbatical years prior to the first century CE. By adding this chart to the Josephus Chronology chart, it appears to add much additional weight in support of continously repeating seven and forty nine year cycles. Chart of Known Sabbatical Years from 312 BCE to 139 CE. This chart is based upon known Sabbatical years given to us primarily from the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as the writings of Josephus and a special Sabbatical year formula listed in the Talmud.

QUESTION: Do you "conjure up conspiracy teachings" as suggested by someone else in the Torah movement?

ANSWER: No, I don't have to "conjure up" any conspiracy teachings, for there really is a conspiracy, and the Bible clearly teaches that there is a conspiracy! In fact, it teaches that there is a "great conspiracy" or a "great controversy" between the forces of evil and the forces of good! The problem lies in our ability to recognize it and see the distinction between "the good" and "the evil." Here are some examples of Bible texts which speak of a "conspiracy":

Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. (Exodus 1:8-22)

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?" (Isaiah 14:12-17)

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12)

Let's put aside our differences regarding the interpretation of these texts, and focus on the point at hand. Is this talking about a "conspiracy" or not? If the Bible itself teaches that there has been and will continue to be a "conspiracy" from the evil workings of Satan, who are we to speak out against this plain and clear fact?

But some will argue that my views of the conspiracy are wrong and not based upon sound evidence. Well, that is their right--but I believe that I have (to the best of my knowledge) backed up my beliefs with solid evidence. Please do not allow this continual bantering over "conspiracy theorists" change your focus from the clear reality--there really is a conspiracy, and it is hiding in plain sight! The media, who have been brainwashing the people for over 100 years by laughing at and poking fun at the mere idea of a "global conspiracy" are themselves bought and paid for by the multinational corporations (the "merchants of the earth," see Revelation 18) Now ask yourself the question: If there really isn't a conspiracy, then why do they spend so much time and effort trying to discredit "conspiracy theorists?" In psychology, that is called "projection!" It means that they are guilty of that which they seek to accuse others of.

There are many out there who are preaching this idea that "conspiracy teachings" are wrong, and that this deflects our attention from the really important issues. I can only say "Duh!" Messiah said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) How can we be truly free if we are ignorant of what is really happening in the world around us? I am not saying we need to focus on the "conspiracy" to the point of becoming blithering idiots, pulling our hair out, wearing tin-foil hats, dancing in the streets screaming "the sky is falling," and dashing from house to house with all the latest "conspiracy" rumors. Learning to love Torah and live by Torah (both the spirit and letter) is the central theme of Scripture and of the Messiah's message. But sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that these other things are not really happening does not make one wise unto salvation, does it? If ignorance is really bliss, then let's all just drink the "kool-aid" and be done with it!

The Messiah spoke more pointedly to this issue when the chief leaders of Israel came tempting him:

"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed." (Matthew 16:1=4)

Please notice Messiah did not say it was wrong to discern the face of the sky, but that they had failed to discern the really important issues, the "signs of the times." If people have been deceived by Hollywood, by their government leaders, by the educational system, by medical authorities, by the multinational corporations (i.e., "merchants of the earth"-- Revelation 18), and by their religious leaders, should we simply ignore these issues? These are also "signs of the times" and we need not "conjure up conspiracy teachings" about these issues, for this is really happening! There really is a "New World Order" that the Elite rulers of this earth are attempting to set up, and it is not a "benevolent" form of government, but instead it is absolute tyranny. And yes, it is not (as some suppose) a "Jewish Conspiracy," but in fact it is an "occult" or "satanic conspiracy!" And there really is a plan by the UN (fully documented here on this website and elsewhere) to kill over 80% of the world's population soon. And yes, there are those who latch on to every concievable conspiracy who will "muddy the waters" with false signs, belief in lizard people, new age movement, etc., but the big problem with most people today is that they simply refuse to acknowledge that there really is a "conspiracy" to deceive and destroy them! A classic example is the widespread denial of "chemtrails," and how the "HAARP" program is actually really being used to manipulate those "chemtrails" to create changes in the weather, and even earthquakes! All of this is not some "myth" created in the minds of raving lunatics. These things are real, and can be fully documented. Regarding the chemtrails, just look up in the sky and much of the time you can see them, if you have "eyes to see and ears to hear." Of course, if you still have your head in the sand I suppose you never will see them. Just remember, Messiah did not say it was wrong to "discern the face of the sky," only that there was more that we needed to discern besides the more blatant and obvious. We need to have a "love of the truth," and that includes ALL of the truth, whether it be the truth about the occultist leaders of our nations, the truth about Agenda 21 and the UN plan to kill over 80% of the world's population, or the truth about the need for us as servants of Yahweh to live fully by Torah! Now, read this last text below and tell me if this is not about some great "conspiracy!"

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Revelation 12:7-9)

QUESTION: You claim that there are multiple signs of the end all around us. Can you show us some of those signs?

ANSWER: Sure can. Just go here and read this article: Comets and Eclipses: Signs of the End.

QUESTION: What can we expect over the next few years?

ANSWER: It is difficult to make specific predictions of end-time events, and even more difficult to give an exact time or date. However, based upon my current understanding of Scripture and the political and economic events unfolding before us even now, I can give some general observations. Food will become scarce, and when it is available it will be very expensive. The dollar will loose its value very quickly, as it even now shows signs of weakness. The job market is going to become much more difficult to break into. There will be fewer jobs, and the wages will be even further behind the cost of living curve. The stock market will get worse, not better, in the long run. Travel will become more and more difficult, and the weather will continue to become more and more severe as we battle Tsunamis, Hurricanes, Floods, Tornados, Earthquakes, Very Dangerous Meteor showers, Fires and Droughts--which will likely lead to even more destabilizing of our economy. That is why Yahweh is allowing these natural disasters to increase in intensity--He is actually trying to wake us up and save us from our own self inflicted destruction. And please understand that much of what we are now seeing in regards to the weather and earthquakes is actually man-made through the HAARP program. So the most important thing we need to consider (even above and beyond these so-called "natural" disasters) is the fact that our occult leaders (many of whom are part of secret societies, such as the Illuminati) are even now implementing their diabolical plans to unite the world into a One World Government, called the New World Order. We already see this plan unfolding with the erosion of constitutional freedoms prior to and especially following 9/11 (with the introduction of the deceptively named "Patriot Act"), such as the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, and our right to habeas corpus (which prevents unlawful detention without being presented with formal criminal charges). When the next so-called "Terrorist Attack," "natural" disaster, or other form of national crisis takes place, we WILL see martial law being declared and all the freedoms we have taken for granted taken away from us. In fact, when this happens most of the people will become so decieved that they will actually BEG for the government to come and save them with their Totalitarian regime, because they have been conditioned to think in these terms for years through the Media and the public school system. This diabolical plan will lead the whole world to unite in rebellion against the Creator of heaven and earth, as we will be asked to choose between serving Almighty Yahweh or serving the supposed Almighty State. Yes, there will be another war break out in the Middle East, which will most definitely qualify as that WWIII everyone is wondering about. Once we get to that point, the final judgment of Yahweh is not very far away.

QUESTION: Who are you?

ANSWER: I am a son of Adam, just as you are, searching for my purpose in life. In addition, I am married with two children. I am a student of the Bible, and have been since a child (over 35 years). I live in the Dallas / Fort Worth area, and do various kinds of work, including Quality Assurance, Office Automation, Web Design, and Transportation. I have a strong interest in prophecy, especially Daniel and Revelation. However, I also study other parts of Scripture. I have written extensively on several Bible topics, and hope to publish more of my books and articles soon. [My extended testimony can be found at this website: http://www.byt-yhwh.org/wglennmoore.html]

My views have changed over the years, and I believe for the better. While I believe strongly in the teachings found on this website, I am also magnanimous enough to allow others to openly criticize this work--even to the point of allowing them to slander me as I respond to their lies and half truths. If this is true, I could not possibly qualify as a "spin-doctor," as my most vocal opponent has accused me of being. [I tried to be a salesman once, but I just couldn't do it--it is very difficult for me to "sell" anything unless I fully believe in what I am selling, and have put it to a thorough testing!!] There are no movie deals in the works, no large donations, and the books I am currently hoping to publish are not even out yet. I am not affiliated with any organized religion or sect, and while I believe in the Messiah that I so fondly write about--I do not claim to be either Christian or Jew. But I will say this much: I believe it is important for those of us who know their true heritage to return quickly to their Hebrew roots, by obedience to Torah through the faith of Messiah, for the Messiah we may soon meet will most definitely be the Jewish Messiah. It might be best not to invite him over for "pork and beans." J