QUESTION:  Recently, [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: