[John-Paul II died exactly 42-months after 9/11/01]

Exactly? How do you calculate months? He died on April 2, 2005. This was 1299 days after 9/11/2001. Is a month 30 days? 31 days? 364.24/12 = 30.43666667 days?

1299/30 = 43.3 months
1299/31 = 41.90322581 months
1299/30.43666667 = 42.67878655 months.

Which one is "exact"?

You asked a great question.

But a better question is how does the Bible calculate the 42-months?



On the Gregorian calender there are 42-full months from 9/11/01 to 2 April 2005
Oct, Nov, Dec =3
2002 = 12
2003 = 12
2004 = 12
Jan, Feb, Mar =3 (42-months)

Just from counting the full months on the Gregorian calendar there are 42-months from 9/11/01 to 4/2/05



From the perspective of 1260-days.
Pope John-Paul II had 1260-days from 9/11/01 to 2/22/05 at which time he began the dying process in the hospital where he neither headed church or state.



In the phrase forty and two months in Rev 13:5
forty is 40 every time it occurs in the Bible
But not so with two that is both, twain, etc.

In Luke 10:1 the word two in Rev 13:5 is translated "two and two"
When Scripture is compared with Scripture the translation "two and two" of Luke 10:1 fits Rev 13:5 perfectly on the Hebrew calendar.

The Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar.
A year of the Hebrew calendar looses time compared to the solar calendar.
So periodically they add a 13th month (Adar II).
From 9/11/01 to 4/2/05 there were exactly 42 plus 2 (Adar II added exactly twice).
From 9/11/01 to 4/2/05, John-Paul II died 42 plus 2 months to the VERY DAY on the Hebrew calendar.

It took years of prayerful study to understand this.

Uhhh.... no.

I thought that was of the verses under question. Is that how you think Bible study is done is to use the verse under question to prove itself?

Maybe he subscribes to MM's fuzzy math: It's kinda close.

Lu 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

What does <ana> mean?
As in <ana> <duo>

<ana> is not in Rev 13.5

So, if your years of study is based upon Luke 10:1, you might need to reconsider the conclusion.

You almost make a good point.







It is likely that during my initial study, I did not understand the ana in Luke 10:1. Was that my ignorance or God keeping my eyes from seeing something? My dyslexia kicks in at the most inopportune times. I depend on the concordance and I have tried to study with others to avoid making errors. But after seeing the 42+2 and having it fit the current events to the very day, I don't have a problem with it. "we understand in part..."

So after looking at the 2 texts in question and consulting Strong's is your conclusion that "40 and duo" cannot or can never be read 40 2+2 in any situation without ana?

If that is your conclusion, then in spite of the evidence that Pope John-Paul II died (forty duo or 40 both or 40 the twain) 40 2 + 2 months to the very day from 9/11/01 to 4/2/05 on the Hebrew calendar, you still have 42-full months that are Present Truth. If you don't believe any of it, how will you be able to understand the endtime application of Daniel 12:11 or receive the blessing of Daniel 12:12?

But if in your judgment, the Lord did not intend that rendition (that fits the prophecy exactly), counting the 42 full months between 9/11/01 to 4/2/05 is sufficient to fulfill the prophecy.

The 42-month prophecy has been explained from 3 different positions: 1260-days, 42 literal months, and 42+2 months. Any one of those 3 methods standing alone is sufficient to declare 9/11/01 to 4/2/05 as prophecy fulfilled:

Thus Pope John-Paul II received a deadly wound
His deadly wound was healed (he survived)
The world wondered after him
Satan gave him his power, seat and authority
The world worshiped Satan through John-Paul II's papacy
Who could make war with John-Paul II? Communism fell at his bidding
John-Paul II spoke blasphemies changing Sabbath to Sunday
And John-Paul II died 42 months after 9/11/01

If the verse under question explains itself, why look somewhere else for its meaning?

We already looked at 4 verses like
10 horns are 10 kings.
first horn is first king, etc.

What else are you looking for?

From the perspective of 1260-days. 
Pope John-Paul II had 1260-days from 9/11/01 to 2/22/05 at which time he began the dying process in the hospital where he neither headed church or state.

A bit arbitrary in time selection is seems.

The Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar.
A year of the Hebrew calendar looses time compared to the solar calendar.
So periodically they add a 13th month (Adar II).
From 9/11/01 to 4/2/05 there were exactly 42 plus 2 (Adar II added exactly twice). 
From 9/11/01 to 4/2/05, John-Paul II died 42 plus 2 months to the VERY DAY on the Hebrew calendar.

42 months plus 2 MONTHS - is 44 months, not 42, and that by the Hebrew calendar. You are mixing years and months. There are 44 months/ new moons between, 9/11/2001 and 4/2/2005. And 9/11 is a bit arbitrary for a starting date! And 1260 days and 42+2 does not equate. Are we to manipulate the data until we get what WE want???

I would tend to conclude that. You could disprove it by showing somewhere where it means otherwise.

That is, without using itself to prove itself.

I don't know, using fuzzy math, shifting and sliding from one system to another, tweaking things here and there, reinterpreting what Daniel says what the heads are, I think not much of your specific pope hypothesis. How will you understand and receive the blessing of Daniel if you don't believe what I say it means?

I was hoping for something other than: I believe the verse explains itself based upon how I believe it explains itself, I need not compare scripture with scripture, I need not consider other's input, and therefore because I think it means it, it proves it means it.

When the Scripture in question is clear, it is self-explanatory.

When a thus saith the Lord is clear and man's interpretation has been added to it, the text becomes unclear.

When the rubbish that has been added is stripped away, the verse in its purity shines forth.

Didn't Jesus teach that way? He did not ask what do folks say about this or that, but "how readest thou?"

It is time to go back to the Scripture (the verse in question) and see what it says.

Revelation 13:1 clearly says a head was wounded.
The Spirit of prophecy clarifies it when EGW says that Pope Pius VI was the head that was wounded.
"And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens." (Exodus 18:25)

The evidence is there. It is clear. It only takes faith to believe a thus saith the Lord!

But Bible study has brought out other aspects of the Scripture in question, and those who see the secondary meaning of the Scripture (that is correct) use it to explain away the primary meaning. Thus by misreading, misapplying and changing the context (taking Present Truth from the past and ridgedly applying it to the present) they become confused about the meaning of Scripture.

It is nothing new. God gave circumcision to Abraham as a perpetual ordinance. Paul taught that Christ fulfilled the law and circumcision was not required after Calvary. And there was no little disagreement over who was reading the Scriptures correctly. Both groups had Scriptures and claimed that their position was truth.

This was given for our example as we near the end of the age.

It is written Not by might or by power saith the Lord, but by My Spirit.