Juarez is consistent in his method then to use the solar year. But neither of you are fully consistent. It doesn't matter what day the Karaites calendar says the Day of Atonement is in 1844 if you're using the solar year and calculating it from the crucifixion. Why are you at pains to say what the Karaites did in 1844 if it is wrong to use their calendar?

You hedge your bets because you're not comfortable claiming you've calculated a date on a lunar calendar using the sun alone.

Regarding the Feast of Tabernacles, are you sure it begins in Heaven? My reading of it is that there are two more fulfillments of it in the future, both on earth. Regarding the complete fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, this probably has two more fulfillments as well - one when the latter rain is poured out at the beginning of the first angel's message that the hour of judgment has come, and the final when the death decree is issued.

We are just defending the pioneers and the church against critics. Critics say we are wrong because we established the date for the termination of the 2300 days in 1844 according to the karaite calendar and, according to that calendar, the Day of Atonement in 1844 fell in September, not in October. This is wrong, because in 1844 the karaites celebrated the day of atonement in September because they were following the rabbinical calendar. Nobody can say that according to the karaite calendar the Day of Atonement in 1844 fell in September. September or October would depend on a Jerusalem crop report. However, based on accounts of that time, before the global warming, October is a much more probable date than September.
Besides, the karaite calendar is defended because the beginning date of the prophecy, and the date of the crucifixion Passover, were originally established by that calendar. According to the rabbinical calendar, a Friday crucifixion in AD 31 would never be possible.


We have absolutely no need to do that. I’ll quote from the book The Astronomy of the Bible, by E. W. Maunder (quoted in Juarez's book):

"But 2,300 solar years is an exact number, not only of lunations, but also of ‘anomalistic’ months. The ‘anomalistic month’ is the time occupied by the moon in traveling from its perigee, that is, its point of nearest approach to the earth, round to its perigee again. For the moon's orbit round the earth is not circular, but decidedly elliptical; the moon being 31,000 miles nearer to us at perigee than it is at apogee, its point of greatest distance. But it moves more rapidly when near perigee than when near apogee, so that its motion differs considerably from perfect uniformity.

"But the period in which the moon travels from her perigee round to perigee again is 27 days, 13 hours, 18 minutes, 37 seconds, and there are in 2300 solar years almost exactly 30,487 such periods or anomalistic months, which amount to 840,057 days, {less} 2 hours.

"If we take the mean of these three periods, that is to say 840,057 days, as being the cycle, it brings into harmony the day, the anomalistic month, the ordinary month, and the solar year. It is from this point of view the most perfect cycle known."

We have:

2,300 solar years---------840,057 days, 1 hour
28,447 lunar months-----840,056 days, 16 hours
difference-----------------9 hours

Therefore, 2,300 solar years are perfectly equivalent to 28,447 lunations, with a difference of just 9 hours. In this number of years, the solar and the lunar calendars are perfectly aligned. Besides, as far as I know, what we defend is that one day in prophecy is equivalent to on solar year, not to one lunar year. Therefore, the prophecy of the 2,300 days, to be correctly calculated, must be calculated in solar years.

Hmmm, you may have pointed that out before regarding the solar and lunar alignment of the 2,300 days, but that is quite remarkable. The chances of that happening by accident are slim. I wonder if that cycle might be a partial key in understanding the intercalation of the AB Calendar.

Anyway, I hear you saying that we agree on this: that the Karaite calendar was used by mistake by the Millerites to calculate the end date, right? But you think they were correct in using it to calculate the beginning.

Well, in fact they didn’t calculate the beginning by the Karaite calendar. They just used the year 457. As to the fixing of the year 31 for Christ’s crucifixion, it also came later. They used the Karaite calendar just to calculate the end date. In fact, I don’t think they were wrong in doing that; they used the only resource they had. Today the Karaite calendar wouldn’t be a reliable source owing to the global warming, but it’s probable that in 1844 it would indeed have given the correct date for the termination of the prophecy.
What I mean is that a month of April for the crucifixion Passover, and a month of October for the starting (and finishing) date would be possible in the Karaite calendar, but not in the rabbinical calendar; and that the Jews in Ezra's time and in Jesus' time were using the calendrical principles of what today is known as the Karaite calendar.

Besides 1844, there is one other important date three years after the cross, 34 AD, that confirms that there is a divine calendar that is not dependant on the Mosaic law.

This date is when the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 ended, Stephen was stoned and the Jew’s as a nation rejected the gospel. This date is fascinating because the 490 years are exactly 10 Jubilee cycles of 49 years each. This prophecy informs us when the year of Jubilee and the Sabbatical years are and that the stoning of Steven in 34 AD, three and a half years after the cross, was the beginning a jubilee year. (The sabbatical and jubilee years can be confirmed by historical sources as well. I’m reviewing this. I think it is Tertillian who informs us that 69 AD was a sabbatical year. And the Assyrian siege during Hezekiah’s reign appears to have been a sabbatical and possibly a Jubilee year according to scripture.)

It says in Daniel 9 that the 490 year period started with the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This is a fulfillment of the type. In ancient Israel, the Jubilee was to be proclaimed every 49 years so that people who had been dispossessed by their creditors would be forgiven their debts and return to their land. The Jubilee was fulfilled in antitype in 457 BC when the Jews were liberated and returned to their land.

The AB calendar is silent regarding the Jubilees just as it is silent regarding the Hebrew feasts. These came later and were added to it. The Jubilees and years of release are both linked to the Hebrew feasts as we can see from the above passage because they are anchored in the Day of Atonement, and therefore are calculated by the lunar part of the AB calendar.

I’m reviewing these aspects and the synchronization of the 2300 days. In thinking about them last night, it seems to me that since all calendars are based on observations of the heavenly bodies and that no-one can do it mathematically only (the three body problem has never been solved, let alone a seven or eight body problem) that it would probably be a mistake to use observations with the goal of obtaining exact precision and then abandon further observations. Genesis tells us that the heavenly bodies are to be observed because they are for signs and seasons. In other words, ongoing observation is a primary duty of any astronomer. We should continually observe the heavenly bodies like the magi. This means that scripturally, the intercalation method of the AB calendar is determined at the periods prescribed – the lunar every third, fifth and eight year and the solar every eight years. The calendar can be projected with great accuracy many years into the future, so that it could be used and benefit us today if it was adopted by the business community since it is much better organized. But each intercalation would be a genuine observation and the projected calendar would be adjusted where necessary to match the observed. This would almost never happen today because we have precise observation methods.

(I'm not advocating the AB calendar for use by business. I'm saying it is a much better organized calendar.)

The bible says that Sennacherib besieged Judah in the 14th year of Hezekiah. Edwin Theile, in his book, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings says this is 701 BC. Theile has ‘complete confidence’ that 701 BC is the year of the siege of Jerusalem because of the proof available from Assyrian and other ancient records. This harmonizes with the Juilees. 702 was a Jubilee year – see text below. If 457 BC is a Jubilee, 702 is as well. (702-457=245, 245 / 49 = 5. 457 is exactly 5 jubilees after Jerusalem was liberated from Assyria’s siege.

The book of 2 Chronicles ends with the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple and slaughter of the Jews. It makes the rather surprising observation that after Jerusalem’s destruction the land laid desolate for 70 years to fulfill all the sabbaticals that were not observed by the Jews.

There were three attacks on Jerusalem before it was destroyed, but all historians agree that the final devastation occurred in 586 BC and this is indeed the date that starts the period of 70 years in which the land rested to make up for the unobserved sabbaticals. (Note however that the period of 70 years desolation is said to end with the 1st return of the Jews under Cyrus so that the promise of returning in Jeremiah is calculated from 606, the first captivity rather than 586. In the preface to Ezra in my bible – Schofield notes – the commentator says that Cyrus overthrew Babylon in Oct 539 BC and that the invitation by Cyrus to the Jews to return to Israel was issued the following spring in 538. Construction of the temple began in 536. Jeremiah’s 70 years therefore should be marked from the first captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar in 606, rather than when it was completely overthrown in 586. There were three waves of deportation 606, 597, and 586; and three returns – 538, 457, and 444. 586-70=516 – not close, 597-70=527, also not very close. 606-70=536 – when the Jews first returned and construction began on the temple.)

We can quite easily calculate the number of years in which there are 70 sabbatical/jubilee years prior to 586 BC. In doing the calculation is should be noted that the Jubilee year is also a sabbatical so that in a 49 year period there are 8 sabbaticals.

It turns out that there are 70 Sabbaticals in 411 years when we count backwards from 586 BC.. In using 586 as the starting point I’ve taken into account that it is four years after the previous sabbatical (see the post above that establishes when the sabbatical years occurred) so that two years need to be added at the beginning to make a ‘debt’ of a full six year period that went unhonoured – for a total count of 413 years. That would mean that the period covered began in 999BC. (586+413=999.) The question is, when were the sabbaticals first disregarded. Probably starting about the 11th year of Solomon’s reign because David, as one who was close to God and studied the law carefully would have observed the Sabbaticals. Solomon on the other hand forgot God not long after the temple was dedicated and from that time on the Hebrew knowledge of the law diminished, with partial revivals at times, until the captivity.

It’s reasonable to suppose that for so long as the Solomon was humble and so long as the temple was under construction – until the 11th year of his reign – that Solomon and the nation did honour the sabbatical years. But not long after this, the Sabbaticals were apparently abandoned. This implies that 999 BC is close to the year that the temple was dedicated, and that from about this year the sabbaticals were no longer honoured. Since the Bible tells us that the temple was dedicated 487.5 years after the exodus, the unhoroured Sabbaticals help locate the approximate date of the dedication of the temple as being about 999 BC and the exodus as 999+487.5=1486. BC. 1486 is a Jubilee year, a year of liberty.

This year, 1486, is close to Ussher’s reckoning of 1491 BC as the year of the Exodus. Until the 1970’s most conservative Christian scholars followed Ussher’s reckoning within a few years. Modern scholars however place the Exodus at about 1446, forty five years more recent than Ussher’s reckoning and forty more than mine. The discrepancy is due to the conservative’s reliance on the Biblical record as more authoritative and the modern scholar’s reliance on Assyrian records as more authoritative. Those relying on the bible assert that there were periods during the kingdom when there was no king and these periods, when properly placed, harmonize the Biblical record. Both schools of thought agree that the siege of Jerusalem in Hezekiah’s 14th year occurred in 701 BC. The disputed period(s) lie between 960 and 701 BC.

It is somewhat surprising to see an Adventist scholar, Edwin Thiele, at the forefront leading the scholarly conservative community away from the principle of putting the Bible first. This is not to say that the Bible is free of all transcription error, but to say that if there is a clear conflict between secular and sacred records, the Biblical record always takes priority. At this point I don’t plan to spend more time studying Ussher’s chronology. I’m satisfied that he and other corroborating scholars are within a few years of the true dates prior to 701 BC, but the more persuasive evidence that the longer reckoning is correct is found in the Bible itself. The longer chronology of the kings is consistent with itself and also corroborated in the unhonoured sabbatical years. To recap: Adding 413 to 586 takes us to 999 BC, when Solomon and the Jews first neglected the Sabbaticals just after the temple was built. If that is the case, then the Exodus was about 1486 BC, a Jubilee year, and a date close to Ussher’s chronology and to the chronology of other conservative scholars.

I have great respect for Ussher’s work but it appears as though there may be one or two significant errors in Ussher’s chronology before the Exodus. I’ll mention only one here – that is, the age of Terrah when Abraham was born. David Clayton recently shared some of his work with me on OT chronology and he points out that Terrah was not 70 when Abraham was born, but was 130. The older age is based on Gen 11:32, 12:4 and Acts 7:4.

Ussher worked out the creation date of the world as 4004 BC, so he concluded that there were exactly 4000 years between creation and the birth of Christ. But it appears that once he got to before the Exodus in his studies his goal was to arrive at that date. As I said in my last post, I think Ussher’s work is accurate to within a few years back to the Exodus, but I want to point out now that before that there are one or two areas where he may have been mistaken. This issue with the 60 additional years of Terrah before the birth of Abraham is one.

In my view, Ussher places creation about 60 to 120 years too recent – 60 of those years being the age of Terrah. I think that the duration of sin will be 6000 years, (rather than the duration of the earth from creation) and then we will have a Sabbath of rest from sin starting in the 7th millennium. So when it says that Adam was 130 when he had Abel, it is more likely that the fall was 5 to 70 years before that and creation was 60 to 120 years before that. So in my view, creation was about 4060 to 4120 BC. It's the era of Grace that endures for 6000 years IMO.

I came across an article by Bob Pickle today on historical evidence of the Sabbatical cycles. Bob points out that since the mid-1800's the majority of scholars held to the view that the Sabbaticals were correctly established by a scholar named Zuckermann and that they synchronize with Adventist reckoning of the 490 years of Daniel 9. In the 1970's a Jewish scholar challlenged that view and produced 10 reasons for placing the Sabbaticals one year later. Bob's paper is quite technical but for those who are interested in his defence of the Zuckermann position here is the location: http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years.htm#conc. The evidence clearly favours Zuckermann.

So, in addition to the synchronization of the Jubilees with 457 BC that I refer to above, we also have good scholarly authority from historical sources confirming the synchronization of the Sabbaticals that make up the Jubilee cycle. 457 BC being a Jubilee, this means that the year prior, the fall of 458 to the fall of 457 was a Sabbatical and that a Jubilee year began in the fall of 457. This agrees with Zuckermann's reckoning.

I was thinking just now Rosangela about your use of the solar years to calculate Oct 22, 1844. In doing that you are actually using the rules of the AB calendar to arrive at that date. The AB uses the sun to mark the years and the lunar cycle is realigned periodically with the sun.

I remember reading that at Qumran they discovered a simple instrument that was used to determine the equinoxes. That would be the only instrument necessary to put the AB calendar to full use.

I've mentioned before that much of the material that Juarez used in his book is evidence of the ancient use of the AB. I’m reviewing it again. I aim to have an explanation of how the AB was used supported by more Biblical and historical evidence before too long. (Not that the evidence presented already is insignificant. There is mounting, substantial evidence. As a reminder, the reason this is important is that there are unfulfilled prophecies, particularly the fall feasts, that have their main fulfillment in the future.)