Dear Robert,

You must have been reading my mind.... or maybe the first part of my post from 1-4-2011 as its

almostverbatim. http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/jan2011/kevinh14.htmPoint taken funny-man ~;-) I understand why you would lampoon my post as overcomplicating the prophetic 'year'. I'm not sure if you read the whole post, but the point I was making with Jeanne is that, yes the book of Revelation ch. 12 certainly has parallel passages indicating 1260 and a 'time, times and a half' can be synonomous. However, as pertaining to the WEEKS of Daniel, it certainly seems 'reasonable' to me that a prophecy of WEEKS would have a time frame divisible by SEVENS to the core. It seems logical to me anyway that the 364 day ecclesiastical or priestly year as was used during the Second Temple period through until at least the writing of the Dead Sea Scrolls (after Jesus' ressurection) would be a pretty good candidate for a 'prophetic' year, 364 being divisible also by SEVENS. When Daniel goes out of his way to mention the dimensions of an idol erected by man in Babylon is 60 x 6 (360) and he also ommits 1260, it would seem that maybe we shoudn't put quite so much faith in 60 x 6.

Ultimately, WHATEVER a 'prophetic' year is, it would also seem to easily resemble the time periods God designed into his 3-part clock: THE SUN, THE MOON and THE STARS, just as He intended from the beginning.

He said let there be LIGHTS in the HEAVENS; What were the purposes of the lights? Of course light, night and day. What are the other four things??? They are for

SIGNS,SEASONS, DAYS and YEARS.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;and let them be for SIGNS, and for SEASONS, and for DAYS, and YEARS:The lights in the heavens are the benchmarks for prophecies. He made man in His image, with the capacity to understand His lightworks clock!!!!Did you ever wonder why Daniel's 'time, times and a half' was that ambiguous, especially when he gives the other two specific numbers of 1290 and 1335? Just maybe a 'time, times and a half' is ambiguous as it can apply to various measures and still yield a common equal result: Not by just the sun, not just by the moon, not just by the sun & moon nor the stars and the moon, BUT BY ALL THREE. 3 being better than 2, the truth is established by 2 or 3 witnesses is it not ? God hates unjust balances, in other words your scale weights and my scale weights need to be equal in order for us to have an accurate and equal transaction. My pound and your kilogram need reconciliation by some multiplier or equation for us to yield the same result. That is all I was trying to demonstrate by my 'discovery' as I was describing the numbers of Daniel in the latter part of my post.Even the imagry in Daniel's vision (ch.12) suggests the median value or center of two halves: The clothed man in the center above the waters, is superior to one side or the other. His oath is more sure as witnessed from both sides; wouldn't you agree!Just as I demonstrated the commonality of 1290 and 1335, the first being 2.5 times 360 plus 390 and the other is 2.5 times 390 plus 360. There are two completely different outcomes by the same three factors and neither product is common with individual sun, moon or star periods. Alone they are the lunisolar average (360) and a lunisolar leapyear (390). Now, when you take the average of the two (375) and place that on both sides of the scale, they are justified. The total is750. 3.5 times 750 is 2625 (1290+1335); 375 x 2.5 = 937.5. Now all of the sudden the sun-moon conjunction period (354 day lunar year) has a total with the sun-Venus conjunction period (583.5 days - morning star to morning star). 354 + 583.5 = 375 x 2.5. Further evidence that the third cog in the master-clock is Venus is that it takes750Earth-Venus-Sun conjunctions of 583.92 days for the same conjunction multiple (5th) to make one complete circuit around the Mazzaroth! Now take the difference of 360 and 390. 30 is the difference common to both. Divide 360 by 30 and the result is 12. Divide 390 by 30 and the result is 13. Again, the sun-moon conjunction has something common with the third brightest object's conjunction with the sun. Venus takesorbits to have a conjunction with the earth and the sun on an whole (nearly) number of years (8) and during that time, it will have met 5 times in every 7th constellation of 12 (.583333) and will have rotated13times (243 earth days per rotation). This eight year period is known as the Octaeteris. If the moon conjuncts with VENUS, 8 years later it will conjunct AGAIN in the same place of the Mazzaroth.12Now, from Revelation, knowing the silent value 1260 is synonomous with a time, times and a half: Add it to 1290 and 1335 and the sum is 3885, an amazing number in of itself demonstrating what I was trying to say: 3885/5 = 777. vice/versa 3885/7 = 555. It is also 3.5 times 1110 ( a number everyone seems facinated with). It is also the median value of 7770.There is a BOATLOAD of Biblical and mathematical evidence that a"time, times and a half "of a value common to the sun, moon, Venus and the Mazzaroth (sun, moon and stars) is the ultimate 'prophetic' year! Have I got it right, maybe not and it is all just coincidence. If so, you've called me out for the complexity. Steel sharpens steel. Could it be that Daniel's prophecy couldn't have been deciphered until the age of space exploration, when knowledge has greatly increased and people travel to and fro?commonYour Friend in Christ,Kevin Heckle Sr.

Your Post:

I might have figured out why 3.5 years is 1260 days in the bible. (1260 days / 360 days a year) = 3.5 Biblical years.

First we know for a fact that a lunar year is

354.37days.

We also know that a Tropical Year (Our Solar Calendar) is

365.24219days

If we ADD both the

LunarandSolar Yearstogether and Divide the answer by 2, you get:

359.80 Average Daysbetween both the Solar and Lunar Years.

So if we were to round to the nearest whole number, it would be

360averagedaysin a year or prophetic biblical year.

This seems like a reasonable calculation, but there may be more……….anyone?

- Robert Rose