The following post is completely incorrect when talking about dates, and I suggest that it be ignored.
----------------
Original message text hidden to avoid any further confusion. Click "Peek" if you're interested in just how silly I can be
Peg writes:
455 BCE - 483yrs = 28 CE Of course there is no year '0' so you must add 1yr which brings us to 29CE. The very year Jesus was baptized and began gathering disciples .
The extra year for year '0' isn't required, it's included in the basic math.
Let's take a simple example I can count out to show you:
4 BCE - 7yrs = 3 CE
"Add 1 year to make it 4 CE"
Which is right?
4 BCE to 3 BCE = 1 year
4 BCE to 2 BCE = 2 years
4 BCE to 1 BCE = 3 years
4 BCE to year 0 = 4 years
4 BCE to 1 CE = 5 years
4 BCE to 2 CE = 6 years
4 BCE to 3 CE = 7 years
4 BCE to 4 CE = 8 years
We can clearly see that the basic math is correct.
You do not add another year for year '0', doing so will give you the incorrect answer of 8 years duration when we're only looking for 7.
Therefore: You are not at 29 CE, you are at 28 CE.
Of course, it makes more sense to make sure Jesus even existed, or at least solidify the date of his supposed birth, before saying he actually started baptizing and gathering disciples on such a specific date.
I don't see how anyone could complain if you simply moved your date from 29 CE to 28 CE. But, well, it will kind of show how malleable the dates are... which kinda removes any impact of this prophecy.
----------------
Edit - after I cleared my head:
Ha ha... sorry Peg, I understand what's going on now. I'm looked into "regular math" mode too much to understand "year's math".
My error, and your calculations are perfectly fine.
Edited by Stile, : Remembered how grade-school math actually works
Edited by Stile, : Hiding the confusion