Quasi-objections to:
Systematic overview of why Sir Robert Anderson's calculations in
The Coming Prince (with regards to the the prophecy of Daniel 9)
are in error for subtracting Julian Leap Days from the result.

Last updated 06/06/02

Author's note:  As of this writing, no objections to any of the propositions in the original article have been received.  This article is entitled "quasi-objections" because not one living, breathing Biblical scholar has yet been found in support of Anderson's scenario, and no attempt to directly address or refute any of the propositions in the original article has been made by anyone.

The "quasi-objections" responded to herein consist of claims made in Usenet forums which purport to verify the accuracy of the Anderson scenario.  These claims are the product of a single defender of that scenario, to whom the original article was a response. 

Nevertheless, this article will merely demonstrate that these claims do not achieve their stated purpose.  This is due to the fact that, at a minimum, they are all suffer from one or more of these fatal flaws:

fA) a superfluous use of solar years when attempting to count solar days,
fB) a superfluous change from one calendar to another that is not mathematically warranted,
fC) an inability to withstand verification by cross-checking, and
fD) an inability to withstand verification by analogy.

It will be demonstrated below how the above flaws apply to each claim. 

CLAIM #1 as stated on Usenet [all SIC]:
"March 9 G (the start of the prophecy) + 173,879 days (the given length of the prophecy) = April 1 G (the end of the prophecy in the G calendar counting all regualr days and all leap year days which match the solar year) + 3 extra leap years (included, by definition in the J calendar which Anderson used to record the end date) = April 4 G which = April 6 J.":
"March 9 G (the start of the prophecy) + 173,879 days (the given length of the prophecy) = April 1 G (the end of the prophecy in the G calendar counting all regualr days and all leap year days which match the solar year) + 3 extra leap years (included, by definition in the J calendar which Anderson used to record the end date) = April 4 G which = April 6 J."

Analysis of this claim:
This claim starts out well, in stating that March 9 Gregorian 445 BC + 173,880 (inclusive) days brings one to April 1 Gregorian, 32 AD.  Where the logic breaks down is in the self-contradictory statements that follow.  First, it is stated that:

1. The Gregorian calendar counts 173,880 inclusive days between the two events
2. The Gregorian count includes all the "regular" days between the two events
3. The Gregorian count includes all the "leap" days between the two events
4. The Gregorian calendar matches the solar year

Item 4 in this claim is superfluous, as noted in the original article, since the claimant does not explain to us what the relevance of "matching the solar year" is when attempting to arrive at a sequential count of calendar days.  A solar year could be only 20.3845 days long, and a calendar could be 1,000 days long with a leap year every second year; none of this would change the way we count calendar days -- one at a time, sequentially.  Thus, flaw (fA) applies.

Given the first and second statements, however, we can safely know that April 1 Gregorian, 32 AD is the date one would arrive at were one to count 173,880 inclusive 24-hour calendar days forward from March 9 Gregorian, 445 BC.  This is significant, and it brings us to the next 3 operations in this "formula":

5. "+ 3 Extra leap years (included, by definition in the J calendar which Anderson used to record the end date)
6. = April 4 G
7. which = April 6 J."

Here is where a superfluous change from one calendar to another that is not mathematically warranted enters the picture.  This can be demonstrated by merely granting that claims 1 - 4 are true; a review of them will show that adding steps 5 - 7 will yield a count of 3 days more than steps 1 - 4 did.  Since steps 1 -4 gave us an ending date after a count of 173,880 inclusive days in a calendar conceded to be accurate, it necessarily follows that step 5 would raise our count to 173,883.   Since our original article claims that Anderson delineated a timespan of 173,883 days and not 173,880, the claimant's addition of these self-contradictory steps reveals why flaw (fB) applies.

With regards to flaw (fC), (inability to withstand verification by cross-checking), a simple demonstration will show where the "formula" breaks down.  In a previous article, the effect of deleting days from a calendar system where one had already determined an ending date of a timespan was shown to be the advancing of the ending date.  For example, if I were asked what day came 5 inclusive dates after February 26th of the year 1999, and I erroneously included a leap day in the process, I would have told you March 1st (26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, March 1st).  To correct my error, I would need to count forward without including the erroneous leap date, thus changing my erroneously determined ending date.  So the correct answer would have been March 2nd (26th, 27th, 28th, 1st, 2nd).  This is important, since it shows that deleting days from a calendar period causes the post-correction ending date to be later than the pre-correction ending date.

Since the claim is that to correctly determine the number of days between the two calendar dates one must subtract each erroneously-included calendar date, we could cross-check this claim by deleting those dates prior to counting forward, and if the new ending date matched the claimed ending date, the "formula" would have withstood cross-checking.  You can only make a correction once - if I balance my checkbook, it doesn't matter whether I deduct a previously forgotten check before or after I deduct all my other checks -- the result will be the same in the ending balance regardless of when the subtraction was done.  Since a post-correction ending date is later than a pre-correction ending date when "deleting" days from a calendar, the post-correction ending date for April 6 Julian would be April 9th, after deleting three "incorrect" leap-years and maintaining sequential dating.  Counting backwards 173,880 days from this date should now bring us back to the original starting date if the correction is accurate, but it does not -- 173,883 still does.

While counting the "correct" number of days (173,880) from the start date in the adjusted calendar does bring us to April 6th, where have the leap days gone?  The ending date in the "corrected" calendar would no longer correlate with the fixed ending date of the prophecy in history, since the "incorrect leap years" were part of the calendar when Anderson fixed the ending date.  Nothing in this "formula" addresses the effect of "incorrect leap years" on the fixing of the ending date in the first place; especially ignored are the ramifications of correcting the calendar before counting the dates.  For these reasons, the cross-check fails and flaw (fC) is applicable to this attempt to salvage Anderson's scenario.

With regards to flaw (fD), a very simple analogy will demonstrate its applicability here.  Take two numbering systems:

• set one which counts elements as {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, and
• set two which counts elements as {1, 2, L, 3, 4}. 

Assuming a claim existed that 4 elements ("days") are represented in set two by the elements 1 through 4 inclusive, the exact same formulaic method can be used to "prove" this visibly false claim.  Apply the steps of the claim above to this analogy, and you would see something like this:

ANALOGY:
set one contains elements {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} set two contains elements {1, 2, L, 3, 4}.
1) In the first set, starting with the element {1}  ("start date") 2) counting 4 inclusive elements forward ("length of the prophecy") 3) = 4 ("the end of the prophecy in the accurate system")	Logically Permissible Steps
4) + 1 extra item ("included by definition in the inaccurate system") 5) = the item {5} in the correct system 6) which = the item {4} in the incorrect system.  7) Thus it is proved that there are 4 elements represented by the items 1 - 4 inclusive in set two.	Logically Superfluous Steps

Walking through the analogy step by step will show that it does indeed correlate to the claimant's formula, and that it does not prove that set two includes four elements counting {1} through {4}, since using the same methodology it "proves" a visibly false claim.  Despite the fact that "L" is not an element of set one,  "L" is nevertheless an element of set two.  In adding the steps beginning with step 4, the formula proceeds to alter what was previously observed to be an accurate count of the elements in the set.

Conclusion in response to Claim 1:
This claim fails to salvage Anderson's scenario on all counts mentioned above: it introduces a superfluous use of "solar years" when attempting to count days (flaw fA), it introduces a superfluous change from one calendar to another that is not mathematically warranted (flaw fB), it is subject to an inability to withstand verification by cross-checking (flaw fC), and it suffers an inability to withstand verification by analogy (flaw fD).

CLAIM #2 as stated on Usenet [all SIC]:
"1. March 9 G (the start of the prophecy)- March 9 G is the corresponding same day in time as March 14J which Anderson used to date the start of the prophecy. It has the same JDN number and is appropriate to use for the start of the prophecy. It is from this date that we begin counting days. I think you will agree with this.

2. + (plus) 173,879 days (the given length of the prophecy) - The G calendar matches the solar year (the Julian calendar does not becasue of the additional leap years). If we add 173,879 G days, which is the given length of the prophecy,  to the start of the prophecy, we end up at April 1 G. I think you will agree with this. You can check it with the calendar conversion site if you wish. It is correct.

3. = (equals) April 1 G - This is the true end date of the prophecy in the G calendar. The G days counted from March 9 G equate with the solar year becasue we used the G calendar. It is important to keep in mind that no extra Julian leap years were included in that count. Doing this, we end up at April 1 G.  I think you will agree with this."

By introducing the term "solar year", the claimant seems to be setting the stage for the reintroduction of flaw (fA) into his logic again.  This was handled in the original article.  So far, these steps get us to exactly the same point that steps 1 - 4 in Claim 1 did, which correlate with steps 1 - 3 in the previous analogy.

"4. + (plus) 3 extra leap years (included in the J calendar but not the G calendar) - When we counted 173,879 G days from March 9 G none of the  extra Julian leap years were included in that count. We only used the G calendar."

By admitting that none of the "extra Julian leap years" were included in the count between the two Gregorian dates, the claimant is telling us that the count is correct; the admission entails this fact. Why he doesn't stop here instead of proceeding to introduce flaw (fB) again is what is of logical concern, and this is important to keep in mind during what follows.

"If we are going to use the Julian calendar (which Anderson did) we have to add those extra leap years.  By definition, the Julian calendar includes three extra leap years over 4 centuries than the G calendar. Once you add them, you have included the same number of days counted in the Julian calendar. What could possibly be wrong with this?"

To answer the question of "what could possibly be wrong with this," let's look at what we've done:
1) We counted 173,880 days forward in the "correct" Gregorian calendar,
2) We then counted 3 more days in the Gregorian calendar, because we "have to add those extra leap years"
The question here is this -- after steps one and two, HOW MANY DAYS HAVE WE COUNTED? 
The claim that "once you add them, you have included the same number of days counted in the Julian calendar" is true, but that number after this step is 173,883 days and not 173,880.  So again, flaw (fB) applies.

"5. =(equals) April 4 G which = April 6 J - Once you add the 3 extra leap years which would  equate with  the Julian calendar you arrive at April 4 G."

But that number after this step is 173,883 days and not 173,880.  It is interesting, though, that two separate Gregorian dates have been introduced by the claimant (April 1 and April 4).  In effect the argument claims that 173,880 days from the start = April 1 in the Gregorian calendar, plus three days = April 6 in the Julian calendar, which equals April 4 in the Gregorian calendar.  The claimant is, in effect, arguing that the same number of days transpired between the start date and April 1 as transpired between the start date and April 4 in the same calendar. Even if the claimant's argument was the only information we had to go on, it is self-evident that if we counted 173,880 days forward to arrive at April 1 Gregorian, that April 4 Gregorian will not be the same number of days after the start date.  Again, this is a result of the introduction of flaw (fB) into the formula.

"April 4 G has the same JDN as April 6 Julian which is exactly the date Anderson assigned to the end of the prophecy in the Julian calendar. Exactly what you would expect. What could possibly be wrong with this?"

What could possibly be wrong with this is that the date "April 4" in the Gregorian calendar is 173,883 days after the start date, while the date "April 1" in the Gregorian calendar is 173,880 days after the start date.  Since the date with "the same JDN as April 6 Julian" is April 4 Gregorian, and since it is NOT 173,880 days after the start of the prophecy in his scenario (the claimant admits that April 1 Gregorian is 173,880 inclusive calendar dates after the start date in the beginning of his "formula"), the formula only shows that Anderson erred.

"Andaerson used the Julian calendar to date the start and end of the prophecy. It is customary for historians to do this. When he did this he, by definition, included the 3 extra leap years in his count of days."

Actually, he only included the three Julian leap years in his count of days until he deducted them at the end.  The problem, though, is that since he used the Julian calendar to count the days, and since those Julian leap days do represent days that occurred in history, Anderson had no business decucting them at the end.  When counting days, Anderson himself introduced flaw (fA) and flaw (fB) into the process by making adjustments after the counting was done.

"To match the solar year (or, put another way, to  correctly count the number of G days between those two J dates) it was appropriate for him to subtract three days."

It is important to realize that the parenthetical comment is NOT synonymous for "to match the solar year."   This is flaw (fA) in action.  A solar year could be only 20.3845 days long, and a calendar could be 1,000 days long with a leap year every second year; none of this would change the way we count calendar days -- sequentially, one at a time without regard to how many happen to be in a year.  This point was covered in proposition 4 of the original article; what justification the claimant believes exists for making calendar dates "relative to the solar year" remains a mystery to this author. 

Concluding comments on Claim 2:
The entirety of Claim 2 is really nothing more than a reiteration of Claim 1, and the same logical analysis will show that it is subject to the same four fatal flaws that Claim 1 was.  Applying cross checks will work the same way, so I refer the reader to the previous explanations of why the "formula" fails the cross-check test and why it fails the analogy test.

Thus, this claim also fails to salvage Anderson's scenario on all four counts mentioned above: It introduces a superfluous use of solar years when attempting to count solar days, it introduces a superfluous change from one calendar to another that is not mathematically warranted, it is subject to an inability to withstand verification by cross-checking, and it suffers an inability to withstand verification by analogy.

Top of Page.
Return to original article.
Rebuttals to Original Article.