#5g RIGHTEOUS RECKONING - INCLUSIVE RECKONING ERROR REFUTED
This bible study uses a Greek Unicode font, and the Hebrew Unicode font "David" which comes with later versions of Windows.
The importance of this bible study can be measured by the number of people who believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon, and raised on Sunday morning. This they justify because they say that the bible uses a system of inclusive reckoning to establish time, and any part of Friday counts as a whole day, and any part of Sunday counts as a whole day. Therefore they explain that Jesus' "three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40) is not literal, but has to be reckoned inclusively. This is totally false. This bible study investigates and refutes the claim of inclusive reckoning of time in scripture, and shows with many examples that inclusive reckoning was not "always used", and certainly not for the southern kingdom of Judah from which Jesus came. Therefore, there is no reason to treat Jesus' words as inclusive in terms of time.
Note: Some bibles record Jehoiachin's age as eight in 2 Chronicles 36:9, and we have a possible reason for this in our bible study, find the missing words. The important thing to note here is that 2 Chronicles 36:9 records Jehoiachin's reign as three months and ten days. Now if inclusive reckoning had been used by the writer of 2 Kings 24:8, we would expect to see it rounded up to four months, or even rounded up to one year, but instead it is rounded down to three months, as we would expect with the accession year system, which is our equivalent to righteous reckoning. By this example the inclusive reckoning error is refuted.
2 SAMUEL 5:4-5
1 KINGS 2:11
1 CHRONICLES 3:4
1 CHRONICLES 29:26-27
Note: Here we are told twice that David reigned for a total of Forty years. If we add the years and months together in 1 Samuel 5:5, and in 1 Chronicles 3:4, we get a total of forty
years and six months. Now if inclusive time had been reckoned here the total would have come to forty one years, the extra six months counting as an extra
year. So 2 Samuel 5:4 and 1 Kings 2:11 should have recorded David's total reign as forty one years, but they didn't.
Note: Elijah was a man of faith who prayed earnestly that it would not rain in Samaria, and the scriptures show that it did not rain for three and six months (Luke 4:25, James 5:17). However, it seems that God sent Elijah to end the drought "in the third year" (1 Kings 18:1), and there is no way that there was a six month period between this instruction being given and the rain coming. Now if inclusive reckoning had been used in calculating the time, then it should have said "in the fourth year", but it didn't. The inclusive reckoning error is refuted, and was therefore not used by the inspired writer who wrote these scriptures. Look at a comparison with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
Now these two examples are almost identical, except that Elijah's famine was measured in years, and Jesus death to resurrection was measured in days. Now the inclusive reckoners would have us to believe that Jesus was only dead from Friday 3 pm. to early Sunday morning; between 33 (3+24+6) and 38 (3+24+11) hours. This is much less than two whole 24 hour days. Would they also have us to believe that the famine in Samaria was also much less than 2 Years long, calculating on the same basis as they do for Jesus death to resurrection? Do not be deceived, both Jesus and James clearly stated it was three years and six months. The words for "three years and six months", and for "after three days", are all accusative case in the Greek, the case which deals with whole periods of time. Both Jesus and James therefore did not use inclusive reckoning when they timed the duration of Elijah's rain stoppage. There is no reason therefore to assume that Jesus was not dead for more than three whole days. Below is how the ordinal years compare with the actual years according to righteous reckoning. There are two ways of counting it. A period of three years and six months counts as anywhere above three years fifteen days, up to three years six and a half months. So three years five months and sixteen days would be rounded up to three years and six months by this method, giving us up to fourteen days to allow us to start just after the beginning of the seventh month, and end just before the end of the twelfth month in the third year. If the starting year was a thirteen month year this would give us an extra fifteen days, so righteous reckoning is perfectly acceptable in this situation.
Note: Here is an example where we are told a period of time using ordinals of the governorship of Nehemiah, and the time period in years. The count using inclusive reckoning looks like this:
It seems as if Nehemiah was appointed to be governor by Artaxerxes at the beginning of his 20th year of reign, in the month Nisan (Nehemiah 2:1-8). If we
include the twentieth year and the thirty second year in the count then it comes to thirteen years, but we are told in the same verse that it is only twelve years.
Obviously the God inspired writer of this scripture did not use the method of inclusive reckoning in his count, this error is refuted.
1 KINGS 6:1
1 KINGS 6:27-38
2 CHRONICLES 3:1-2
Note: Solomon began to build the temple in the second month of the fourth year of his reign, and finished it in the eighth month of the eleventh year of his reign. This is a total of seven years and six months. Now when it was recorded as a number of years, we would expect the years to be rounded up to eight with inclusive reckoning, and rounded down to seven with righteous reckoning. As 1 Kings 6:38 records the total time as seven years, we can see that the God inspired writer of these scriptures used righteous reckoning, not inclusive. If Solomon's eleventh year had twelve months, then the temple would have had to be finished in the first two days of the month. However, if Solomon's eleventh year was a thirteen month year, this would make half a year six months and fifteen days long, and so the temple would have to be finished in the first seventeen days of the eighth month. Both of these are obviously acceptable, but inclusive reckoning is an impossibility here.
Note: If a man was checked by the priest for leprosy, and the priest was not certain, then he would isolate the man seven days, and check him on the seventh day. Now if he was still not satisfied, he would isolate him for another seven days and check him again on the following seventh day. Now suppose we use inclusive reckoning and assume the priest first examines the man on the Sabbath day. If he isolates him for seven days, and examines him again on the seventh day, then the day of his first examination would be included in the count as the first day, and the seventh day would then be the day before the next Sabbath. If on this day he decides to isolate him again for another seven days, then that day before the Sabbath becomes the first day of the second count. The seventh day of the second count would now fall on the second day before the Sabbath of the following week. In the diagram below the Sabbath days are shown in yellow for clarity. The total number of days comes to only thirteen, but could be as little as just over eleven when counted as a whole period with inclusive reckoning.
Now look at the same situation from a righteous reckoning point of view. For the sake of simplicity again, suppose the leper was checked by the priest on the Sabbath day, during daylight hours, after midday. That day would not be included in the ordinal count, but the first day would be the first day of the week, and the seventh day would be the seventh day of the week, which would be the next Sabbath. If he had to be confined again, the first day of the second count would be the first day of the second week, and the seventh day would be the Sabbath after that. The first seven day period would end on the seventh day, and the second seventh day period would end on the following seventh day. In the diagram below the Sabbath days are marked in yellow for clarity. This is a perfectly sound way of counting the days without confusion.
Confirmation comes from the Septuagint where the words translated "seven days" in both places are ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας (Gtr. hepta hemeras) which are accusative case, which normally represents whole periods of time.
2 KINGS 15:17, 22-23
Note: Menahem began to reign in the thirty ninth year of Azariah, and was replaced by his son in the fiftieth year of Azariah, yet he is said to have reigned only ten years. By inclusive reckoning this would come to a reign of twelve years, and the ten years recorded could have been anywhere between nine and ten years, so this is definitely not inclusive reckoning. Two other methods are both righteous reckoning, counting Azariah's thirty ninth year as Menahem's accession year. The first is that Menahem's ten year reign ended near the end of Azariah's forty ninth year, and his son Pekahiah did not begin to reign until the start of Azariah's fiftieth year. This would leave a short interregnum of a few days or weeks. The other alternative is that Menahem actually reigned more than ten years, say ten years and six months. But as we have seen before with righteous reckoning this would be rounded down, as it was with David (Example 2), and so recorded as ten years. This would allow his reign to begin in Azariah's thirty ninth year and end in his fiftieth year without error. Menahem's accession year is shaded yellow.
2 KINGS 15:23, 25, 27
Note: Pekahiah began to reign in the fiftieth year of Azariah and was replaced in his fifty second year. Inclusive reckoning, counting any part of a year as a full year, would have to count this as a three year reign, but it is recorded that Pekahiah reigned only two years. This fits exactly with our accession year method, which is our equivalent of righteous reckoning. The fiftieth year of Azariah is counted as Pekahiah's accession year, which is shaded yellow.
In every case the inclusive reckoning error is refuted. It simply does not work, but the righteous reckoning method works in every case.
Please tell your friends about this website.