Browse Groups

• Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence

(14)
• NextPrevious
• Pi, if you can t get it into your head that five consecutive 30-day months are a strong indication for a 360-day year, there s no help for you. Still, there
Message 1 of 14 , Apr 23
View Source
Pi, if you can't get it into your head that five consecutive 30-day months are a strong indication for a 360-day year, there's no help for you.

Still, there are some assumptions in CSHF's statement.

From the 17th day of January to the 17th day of May this year will be 120 days: four months in which only one of them, the last, actually had 30 days. Had there been another Caesar, named Junius, who fudged the calendar a little further--impoverishing February by yet one more day and bestowing it upon June--we could have made it to five months of 150 days.

Furthermore, 13 lunar months of 28 days each makes absolutely no sense unless the lunar cycle is severely curtailed.

Daniel Buck

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Ray
> There is a bigger issue here, but to answer Pi's questions it appears from the text that the 7th month (17th day) minus the 2nd month (17th) is 5 months or 150 days which is 30 days per month.
>
>
> Pi:
> That wasn't the question. The claim was made that the verses cited support a 360 day year. Terry cited:
> Noah's age at the time of the alleged flood being the 600th year of Noah's life, the second month, the 17th day of that month as evidence of a 360 day year.
>
> He also claimed the Earth being covered with water for 150 days supports a 360 day year. (Notice, no mention is made of how many months that is.) Further, the other reference is to tha Ark running aground on the 17th day of the 7th month. There is no integer number of days that will satisfy making 150 days equal to the 17th day of the 7th month.
>
> Let's see.... 7th month means 6 months completed.... 180 days. Add the 17 for 17th day of the month and I get 197 days.
>
>
>
>
> Ray:
> 30 days for each month times 12 months in a year is a 360 day year. The Old Testament, in several places before the days of Hezekiah, cite the month as exactly 30 days.
>
> Pi:
> Recall, I said I'm not disputing a 30 day month. My question is how the referenced passages support it. They don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Ausban <rayausban@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 10:01 am
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a bigger issue here, but to answer Pi's questions it appears from the text that the 7th month (17th day) minus the 2nd month (17th) is 5 months or 150 days which is 30 days per month. 30 days for each month times 12 months in a year is a 360 day year. The Old Testament, in several places before the days of Hezekiah, cite the month as exactly 30 days.
>
> The bigger issue is this: It was a Jew, Immanuel Velikovsky who wrote in his book 'Worlds in Collision' (p.333 - p. 361) that the year used to be 360 days and was changed at some point to 365.25 days. He cites several cultures which had this calendar during times when it was exclusively 360 days for the year. But concerning the Hebrews he discusses the Talmud calendar changes made by Hezekiah. Apparently, the Old Testament peoples used the same 360 day year calendar as every one else up until, like every one else, the calendar was changed to reflect the new reality.
> However, YEC did not originate the idea. And, as Rick has pointed out in our exchanges,YEC merely take things Velikovsky has uncovered and use it for there own purposes with out acknowledging the source. On something as fundamental as this, the source should be cited or it is dishonest.
>
> Velikovsky promoted the need for a reconstruction of Middle and Near Eastern chronology. He did an extensive partial historical reconstruction (with plenty of documentation) in several books. I have noticed in recent years the YEC are starting to move into this area of Velikovsky's work.
>
> I wonder if YEC will bring Velikovsky into their "hall of fame" for giving them a great deal of so much the teach.
>
>
>
>
> From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
> A 30 day month was not questioned. The questions are:
> 1) In what way does the claim the flood began "in the 600th year of Noahâs life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month" support a 360 day year?
> 2) In what way does the claim the water covered the Earth for 150 days support a 360 day year?
> 3) In what way does the claim the Ark ran aground on the 17th day of the 7th month support a 360 day year?
> 4) How can you reconcile 150 days with being the same period as the 17th day of the 7th month?
>
> I repeat, Terry presents nothing that supports a 360 day year.
>
> There are a number of ancient civilizations that used a 360 day year, but many of them had 5 "off calendar" holidays each year. Most ancients used a lunar calendar with 13 months of 28 days each (364 days).
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> To: Maury_and_Baty <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sat, Apr 20, 2013 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
> Genesis 8:3&4 indicate 150 days was the time period from the seventh month on the 17th day from the second month on the 17th day (Gen. 7:11) This means 150 days = 5 months which =30 days per month.
>
> This is no surprise though. Every ancient culture had a 360 day year calendar.
>
>
>
>
> From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
> Terry can't even do basic arithmetic.
>
> He cites two verses in the flood account as showing a 360 day year.
>
> He claims:
> But the Bible also implies a 360 day year â" before and during the Global Flood. Genesis 7:11 says the Flood began
>
> in the 600th year of Noahâs life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month
>
> Pi:
> Nothing there leads to a conclusion of a 360 day year.
>
>
>
> Terry goes on to write:
> Genesis 7:24 says the Flood waters covered the earth for 150 days. Genesis 8:3 repeats that. Then Genesis 8:4 says Noahâs Ark ran aground on the seventeenth day of the seventh month.
> That implies Noah and his sons (who kept the log of the Ark during its âcruiseâ) were used to a 360 day year of 12 months, with 30 days for a month.
>
>
> Let's see.... one verse says 150 days, another says the 17th day of the 7th month. If we use a 30 day month, the latter would be 167 days. With a 28 or 29 day lunar month, it would be 155 days or 161 days respectively. The verses don't even agree with each other, let alone indicate a 360 day year.
>
>
> Terry goes on to conclude:
> That implies Noah and his sons (who kept the log of the Ark during its âcruiseâ) were used to a 360 day year of 12 months, with 30 days for a month.
>
>
> How?
>
>
> Terry then finishes the article with more uncritical claims produced in Walt Brown's privately published vanity book. In short, he produces no justification at all for any of his assertions in this article.
>
• Ray, before you declare me helpless, I suggest you get the straw out of your argument. 1) No one made mention of five consecutive 30 day months. 2) I never
Message 2 of 14 , Apr 23
View Source
Ray, before you declare me helpless, I suggest you get the straw out of your argument.

1)  No one made mention of five consecutive 30 day months.
2)  I never disputed there were societies that used 360 day calendars.  What I did was to point out that those societies also had 5 "off calendar" days per year.  This means their year was still 365 days.
3)  I listed a number of things Terry Hurlbut claimed support a 360 day year (below).  My question was directed at those claims as I didn't see how any of them support a 360 day year.

We must be careful to distinguish between a calendar year and a solar year.  Regardless of the length of the calendar year, there is no evidence the solar year was ever 360 days.

-----Original Message-----
From: bucksburg <bucksburg@...>
To: Maury_and_Baty <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 23, 2013 5:22 pm
Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence

```Pi, if you can't get it into your head that five consecutive 30-day months are a
strong indication for a 360-day year, there's no help for you.

Still, there are some assumptions in CSHF's statement.

From the 17th day of January to the 17th day of May this year will be 120 days:
four months in which only one of them, the last, actually had 30 days. Had there
been another Caesar, named Junius, who fudged the calendar a little
further--impoverishing February by yet one more day and bestowing it upon
June--we could have made it to five months of 150 days.

Furthermore, 13 lunar months of 28 days each makes absolutely no sense unless
the lunar cycle is severely curtailed.

Daniel Buck

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Ray
> There is a bigger issue here, but to answer Pi's questions it appears from the
text that the 7th month (17th day) minus the 2nd month (17th) is 5 months or 150
days which is 30 days per month.
>
>
> Pi:
> That wasn't the question.  The claim was made that the verses cited support a
360 day year.  Terry cited:
> Noah's age at the time of the alleged flood being the 600th year of Noah's
life, the second month, the 17th day of that month as evidence of a 360 day
year.
>
> He also claimed the Earth being covered with water for 150 days supports a 360
day year.  (Notice, no mention is made of how many months that is.)  Further,
the other reference is to tha Ark running aground on the 17th day of the 7th
month.  There is no integer number of days that will satisfy making 150 days
equal to the 17th day of the 7th month.
>
> Let's see.... 7th month means 6 months completed.... 180 days.  Add the 17 for
17th day of the month and I get 197 days.
>
>
>
>
> Ray:
> 30 days for each month times 12 months in a year is a 360 day year. The Old
Testament, in several places before the days of Hezekiah, cite the month as
exactly 30 days.
>
> Pi:
> Recall, I said I'm not disputing a 30 day month.   My question is how the
referenced passages support it.  They don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Ausban <rayausban@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 10:01 am
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a bigger issue here, but to answer Pi's questions it appears from the
text that the 7th month (17th day) minus the 2nd month (17th) is 5 months or 150
days which is 30 days per month. 30 days for each month times 12 months in a
year is a 360 day year. The Old Testament, in several places before the days of
Hezekiah, cite the month as exactly 30 days.
>
> The bigger issue is this: It was a Jew, Immanuel Velikovsky who wrote in his
book 'Worlds in Collision' (p.333 - p. 361) that the year used to be 360 days
and was changed at some point to 365.25 days. He cites several cultures which
had this calendar during times when it was exclusively 360 days for the year.
But concerning the Hebrews he discusses the Talmud calendar changes made by
Hezekiah. Apparently, the Old Testament peoples used the same 360 day year
calendar as every one else up until, like every one else, the calendar was
changed to reflect the new reality.
> However, YEC did not originate the idea. And, as Rick has pointed out  in our
exchanges,YEC merely take things Velikovsky has uncovered and use it for there
own purposes with out acknowledging the source. On something as fundamental as
this, the source should be cited or it is dishonest.
>
> Velikovsky promoted the need for a reconstruction of Middle and Near Eastern
chronology. He did an extensive partial historical reconstruction  (with plenty
of documentation) in several books. I have noticed in recent years the YEC are
starting to move into this area of Velikovsky's work.
>
> I wonder if YEC will bring Velikovsky into their "hall of fame" for giving
them a great deal of so much the teach.
>
>
>
>
> From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
> A 30 day month was not questioned.  The questions are:
> 1)  In what way does the claim the flood began "in the 600th year of Noahâs
life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month" support a 360
day year?
> 2)  In what way does the claim the water covered the Earth for 150 days
support a 360 day year?
> 3)  In what way does the claim the Ark ran aground on the 17th day of the 7th
month support a 360 day year?
> 4)  How can you reconcile 150 days with being the same period as the 17th day
of the 7th month?
>
> I repeat, Terry presents nothing that supports a 360 day year.
>
> There are a number of ancient civilizations that used a 360 day year, but many
of them had 5 "off calendar" holidays each year.  Most ancients used a lunar
calendar with 13 months of 28 days each (364 days).
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> To: Maury_and_Baty
<Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sat, Apr 20, 2013 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [M
& B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
> Genesis 8:3&4 indicate 150 days was the time period from the seventh month on
the 17th day from the second month on the 17th day (Gen. 7:11) This means 150
days = 5 months which =30 days per month.
>
> This is no surprise though. Every ancient culture had a 360 day year calendar.
>
>
>
>
> From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
> Terry can't even do basic arithmetic.
>
> He cites two verses in the flood account as showing a 360 day year.
>
> He claims:
> But the Bible also implies a 360 day year â" before and during the Global
Flood. Genesis 7:11 says the Flood began
>
> in the 600th year of Noahâs life, in the second month, on the seventeenth
day of the month
>
> Pi:
> Nothing there leads to a conclusion of a 360 day year.
>
>
>
> Terry goes on to write:
> Genesis 7:24 says the Flood waters covered the earth for 150 days. Genesis 8:3
repeats that. Then Genesis 8:4 says Noahâs Ark ran aground on the seventeenth
day of the seventh month.
> That implies Noah and his sons (who kept the log of the Ark during its
âcruiseâ) were used to a 360 day year of 12 months, with 30 days for a
month.
>
>
> Let's see.... one verse says 150 days, another says the 17th day of the 7th
month.  If we use a 30 day month, the latter would be 167 days.  With a 28 or 29
day lunar month, it would be 155 days or 161 days respectively.  The verses
don't even agree with each other, let alone indicate a 360 day year.
>
>
> Terry goes on to conclude:
> That implies Noah and his sons (who kept the log of the Ark during its
âcruiseâ) were used to a 360 day year of 12 months, with 30 days for a
month.
>
>
> How?
>
>
> Terry then finishes the article with more uncritical claims produced in Walt
Brown's privately published vanity book.  In short, he produces no justification
>
```
• ... Pi, I think you intended or should have intended those comments to be directed to Daniel, not Ray. Sincerely, Robert Baty
Message 3 of 14 , Apr 24
View Source
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
PIASAN@... wrote:

> Ray, before you declare me helpless,
> I suggest you get the straw out of

Pi, I think you intended or should have intended those comments to be directed to Daniel, not Ray.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• Pi,   You have mistaken me for Daniel. I do respect your opinion even if I don t agree with it. I think Daniel was unnecessarily harsh in his comments.
Message 4 of 14 , Apr 24
View Source
Pi,

You have mistaken me for Daniel. I do respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it. I think Daniel was unnecessarily harsh in his comments.

Ray

From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
Ray, before you declare me helpless, I suggest you get the straw out of your argument.

1)  No one made mention of five consecutive 30 day months.
2)  I never disputed there were societies that used 360 day calendars.  What I did was to point out that those societies also had 5 "off calendar" days per year.  This means their year was still 365 days.
3)  I listed a number of things Terry Hurlbut claimed support a 360 day year (below).  My question was directed at those claims as I didn't see how any of them support a 360 day year.

We must be careful to distinguish between a calendar year and a solar year.  Regardless of the length of the calendar year, there is no evidence the solar year was ever 360 days.
-----Original Message----- From: bucksburg <bucksburg@...> To: Maury_and_Baty <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Apr 23, 2013 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
```Pi, if you can't get it into your head that five consecutive 30-day months are a
strong indication for a 360-day year, there's no help for you.

Still, there are some assumptions in CSHF's statement.

From the 17th day of January to the 17th day of May this year will be 120 days:
four months in which only one of them, the last, actually had 30 days. Had there
been another Caesar, named Junius, who fudged the calendar a little
further--impoverishing February by yet one more day and bestowing it upon
June--we could have made it to five months of 150 days.

Furthermore, 13 lunar months of 28 days each makes absolutely no sense unless
the lunar cycle is severely curtailed.

Daniel Buck

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Ray
> There is a bigger issue here, but to answer Pi's questions it appears from the
text that the 7th month (17th day) minus the 2nd month (17th) is 5 months or 150
days which is 30 days per month.
>
>
> Pi:
> That wasn't the question.  The claim was made that the verses cited support a
360 day year.  Terry cited:
> Noah's age at the time of the alleged flood being the 600th year of Noah's
life, the second month, the 17th day of that month as evidence of a 360 day
year.
>
> He also claimed the Earth being covered with water for 150 days supports a 360
day year.  (Notice, no mention is made of how many months that is.)  Further,
the other reference is to tha Ark running aground on the 17th day of the 7th
month.  There is no integer number of days that will satisfy making 150 days
equal to the 17th day of the 7th month.
>
> Let's see.... 7th month means 6 months completed.... 180 days.  Add the 17 for
17th day of the month and I get 197 days.
>
>
>
>
> Ray:
> 30 days for each month times 12 months in a year is a 360 day year. The Old
Testament, in several places before the days of Hezekiah, cite the month as
exactly 30 days.
>
> Pi:
> Recall, I said I'm not disputing a 30 day month.   My question is how the
referenced passages support it.  They don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Ausban <rayausban@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 10:01 am
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a bigger issue here, but to answer Pi's questions it appears from the
text that the 7th month (17th day) minus the 2nd month (17th) is 5 months or 150
days which is 30 days per month. 30 days for each month times 12 months in a
year is a 360 day year. The Old Testament, in several places before the days of
Hezekiah, cite the month as exactly 30 days.
>
> The bigger issue is this: It was a Jew, Immanuel Velikovsky who wrote in his
book 'Worlds in Collision' (p.333 - p. 361) that the year used to be 360 days
and was changed at some point to 365.25 days. He cites several cultures which
had this calendar during times when it was exclusively 360 days for the year.
But concerning the Hebrews he discusses the Talmud calendar changes made by
Hezekiah. Apparently, the Old Testament peoples used the same 360 day year
calendar as every one else up until, like every one else, the calendar was
changed to reflect the new reality.
> However, YEC did not originate the idea. And, as Rick has pointed out  in our
exchanges,YEC merely take things Velikovsky has uncovered and use it for there
own purposes with out acknowledging the source. On something as fundamental as
this, the source should be cited or it is dishonest.
>
> Velikovsky promoted the need for a reconstruction of Middle and Near Eastern
chronology. He did an extensive partial historical reconstruction  (with plenty
of documentation) in several books. I have noticed in recent years the YEC are
starting to move into this area of Velikovsky's work.
>
> I wonder if YEC will bring Velikovsky into their "hall of fame" for giving
them a great deal of so much the teach.
>
>
>
>
> From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
> A 30 day month was not questioned.  The questions are:
> 1)  In what way does the claim the flood began "in the 600th year of Noahâs
life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month" support a 360
day year?
> 2)  In what way does the claim the water covered the Earth for 150 days
support a 360 day year?
> 3)  In what way does the claim the Ark ran aground on the 17th day of the 7th
month support a 360 day year?
> 4)  How can you reconcile 150 days with being the same period as the 17th day
of the 7th month?
>
> I repeat, Terry presents nothing that supports a 360 day year.
>
> There are a number of ancient civilizations that used a 360 day year, but many
of them had 5 "off calendar" holidays each year.  Most ancients used a lunar
calendar with 13 months of 28 days each (364 days).
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> To: Maury_and_Baty
<Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sat, Apr 20, 2013 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [M
& B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
> Genesis 8:3&4 indicate 150 days was the time period from the seventh month on
the 17th day from the second month on the 17th day (Gen. 7:11) This means 150
days = 5 months which =30 days per month.
>
> This is no surprise though. Every ancient culture had a 360 day year calendar.
>
>
>
>
> From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence
>
>
>
>
> Terry can't even do basic arithmetic.
>
> He cites two verses in the flood account as showing a 360 day year.
>
> He claims:
> But the Bible also implies a 360 day year â" before and during the Global
Flood. Genesis 7:11 says the Flood began
>
> in the 600th year of Noahâs life, in the second month, on the seventeenth
day of the month
>
> Pi:
> Nothing there leads to a conclusion of a 360 day year.
>
>
>
> Terry goes on to write:
> Genesis 7:24 says the Flood waters covered the earth for 150 days. Genesis 8:3
repeats that. Then Genesis 8:4 says Noahâs Ark ran aground on the seventeenth
day of the seventh month.
> That implies Noah and his sons (who kept the log of the Ark during its
âcruiseâ) were used to a 360 day year of 12 months, with 30 days for a
month.
>
>
> Let's see.... one verse says 150 days, another says the 17th day of the 7th
month.  If we use a 30 day month, the latter would be 167 days.  With a 28 or 29
day lunar month, it would be 155 days or 161 days respectively.  The verses
don't even agree with each other, let alone indicate a 360 day year.
>
>
> Terry goes on to conclude:
> That implies Noah and his sons (who kept the log of the Ark during its
âcruiseâ) were used to a 360 day year of 12 months, with 30 days for a
month.
>
>
> How?
>
>
> Terry then finishes the article with more uncritical claims produced in Walt
Brown's privately published vanity book.  In short, he produces no justification
>
```
• Dammit.... I hate when I do that.... ... From: rlbaty50 To: Maury_and_Baty Sent: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 8:07 am
Message 5 of 14 , Apr 24
View Source
Dammit.... I hate when I do that....
-----Original Message-----
From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
To: Maury_and_Baty <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 8:07 am
Subject: Re: [M & B] [CSHF] 360 day year: no coincidence

```--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
PIASAN@... wrote:

> Ray, before you declare me helpless,
> I suggest you get the straw out of

Pi, I think you intended or should have intended those comments to be directed
to Daniel, not Ray.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

------------------------------------

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Maury_and_Baty-digest@yahoogroups.com
Maury_and_Baty-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Maury_and_Baty-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

```
• Ray: You have mistaken me for Daniel. Pi: Yeah... I did it again.... sorry. Ray: I do respect your opinion even if I don t agree with it. Pi: Likewise.... I
Message 6 of 14 , Apr 24
View Source
Ray:
You have mistaken me for Daniel.

Pi:
Yeah... I did it again.... sorry.

Ray:
I do respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

Pi:
Likewise.... I even respect Daniel's opinion (usually).

Ray:
I think Daniel was unnecessarily harsh in his comments.

Pi:
I think he just missed the boat.  He set up a straw man and beat the stuffing out of it.

I wasn't disputing that there are 360 day calendars.  Even many modern businesses do it for simplicity in accounting.  My arguments have been:

1)  The things Terry Hurlbut presented as evidence aren't.
2)  Those societies that used 360 day calendars quickly realized they weren't accurate and added 5 "off calendar" days per year to account for the discrepancy.
3)  There is no evidence the solar year was ever 360 days. In fact, the evidence is that the day is getting longer meaning we used to have more days per solar year, not less.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
To: