Critique of the Prophetic Chronology Diagram
By James Perrin
JAMES PERRIN: We send you the Discussion. Price 20 cts. Your diagram is received. It is self-contradictory, as you will see if you will regard what follows: 1. Your diagram ends the 6000 years in 1843. But your reckoning, which is appended, makes that period end in 1872. 2. Your diagram makes the 2300 years end in 1843. But your figuring extends them to 1875. You also say that the redeemed will have access to the tree of life and enter into the city in 1872. But you contradict this by saying that the resurrection will take place in 1875, at least, that of Daniel you place at that date. Now will you say that the saints are to enter the holy city three years before their resurrection? or will you say that Daniel is resurrected three years after the rest of the saints? One of these two positions you must take, and either is absurd, as you will see. 3. Again, your diagram makes it to be 1872 years from the offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22) to the crucifixion of Christ. But Usher's chronology makes it 1872 years to the birth of Christ. If Usher were correct, your period of 1872 would reach, not to Christ's crucifixion, but simply to his birth. That is to say, it falls short over 30 years of reaching his crucifixion. But that is not all. You use Usher's chronology as if it were too long by 30 years; but in your remarks appended to your diagram, you show that his chronology from Abraham to the birth of Christ is too short by 124. Such remarkable inaccuracies should cause you to re-consider the matter. 4. Your diagram has a period of 1868 years to span the period from the birth of Christ to the year 1875! Here is an error in your diagram of 7 years. 5. You date the 70 weeks at the going forth of the decree recorded in Ezra 7. This has been proved by incontestable evidence to have been B. C. 457. You have the 70 weeks expire at the crucifixion. But the words of the angel require this event to be placed in the midst of the seventieth week. Dan. 9: 27. 6. In your diagram you rightly date the 2300 days from the starting point of the 70 weeks, for they are cut off from that long period, as the literal translation of Dan. 9: 24 clearly indicates. But in your explanation of your diagram, you deny all this by dating the 2300 years in A. D. 426. So that the key given us to the reckoning of the 2300 days by the explanation of the angel, in Dan. 9, is by yourself in one place virtually admitted, and in the other fully denied. These reasons are quite sufficient for respectfully declining to insert your diagram.