Hi Laurie,
Contrary to what most scholars believe, I would state that the Messiah was actually born in 2 BCE, not between 6-4 BCE. The reason most scholars say He was born between 6-4 BCE is due to the fact that Flavius Josephus, a 'historian' from the end of the 1st Century CE, stated that there was a lunar eclipse before Herods death. As scientists can determine where the sun and moon were many eons ago in the past, they deduced that as there's a lunar eclipse on March the 13th in 4 BCE, the Messiah must've been at least 1 by the time Herod died, so He must've been born before the lunar eclipse, hence the birth-years given being 6-4 BCE.
Problem with this is the fact that a) Josephus isn't the most reliable historian, especially as he has a tendency to make stuff up or exaggerate numbers (like saying the Synagogues were around from the time the Israelites had exited the Sinai Wilderness), and b) what Josephus stated happened before Herod died was impossible to happen in the time limit he set for it all to happen.
The following webpage explains all the relevant data against Josephus in detail -
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nevertheless, the reason I give 2 BCE as the birth-year of the Messiah is due to the fact that Irenaeus, a Follower of the Messiah from Lyon, wrote in 180 CE that "The Sovereign Master was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus" (Ireaneus -
Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 21:3), and Tertullian, another Follower of the Messiah from Carthage, stated that the Messiah was born twenty-eight years after Cleopatra had comitted suicide, "...twenty and eight years after the death of Cleopatra, the Messiah is born" (Tertullian -
An Answer to the Jews - Chapter 8). He also reiterates that it was the 41st year after the reign of Augustus (that is taking into account that Augustus ruled in the Second Triumvirate along with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus).
As the Second Triumvirate was established in 43 BCE, and Cleopatra committed suicide in 30 BCE, the 41st year of Augustus would be 2 BCE, and the 28th year after Cleopatra's suicide was also 2 BCE, I have no doubt at all at stating that the Messiah was born in 2 BCE. This would therefore mean that Luke is right that the Messiah was "about 30" (Luke 3:1, 23) in the 15th Year of Tiberius (who started his reign as Emperor in 14 CE), corresponding to 29 CE (being born in 2 BCE, the Messiah was 1 in 1 BCE, but as there's no year 0, he was 2 in 1 CE, 11 in 10 CE, 21 in 20 CE, and so 30 in 29 CE). This would also mean that the Messiah was indeed 33 when He was crucified in 33 CE, about six months before His 34th birthday.
With regards to the mark of the beast, there is an unfortunate mistranslation in most English Bibles in that they make you think that people are forced to take the Mark of the Beast. I mean, the ESV has the verse in question (Rev 13:16) say "Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,5 qto be marked on the right hand or the forehead..." Problem with this is the fact that 1) they have not translated 12 out of the 35 Greek words in the verse, and 2) two of these omitted words are the two most important ones in the entire sentence - διδωμι/didomi/give, and αυτος/autos/themselves.
The verse should read as follows:
And he makes and causes everyone, individually and collectively, the small, little and few in significance, and the great, powerful and arrogant, and the rich, those abounding in material resources, and the poor, those destitute of wealth and influence, high position and honour, and the free and unrestrained, and the slaves, servants and attendants so that and in order that they will give and grant, supply and furnish, bestow and deliver, commit and permit, extend, present and provide themselves a mark and stamp, inscription and sign, imprinted designation, brand, and idolatrous image upon their right hands or upon their foreheads... (
http://www.thewaytoyahuweh.com/translat ... #chapter13" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
The verse isn't stating that people are being forced to take the mark - but that they are willingly
giving themselves it. The false prophet is going to be so good at what he does, that people are going to fall for this "mark", and think it's everything they need.
Also, the previous verse shouldn't be omitted from people's minds:
And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. (Rev 13:15) People won't be forcing others to take the mark - if you refuse to worship the beast, you're going to die anyway.
Which 490 years are you referring to, btw? That's the only thing I couldn't quite understand