What happens when we place the 49-Year Method beside Leviticus 25, Jubilees 1:29, and the 50-year markers?
My study of the Jubilee cycles began with what appeared to be the most accepted method: the 49-Year Method.
At first, the method seemed reliable. As I worked through the Jubilee dates found in the Book of Jubilees, my calculations matched the year placements I was seeing in the text I was using. Each event had what I call a Jubilee Date: the number of the Jubilee, the week within that Jubilee, and the year within that week.
For example:
“The 7th year, in the 2nd week, in the 39th Jubilee.”
That is a Jubilee Date.
As long as the numbers appeared to match, I continued forward with confidence. But when I reached the 49th Jubilee cycle, something began to feel unstable. The numbers were still moving, but they no longer felt cohesive with the biblical structure. I did not fully understand what I was seeing at the time, but I now recognize it as a form of chronological distortion: inflation and suppression of time happening at the same time.
I continued with the 49-Year Method until I reached the Exodus calculation. Using that method, I arrived at:
2410 AM
The 2nd year, in the 2nd week, in the 50th Jubilee
Even though the calculation appeared complete, I knew something was wrong. I just could not yet identify the problem.
So I set the 49-Year Method aside and began testing the 50-Year Method.
Immediately, the year placements changed. This was enough to make me continue. I recalculated the Jubilee dates from the first Jubilee through the 49th Jubilee cycle using the 50-Year Method. At first, I was pleased with the results because they gave me a different set of numbers to examine.
But when I reached the Exodus again, the 50-Year Method produced:
2509 AM
As soon as I saw that number, I knew this method also had a problem. I did not know why yet, but I wrote it down and pondered it for three days.
On the morning of the third day, I woke from a dream. I could not remember the whole dream at first, but later that day one sentence came back to me:
“If the 49-year cycle and the 50-year cycle can both exist on the same timeline, why wouldn’t they both exist in the same mathematical formula?”
That question changed everything.
I immediately began a side-by-side comparison between the 49-Year Method and the 50-Year Method, using the Exodus as my case study.
The result was unmistakable.
The 49-Year Method placed the Exodus at:
2410 AM
The 50-Year Method placed the Exodus at:
2509 AM
The difference between them was:
99 years
That caught my attention because:
49 + 50 = 99
At that moment, I began to see that the two methods were not meant to stand independently. Each one seemed to preserve part of the structure while failing in another part.
The 49-Year Method preserved the 7×7 work grid, but it failed to preserve the standalone 50th-year Jubilee marker.
The 50-Year Method recognized the importance of the 50-year marker, but it failed to properly preserve the internal 49-year work grid.
This led me to what I now call the Smith Jubilee Formula, or SJF.
The SJF calculates the Jubilee cycle by recognizing the 50-year framework while applying the necessary 49-year subtraction to identify the first year of the Jubilee cycle in question.
Then something else appeared: decimals.
Those decimals became the confirmation system. They revealed whether a year was inside the work grid or standing as a completed Jubilee marker. I came to call this the Divine Chrono Matrix, also known as the Double Check Mechanism, or DCM.
Together, the SJF and DCM form what I call the third method for calculating the Jubilee cycles.
This third method does not treat the 49-year and 50-year structures as enemies. It recognizes that both are necessary:
49 years form the 7×7 work grid.
The 50th year stands as the Jubilee marker.
That distinction is the foundation of this study.
The purpose of this blog is not to attack those who use the 49-Year Method. I used it myself. I understand why it appears convincing at first. But once the method is tested against Leviticus 25, Jubilees 1:29, the 50-year markers, and the DCM, a serious structural problem begins to appear.
The 49-Year Method can count in blocks of 49, but it does not give the Jubilee year its own individual placement.
Leviticus 25 commands Israel to count seven sabbaths of years, totaling forty-nine years, and then sanctify the fiftieth year as Jubilee. Jubilees 1:29 speaks of the divisions of years, weeks, jubilees, and individual years. These are ordered categories, not a collapsed system where one year carries two identities.
This is where the 49-Year Method fails.
It makes the 50th year do double duty: first as the Jubilee year, and then as Year 1 of the next cycle. But the text never assigns the Jubilee year that dual role.
Under SJF & DCM, each Jubilee marker is preserved as its own individual year:
1st Jubilee marker = 50
2nd Jubilee marker = 100
3rd Jubilee marker = 150
4th Jubilee marker = 200
And the pattern continues.
The seven infographics that follow are designed to show this problem visually. They examine the 49-Year Method through the 350-Year Test, the Cycle 7 breaking point, the displacement of years 344–350, the DCM verdict, the Phantom 51st Jubilee, and the missing 50th year.
The question is simple:
Does the 49-Year Method preserve the Jubilee year as its own individual, set-apart year?
By the end of this study, the answer becomes difficult to ignore.
Leviticus 25 gives the order clearly:
- Count seven sabbaths of years
- That equals forty-nine years
- Then sanctify the fiftieth year
- That fiftieth year is the Jubilee
The text does not say:
“The fiftieth year shall also be the first year of the next cycle.”
It says:
“Ye shall sanctify the fiftieth year.”
That makes the Jubilee year a distinct year with its own identity, its own function, and its own holiness.
The 49-Year Method collapses what Leviticus 25 separates. Leviticus first identifies the 49-year work grid, seven sabbaths of years, seven times seven years. Then, after that count is complete, it commands Israel to sanctify the fiftieth year as Jubilee. The text gives the Jubilee year its own individual identity. It does not merge the fiftieth year with Year 1 of the next cycle.
Jubilees 1:29 strengthens this structure by speaking of the divisions of years, the weeks, the jubilees, and the individual years. This means the Jubilee system is not a collapsed count where one year carries two identities. Each week has its years. Each Jubilee has its number. Each Jubilee marker has its individual year.
The 350-Year Test
Can a Jubilee system preserve the fiftieth-year marker if every cycle is counted as only 49 continuous years?
That is the question behind the 350-Year Test.
Leviticus 25 gives a clear sequence. First, Israel is commanded to count seven sabbaths of years, or seven times seven years. That produces 49 years. Then, after that 49-year count, the fiftieth year is sanctified as Jubilee.
So the test is simple:
If we follow seven Jubilee cycles, do we arrive at 350 ordered years, or only 343 years?
A sound Jubilee framework must preserve two things at the same time:
The 7×7 work grid
and
The standalone fiftieth-year Jubilee marker
The 7×7 work grid gives:
7 weeks × 7 years = 49 working years
The Jubilee marker gives:
49 working years + 1 set-apart Jubilee year = 50-year Jubilee frame
So one complete Jubilee frame contains:
49 working years + 1 Jubilee marker = 50 years
The Jubilee year is like a sacred boundary stone. It marks the completion of the cycle. It is not supposed to be pulled back into the work grid.
Under SJF & DCM, the seven-Jubilee span is clean:
Cycle 1: 1–49 | Marker 50
Cycle 2: 51–99 | Marker 100
Cycle 3: 101–149 | Marker 150
Cycle 4: 151–199 | Marker 200
Cycle 5: 201–249 | Marker 250
Cycle 6: 251–299 | Marker 300
Cycle 7: 301–349 | Marker 350
This produces:
7 cycles × 49 working years = 343 working years
7 Jubilee markers = 7 set-apart years
343 + 7 = 350 ordered years
That means the 50-year markers remain intact:
50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350
Each marker is divisible by 50 and stands as a completed-cycle boundary.
So under SJF & DCM:
Seven Jubilees equal 350 ordered years.
The DCM confirms the marker structure by dividing each marker by 50:
50 ÷ 50 = 1.00
100 ÷ 50 = 2.00
150 ÷ 50 = 3.00
200 ÷ 50 = 4.00
250 ÷ 50 = 5.00
300 ÷ 50 = 6.00
350 ÷ 50 = 7.00
A .00 result means the year is not an internal working year of the cycle. It is a completed-cycle marker.
So the DCM verdict is clear:
350 is the seventh Jubilee marker, not Year 7 of an eighth cycle.
Now compare this with the standalone 49-Year Method.
The 49-Year Method counts continuous 49-year blocks:
Cycle 1: 1–49 | Next start 50
Cycle 2: 50–98 | Next start 99
Cycle 3: 99–147 | Next start 148
Cycle 4: 148–196 | Next start 197
Cycle 5: 197–245 | Next start 246
Cycle 6: 246–294 | Next start 295
Cycle 7: 295–343 | Next start 344
This produces:
7 cycles × 49 years = 343 years
But here is the problem.
By the time the true 350-year marker arrives, the 49-Year Method has already moved into another cycle.
Under the 49-Year Method:
Cycle 8 begins at 344
344–350 = first seven years of Cycle 8
So under the 49-Year Method:
Seven Jubilees equal 343 years, and years 344–350 are displaced into an eighth cycle.
That creates the central conflict.
Under SJF & DCM:
344–349 = final six working years of Cycle 7
350 = seventh Jubilee marker
Under the 49-Year Method:
344–350 = first seven years of Cycle 8
The same seven-year block cannot be both the completion of the seventh Jubilee frame and the opening of the eighth cycle.
This is where the 350-Year Test becomes powerful. It does not merely say the 49-Year Method is different. It shows exactly where the displacement happens.
The 49-Year Method’s claimed starts walk backward through the prior SJF/DCM cycle:
50 = Jubilee marker, not Year 1
99 = 49th year
148 = 48th year
197 = 47th year
246 = 46th year
295 = 45th year
344 = 44th year
That means the claimed starts are not true first years under DCM inspection. They are displaced positions inside the previous Jubilee frame.
So the issue is not only numerical. It is structural.
Leviticus 25 separates the 49-year count from the fiftieth-year proclamation. It says to count seven sabbaths of years, totaling 49 years, and then sanctify the fiftieth year as Jubilee.
The 49-Year Method collapses those two categories by making the fiftieth year function as the first year of the next cycle.
That creates a dual-identity year:
50th year = Jubilee marker
50th year = Year 1 of the next cycle
But the text does not assign the Jubilee year both roles.
The SJF & DCM preserves the distinction:
49 working years
+ 1 set-apart Jubilee marker
= complete Jubilee frame
The 350-Year Test reveals the difference clearly:
SJF & DCM:
7 Jubilees = 350 ordered years
343 working years + 7 set-apart Jubilee markers
49-Year Method:
7 Jubilees = 343 years
The final 7 years are displaced into an 8th cycle
Therefore, the conclusion is simple:
The SJF & DCM preserves the markers. The 49-Year Method consumes them.
The 49-Year Method can count seven blocks of forty-nine years, but it cannot preserve the seven fiftieth-year Jubilee markers. By year 350, the system has already entered an eighth cycle, proving that the Jubilee marker has been absorbed into the work grid rather than preserved as a set-apart boundary.
The Breaking Point: Jubilee Cycle 7
After the 350-Year Test, the next question is simple:
Where does the difference between the SJF & DCM and the standalone 49-Year Method become visible?
The answer is found clearly in Jubilee Cycle 7.
Under the standalone 49-Year Method, Cycle 7 is identified as:
49-YM Cycle 7:
Years 295–343
That means the cycle ends at 343.
But under SJF & DCM, Cycle 7 is identified as:
SJF & DCM Cycle 7:
Years 301–349
350 = Jubilee Marker
That means the seventh Jubilee frame does not end at 343. It completes at the 350-year marker.
This is the breaking point.
The same cycle number is being used, but the two systems are no longer standing in the same location.
The 49-Year Method places Cycle 7 at:
295–343
The SJF & DCM places Cycle 7 at:
301–349 + the 350 Jubilee marker
That creates three visible differences:
Different location
Different ending
Different marker logic
The 49-Year Method ends Cycle 7 seven years short of the 350 marker. Then it begins Cycle 8 at 344.
But the SJF & DCM keeps years 344–349 inside the final week of Cycle 7, and identifies 350 as the completed-cycle Jubilee marker.
So the issue is not merely that the numbers look different.
The issue is that the 49-Year Method has compressed the cycle and moved forward too early.
Under SJF & DCM:
301–349 = Cycle 7 work grid
350 = Jubilee marker
Under 49-YM:
295–343 = Cycle 7
344 = Cycle 8 begins
That means the 49-Year Method removes the final seven-year stretch from the seventh Jubilee frame and pushes it into the next cycle.
This is why Cycle 7 exposes the compression.
The SJF & DCM preserves the Jubilee boundary.
The 49-Year Method crosses the boundary before the marker arrives.
Final verdict:
Where Did Years 344–350 Go?
After seeing that the standalone 49-Year Method ends Cycle 7 at 343, the next question becomes unavoidable:
Where did years 344–350 go?
This seven-year block is important because it reveals the exact displacement created by the 49-Year Method.
Under SJF & DCM, years 344–349 are still inside Cycle 7.
They are the final six working years of the seventh Jubilee cycle.
Then year 350 stands outside the 7×7 work grid as the Jubilee Marker.
So under SJF & DCM:
344–349 = final six working years of Cycle 7
350 = Jubilee Marker
344–350 = completion of the seventh Jubilee frame
But under the standalone 49-Year Method, Cycle 7 has already ended at 343.
That means Cycle 8 begins at 344.
So under the 49-Year Method:
344–350 = first seven years of Cycle 8
This creates the conflict.
The same years are being assigned two different identities.
Under SJF & DCM, years 344–350 complete the seventh Jubilee frame.
Under the 49-Year Method, those same years begin the eighth cycle.
That cannot both be true.
The same seven years cannot be both:
The completion of Cycle 7
and
The opening of Cycle 8
This is where the compression becomes impossible to ignore.
The 49-Year Method does not merely shift numbers slightly. It relocates an entire seven-year block into the wrong cycle.
The most important year in this block is 350.
Under SJF & DCM:
350 = Jubilee Marker
350 sits outside the 7×7 working grid
Under the 49-Year Method:
350 = Cycle 8, Year 7
350 sits inside the 7×7 working grid
That is the core contradiction.
The Jubilee marker cannot be both outside the work grid and inside the work grid at the same time.
So the question, “Where did years 344–350 go?” has two different answers:
SJF & DCM answer:
They remain in the completion zone of Cycle 7, with 350 as the Jubilee marker.
49-Year Method answer:
They are moved into the opening week of Cycle 8.
That is why this infographic matters.
It shows the exact location where the 49-Year Method consumes the Jubilee marker and displaces the final seven years of the cycle.
Final verdict:
DCM Verdict: 344–350
After identifying the disputed block of years, the next step is to let the Double Check Mechanism judge the placement.
The question is simple:
Where do years 344–350 actually belong when tested through DCM?
The DCM works by dividing the year by 50.
The whole number shows the completed Jubilee markers already passed.
The decimal portion identifies the internal year placement inside the current cycle.
When we test years 344–350, the result is clear:
344 ÷ 50 = 6.88 → Year 44
345 ÷ 50 = 6.90 → Year 45
346 ÷ 50 = 6.92 → Year 46
347 ÷ 50 = 6.94 → Year 47
348 ÷ 50 = 6.96 → Year 48
349 ÷ 50 = 6.98 → Year 49
350 ÷ 50 = 7.00 → Jubilee Marker
This confirms the SJF & DCM placement.
Under SJF & DCM:
344 = Cycle 7, Week 7, Year 2
345 = Cycle 7, Week 7, Year 3
346 = Cycle 7, Week 7, Year 4
347 = Cycle 7, Week 7, Year 5
348 = Cycle 7, Week 7, Year 6
349 = Cycle 7, Week 7, Year 7
350 = Jubilee Marker
But under the standalone 49-Year Method, those same years are placed differently:
344 = Cycle 8, Year 1
345 = Cycle 8, Year 2
346 = Cycle 8, Year 3
347 = Cycle 8, Year 4
348 = Cycle 8, Year 5
349 = Cycle 8, Year 6
350 = Cycle 8, Year 7
This is the conflict.
The DCM identifies 350 as a completed-cycle marker.
The 49-Year Method treats 350 as an internal year inside the 8th cycle.
That means the 49-Year Method places the Jubilee marker inside the work grid.
But under SJF & DCM logic, a .00 result is not an internal working year. It is a marker. It stands outside the 7×7 grid as the completed Jubilee boundary.
This matters because the Jubilee year cannot be both:
A completed-cycle marker
and
An internal year of the next work cycle
The DCM does not allow that dual assignment.
It identifies 350 as the marker of seven completed Jubilee frames.
So the verdict is clear:
DCM identifies 350 as a marker.
SJF & DCM keeps 350 outside the work grid.
The 49-Year Method treats 350 as an internal year.
That is the diagnostic failure.
The 49-Year Method does not merely misplace a number. It changes the function of the year.
Under DCM inspection, 350 is not Cycle 8, Year 7.
It is the seventh Jubilee marker.
Final verdict:
The 49-Year Method Falls Apart Under the 350-Year Test
This infographic brings the first four tests together and shows the full pattern in one place.
The question is no longer theoretical:
Can the standalone 49-Year Method preserve the 50th-year Jubilee marker?
When the method is placed under the 350-Year Test, the answer becomes clear.
Under SJF & DCM, the structure remains ordered:
7 Jubilee cycles = 350 years
343 working years + 7 set-apart Jubilee markers
The markers remain intact:
50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350
Each one resolves cleanly through the DCM as a completed-cycle marker.
But under the standalone 49-Year Method, the structure compresses:
7 continuous 49-year cycles = 343 years
That means by the time the true 350-year marker arrives, the 49-Year Method has already placed years 344–350 inside Cycle 8.
This creates the seven-year discrepancy.
Under SJF & DCM:
344–349 = Cycle 7, final working years
350 = Jubilee Marker
Under the 49-Year Method:
344–350 = Cycle 8, Years 1–7
That means year 350 is treated as an internal work-grid year instead of a Jubilee marker.
The DCM exposes the problem:
350 ÷ 50 = 7.00
A .00 result marks a completed Jubilee boundary.
So 350 is not Cycle 8, Year 7.
It is the seventh Jubilee marker.
This is why the 49-Year Method breaks under inspection. It does four things at once:
It absorbs the 50th year.
It compresses the timeline.
It misplaces seven years.
It inflates the Jubilee count.
The “Phantom 51st Jubilee” makes the same problem visible at a larger scale.
Under 49-YM, years 2451–2499 are called Cycle 51.
But under SJF & DCM:
2451–2499 = 50th Jubilee work grid
2500 = 50th Jubilee marker
2501 = 51st Jubilee begins
So the 51st Jubilee cannot begin until after the 50th Jubilee marker at 2500.
This is the heart of the issue:
The 49-Year Method can count in blocks of 49, but it cannot preserve the Jubilee year as a standalone fiftieth-year marker.
It counts the Jubilee, then consumes it.
The SJF & DCM preserves the divine pattern:
7×7 work grid + standalone Jubilee marker
That is why the final verdict is simple:
The Phantom 51st Jubilee
This infographic exposes the next major problem created by the standalone 49-Year Method:
It advances the Jubilee count too early.
Under the 49-Year Method, the years 2451–2499 are labeled as: Cycle 51
But under SJF & DCM, those same years are identified as:
The 50th Jubilee work grid
That is a major conflict.
The SJF & DCM structure is:
So the question is simple:
How can the 51st Jubilee begin at 2451 if the 50th Jubilee marker does not arrive until 2500?
It cannot.
That is why this is called the Phantom 51st Jubilee.
The 49-Year Method creates a 51st cycle before the 50th Jubilee has been completed.
The DCM confirms the placement:
That means year 2451 is not the beginning of the 51st Jubilee.
It is the first working year of the 50th Jubilee Cycle.
Year 2499 is not the end of the 51st Jubilee.
It is the final working year of the 50th Jubilee Cycle.
And year 2500 is not optional. It is the completed-cycle Jubilee marker.
This is where the 49-Year Method inflates the count.
It calls 2451–2499 “Cycle 51,” but DCM identifies that same span as Cycle 50.
The 51st Jubilee cannot begin until after the 50th Jubilee marker at 2500.
So under SJF & DCM:
Under the 49-Year Method:
2451–2499 = Cycle 51
That means the 49-Year Method has skipped over the full completion of the 50th Jubilee frame.
It has advanced the cycle count too early.
This is not just a naming issue. It is a structural error.
If 2451–2499 is called Cycle 51, then the 50th Jubilee has no completed 49-year work grid followed by its own standalone Jubilee marker.
The 50th Jubilee marker at 2500 is absorbed, displaced, or ignored.
That is why the cycle becomes “phantom.”
It appears in the 49-Year Method before the SJF & DCM structure allows it to exist.
Final verdict:
The 51st Jubilee cannot begin until after the 50th Jubilee marker at 2500.
2401 and the Missing 50th Year
This final infographic exposes the root problem behind the standalone 49-Year Method.
The issue begins with the calculation:
49 × 49 = 2401
That calculation is mathematically true.
But the question is:
What does 2401 actually prove?
The standalone 49-Year Method treats this as support for its continuous 49-year cycle structure.
But under SJF & DCM, 2401 confirms something much more specific:
2401 is the first year of the 49th Jubilee cycle.
The structure is clean:
So 2401 does not prove that the Jubilee year should be absorbed into the next cycle.
It proves that after 49 completed 49-year cycles, the next working cycle begins.
That is exactly what SJF & DCM expects.
The 49-Year Method can reach 2401, but it does not create a standalone 50th year.
That is the missing piece.
It counts 49-year blocks, but it does not give the Jubilee marker its own independent place.
This becomes even clearer in the 49-YM Exodus chain:
2401 + 7 + 2 = 2410
That places the Exodus at 2410 under the 49-Year Method.
Then:
2410 + 40 = 2450
So the 49-Year Method treats 2450 as the 50th Jubilee.
But the structural problem remains:
Where is the standalone 50th year inside the 49-Year Method?
The answer is: it has no independent place.
Under 49-YM:
Under SJF & DCM:
That is the difference.
The SJF & DCM does not reject the 49-year work grid.
It preserves it.
But it also preserves the Jubilee marker as a distinct year outside the grid.
The 49-Year Method preserves the 49-year count but loses the separate Jubilee year.
That is why the 50th year goes missing.
The verdict is simple:
49 × 49 = 2401 validates 49 completed 49-year cycles.
And under SJF & DCM, that places 2401 at the first year of the 49th Jubilee cycle.
The 49-Year Method can count to 2450, but it cannot give the 50th year a true standalone place in the cycle structure.
Final verdict:
The Jubilee Year Must Have Its Own Witness
After walking through these seven infographics, the issue becomes clear.
The standalone 49-Year Method can count in blocks of forty-nine, but it cannot preserve the Jubilee year as its own individual, set-apart year.
That is the central problem.
Leviticus 25 does not merely tell Israel to count forty-nine years. It tells Israel to count seven sabbaths of years, complete the forty-nine-year span, and then sanctify the fiftieth year as Jubilee. The fiftieth year is not presented as an ordinary work-grid year. It is proclaimed, sanctified, and set apart.
Jubilees 1:29 also points to ordered divisions of time: weeks, jubilees, and individual years. That matters because the Jubilee is not supposed to disappear into the next cycle. It must have its own individual witness.
This is where the 49-Year Method breaks down.
It makes the fiftieth year serve two functions at once:
Jubilee marker
and
Year 1 of the next cycle
But the text never gives the Jubilee year that dual assignment.
The SJF & DCM preserves what the text separates:
49 working years
+ 1 standalone Jubilee marker
= one complete Jubilee Grid of 7 weeks of years.
That is why the 50-year markers remain coherent:
50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350
And that is why the DCM identifies these marker years cleanly. A year ending in .00 is not an internal year of the work grid. It is a completed-cycle marker.
So the conclusion is not based on preference. It is based on structure.
The 49-Year Method compresses the cycle.
The SJF & DCM preserves the cycle.
The 49-Year Method absorbs the marker.
The SJF & DCM sets the marker apart.
The 49-Year Method creates a dual-identity year.
The SJF & DCM keeps the Jubilee year holy, distinct, and individually assigned.
This is why I no longer see the 49-Year Method as a complete Jubilee model. It preserves the 49-year work count, but it does not preserve the fiftieth-year Jubilee.
And a Jubilee method that cannot preserve the Jubilee year cannot fully represent the Jubilee command.
The final question is simple:
Where does the fiftieth year live?
If it is absorbed into the next cycle, the marker disappears.
If it stands apart, the Jubilee remains intact.
That is why the SJF & DCM matters.
It does not erase the 49-year grid.
It restores the Jubilee year to its rightful place.
The BANG Jubilee Calculator 5.0 was built upon the SJF & DCM framework. This method for calculating the Jubilee cycles, combines the 49 & 50-Year methods into one cohesive structure which blends the 7 X 7 grid, with a stand alone year of Jubilee which adheres to Leviticus 25, and Jubilee 1:29. This Jubilee calculator is scheduled to be released on June 1st, 2026. Currently, The BANG is searching for serious researchers and others who have no idea about the Jubilee timekeeping method. We invite you to test it, and measure the Jubilee and Biblical timeline from May 1st through the 15th.
Email tlsmith@theblackancestrynetworkgroup.com
And request to be added to the testers list. If chosen, you will receive an email containing "The BJC-5.0 User Manuel" and a link to the BJC-5.0
Comments
Post a Comment