Steve Jones:
>But in this case: 1) I was and am very busy and it was a hurried post
>(witness the unfinished "QQ": in it); and 2) I didn't want to swamp
>Reflectorites with a great mass of detail, since it would probably turn them
>off. That is why I said at the end of it: "I would be happy to work through
>this with anyone who does not dismiss it out of hand as "impossible" but is
>open-minded enough to consider it."
>PR>Notwithstanding the minor details that there are about 4 or 5 decrees,
>3-4 ways of counting the years,
>SJ>I agree that there alternative "ways of counting the years". That is why
I
>said from the outset that: "Such prophecy is, of course, not absolute proof,
>and those who deny outright the very possibility of the supernatural no
>doubt have some ingenious ways of getting around it (apart from outright
>`head-in-the-sand' denial)."
Paul Robson 26 Nov:
I am inteerested that you think pointing out that there are rather a lot of
combinations of possibilities is an "ingenious way of getting round it".
PR
Odd that you didn't mention your years have 360 days in them.
Steve Jones:
It is not "odd" at all. As I have already explained it was deliberately
brief because: a) at the time I was studying for an exam; and b) I did
not want to overwhelm non-Christians with a mass of detail which
might turn them off-my original post was in response to something that
*Chris* had posted, not something of Paul's.
Paul Robson 26 Nov:
A mass of detail ?
Steve Jones:
Also, as it turned out, although I did not fully realise it at the time, the
excerpt from Newman's chapter in Geivett & Habermas' book did not
use the 360-day year method of reckoning, but rather Sabbath year
cycles.
The fact is that I was not then, and am not now, committed to the 360-
day year method of calculation (in fact I did not then known much
about this prophecy, having never studied it in depth before). It is
but one method of calculation used to reconcile Dan 9:24-27 with the
time of Jesus' public ministry. It could well be correct. But it may be
that other methods like Newman's Sabbath year cycle method might be
at least as good, if not better.
Paul Robson 26 Nov:
So, the approach is we use what gets us closest to the answer we
want, is that right ?
Steve Jones:
>SJ>>But the assumption that Daniel 9's 'sevens' are seven year periods and
the
>year is 360 days is a reasonable one since Daniel himself uses it (compare
>Dan 7:25's "time, times and half a time" = 3 1/2 years with the same term
in
>Rev 12:14 "time, times and half a time", which by parallel passages in Rev
>13:5 "forty-two months" and Rev 12:6 "1,260 days" 360-day "prophetic
>years" are intended 1260/3.5 = 360 and 42/12 = 3.5
>PR>I would agree that weeks for years is okay.
Steve Jones:
Good. That's a start!
Paul Robson:
And the rest of it is bunk.
Steve Jones:
PR>360 days isn't. There is no reson
>that this is a "parallel passage" other than it makes it "work" and there is
>equally no reason to take this passage as being a 360 day year (other than
>it makes it "work").
There are at least two passages in the Bible (in each Testament) where
360-day
years are used. For example, in Gn 7:11 it says the Flood started "on the
seventeenth day of the second month", lasted for "a hundred and fifty days"
(Gn 7:24; 8:3) and ended "on the seventeenth day of the seventh month"
(Gn 8:4). Thus 5 months comprised a total of 150 days, or 30 days per
month, or 360 months in a year.
Paul Robson:
Really.
Steve Jones:
This ties in with the original Mesopotamian calendar being "30 x 12 =
360 days":
with the harvest. This fluctuating and discontinuous year was not precise
enough for the meticulous accounting of Sumerian scribes, who by 2400
BC already used the schematic year of 30 x 12 = 360 days.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
So why are we use this as a measure for Daniel ; other than it conveniently
gives you the answer you want. Do you *really* think apologists would say
it was invalid if 365.25 worked out exactly ?
Steve Jones:
And Daniel himself in Dan 7:25 uses the term "time, times and half a time"
(1+2+1/2 = 3 1/2) in a prophecy. Revelation 12:14 uses the same term
"a time, times and half a time". In Rev 12:6 the same time is described
as "1,260 days" and in Rev 13:5 the same period is "forty-two
months". 1260 days/42 = 30 day months. Also 42 months/3.5 = 30 day
months.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
It's approximations ! And what on earth has Revelations got to do with it
anyway ! It doesn't say this is *exactly* 42 months. Let's be honest.
When Anderson invented this nonsense he was looking for a fiddle
factor. Newman used a different one.
Incidentally, hadn't you noticed one of your sources says 360 days is
invalid.
Steve Jones:
Since this last requires a deeper exegesis of Revelation than is possible
in this type of forum (e.g. one would probably have to read Henrikson's
"More Than Conquerors"in order to grasp the Book of Revelation's
underlying sevenfold scheme of `progressive parallelism'). So I don't
really expect Paul to accept this. It is sufficient for me that there is
evidence that the Jews in Bible did sometimes use 360-day years, for it
to be a real possibility that the "sevens" of Daniel 9:24-27 are 7 x 360-
day periods.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Personally, I think anyone who views Revelation as worthy of exegis is
rather sad. Of course, the simpler solution : that these are apologetics
arguments concocted because they "work" - doesn't seem to occur to
Steve.
PR
>It is like the cubit argument that makes Pi 3. It is not true, because there
>is no claim of exact values.
Steve Jones:
In this case there is no claim that there are *not* exact values either!
Paul Robson:
Nor are there in Revelations.
PR
Let me ask you this. Suppose that it had worked exactly with 365.25 days
to a year.
Steve Jones:
I might ask Paul the same question. "Suppose that it had worked
exactly with 365.25 days to a year"? Would Paul accept it as a genuine
prophecy and evidence of the supernatural? I doubt it.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
I would look at it with rather more interest. I notice you have conveniently
avoided answering the question. Here comes lots of pathetic psychology
to hide the fact that you haven't answered the question.
Steve Jones:
I presume his
personal anti-supernaturalistic philosophy would have the priority over
the evidence. So I suspect that Paul would then claim that either: 1)
Jesus never existed; or 2) Jesus did not exist at that time but the gospel
writers made out that He did; or 3) Jesus did exist at that time but
either: a) the terminus ad quo is wrong; or b) the calculation is wrong;
or c) Jesus read up the prophecy and decided to fulfill it (not
necessarily wrong BTW).
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Actually, I claim that the start date doesn't fit ; the terminus is unknown ;
and your calculation is bunk. Tell me, Steve, how come you know when
Jesus was crucified when everyone else doesn't appear to.
Steve Jones:
I hope I am wrong regarding my presumption of what Paul would do if
"it had worked exactly with 365.25 days to a year" because as it turns
out there *is* one combination that does:
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
No, you still haven't answered the question. Can't think why.
Steve Jones:
"The one combination which coincides with known history
throughout starts with the decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year,
457 B.C. A period of seven weeks or forty- nine years came to a
close about 408 B.C., and the reformation under Ezra and
Nehemiah was conducted during this period and characterized this
period as a whole. .... Then follow sixty-two weeks or 434 years,
coming down through A.D. 26 to the time when Jesus began his
public ministry, A.D. 27, probably early in that year." (Davis J.D.,
"A Dictionary of the Bible," 1966, p.163).
This is another possibility but the "365.25 days to a year" modern
method of calculation is not necessarily automatically correct, because
the Jews between 587BC-70AD used a number of calendars for
religious and secular purposes:
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Oh, so we are now going on about the beginning of the ministry, not
the crucifixion. How come you know this ?
Do you have any arguments of your own, incidentally ?
Steve Jones:
The OT scholar Archer believes that either interpretation is possible:
"There are two ways of computing these 69 heptads (or 483 years).
First, by starting from the decree of Artaxerxes issued to Nehemiah
in 445 B.C. (cf. Neh. 2:4, 8) and reckoning the 483 years as lunar
years of 360 days each, 4 which would be equivalent to 471 solar
years and would result in the date A.D. 31 for the appearance of the
Messiah and His "cutting off" (or crucifixion). ... 4 In. his
Commentary on Daniel (#683), Jerome records this tradition from
Africanus, who in his Tempora says: "On the other hand, the
interval from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the time of Christ
completes the figure of seventy weeks, if we reckon according to
the lunar computation of the Hebrews, who did not number their
months according to the movement of the sun, but rather according
to the moon ... For according to their computation, these years can
be made up of months of twenty-nine and one-half days each."
(Archer G.L., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction," 1966,
p.387)
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Don't you think it is quite mind numbingly dense to keep quoting apologists
who can't even agree ?
Steve Jones: (Archer)
"Or ... the starting point may be identified with the decree of
Artaxerxes in his seventh year, issued for the benefit of Ezra in 457
B.C. ... 483 solar years from 457 B.C. would come out to A.D. 25
as the time of Christ's ministry." (Archer G.L., 1966, p.387)
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Oh, incidentally, if anyone wants to see what sort of "Scholar" Archer is
I refer you to his letter to Farrell Till in Skeptical Review.
PR
Do you really believe apologists would say "Oh this doesn't work, because
it should be using prophectic years ?"
Steve Jones:
Yes. The proof is in Archer above. He knows about a "365.25 days to
a year" calculation but still accepts that it could be a 360-day
calculation. Even Davis, after clearly setting out the "365.25 days to a
year" calculation, accepts that the time periods may be "symbolical, and
measure symbolically, not mathematically":
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Not answering the question. Archer uses those figures because they
work. Archer is an apologist, not a "scholar".
Steve Jones:
"Nevertheless, notwithstanding the coincidence of the prophecy
with the known events in the history of God's kingdom, and the
significance of this correspondence, yet quite probably the seventy,
and the seven separated from it at the beginning, and the one week
marked of from it at the end, are all symbolical, and measure
symbolically, not mathematically, a vast period in the history of
God's kingdom on earth." (Davis J.D., "A Dictionary of the Bible,"
1966, p.163)
The fact is that Christian evangelical theologians and apologists are
trying to find the best interpretation that fits the most number of facts.
To find that best interpretation they work like scientists do, by a
hypothetico-deductive methodology, assuming that something is a fact
(in this case that Jesus is the Messiah) and then working backwards
with hypotheses to see if a reasonable alternative minor adjustment of
data or interpretation of the data yields a better fit with the assumed
fact. If Paul rejects this methodology, then he would have to reject
much of modern science and in fact evolutionary biology which heavily
employs this hypothetico-deductive methodology.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
I'm truly amazed you think this is what science does. Your "reasonable
interpretations" are fiddling the figures. Apologists who list this
"prophecy"
don't in my experience mention
1) the debatable start date
2) the umpteen different year lengths or 6/7 cheat
3) the unknown date of the terminus
4) the multiple terminuses
Steve Jones:
In this case assuming that Daniel's `sevens' were either 360-day years
or Sabbath year cycles (both of which have support from Scripture)
with a terminus ad quo of 445BC; or straight solar years with a
terminus ad quo of 457BC, they do obtain a fit. The only question is
which is the better fit.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Yeah ; this is what I'm saying. They pick the interpretation not because
it's credible or even honest, but because it works.
Steve Jones:
Granted that this means that one cannot absolutely *prove* that Jesus
is the Messiah, but it is part of the cumulative circumstantial evidence
to support the assumption that He was.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Which you will no doubt churn out if I ask. And will be the bog standard
apologetics arguments.
PR>and several target points. This one,
>>I believe, uses the 360 day years to hit its target.
Steve Jones:
I am glad to see that Paul admits that at least one reasonable
interpretation of Dan 9:24-27 (namely "360 day years") does in fact
"hit its target"!
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Oh yes, if you work backwards from the answer you want and
except demented interpretations because they work, you can
get it.
>PR>[snipped a bit]
SJ>360/365 the conversion factor of 360 day prophetic years
>PR>You see, to me this just looks like cheating.
Steve Jones:
It only "looks like cheating" to Paul because he works from the
naturalistic assumption that the supernatural is impossible and therefore
Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah.
But since 360-day years were in once in use in Mesopotamia and in the
Bible they cannot be ruled out, especially when it appears that the Jews
may have used different calendars for religious and secular purposes.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
You see, this is not the issue. Just because "you can't rule something
out" doesn't make it a credible argument.
PR>A fiddle factor! Figure out how
>to get the "right" answer, torture it out of the Bible and hope nobody
>notices.
Steve Jones:
Note how Paul exaggerates the use of 360-day years as a "fiddle
factor" and "tortur[ing] it out of the Bible". Yet Paul himself said that
"there is no claim of exact values".
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Errr.... there is. Most Daniel prophecy claimants claim it hits the right
year (usually the crucifixion). A few witless beings claim it hits the
correct day.
Steve Jones:
The use of 360-day years (or Sabbath year cycles) is found in Scripture
so their use is legitimate. It would be different is a *real* fiddle factor
of some arbitrary terminus ad quo or adjustment factor (e.g. 361.997)
which was not even found in Scripture, was used.
Paul Robson:
Actually, with about 4 starts 3 ends and 3 different methods of calculating
you can hit all sorts of dates.
>SJ>There is in fact one calculation that works out right to the very *day*:
>(quoting someone else to support this).
>PR>Again, this is simply cheating to get the answer you want. I am
>aware of these idiotic calculations.
>[snip nonsense]
Steve Jones:
Note again Paul's emotional language: "cheating", "idiotic" and
"nonsense". This assumption flows from Paul's basic assumption that
Jesus *cannot* be the Messiah.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
No, it's from the observation that you are using multiple authorities and
different fiddles, half of which don't agree with the other half (you can't
use BOTH 6 years out of 7 and 360 day years, can you !) and that
you conveniently didn't mention this first time out.
SJ>
Note that I personally don't claim it that it *has* to be to the exact day.
Anytime in the 69th `week' 7-year period would do.
It is interesting that Paul does not comment on this.
Paul Robson:
Because like the rest of your argument it's a load of old apologetic
codswallop. You know, despite your claims of closed mindedness on
skeptics and so on, this kind of mathematical bilge isn't about
convincing skeptics ; it's about propping up wobbly theists.
Do you know what I mean when I talk about the punctuation
problem ?
>PR>Christians are when making this claim for some reason unwilling to
>>mention these minor details.
SJ>See above my reasons for not mentioning all "these minor details" in my
>first hurried and brief post.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Brief ! Yes, all the other apologists have excuses as well.
Steve Jones:
As I said "I would be happy to work through
this" (i.e. the "minor details") "with anyone who does not dismiss it out of
hand as "impossible" but is open-minded enough to consider it."
PR>We shall see. It is odd that Christians invariably present this particular
>prophecy without mentioning all the minor details. Why this is I can't
>imagine.
Steve Jones:
I don't know which "Christians" Paul has in mind.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
You for a start.
Steve Jones:
But I have several Christian apologetic books which mention "all the
minor details".
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Really. You didn't think the multiple calculations worthy of comment then.
PR
It is difficult to say for sure because Christian apologists have been
to staggeringly dishonest over his particular passage it's difficult to
know which you copied.
SJ
Which "Christian apologists" in particular does Paul claim to "have been so
staggeringly dishonest"?
Paul Robson:
Well, let's start with EDTAV shall we.
>PR>Well, as you appear to have a copy of EDTAV
SJ:
I presume Paul means Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Deserves a
Verdict"? In that case, the acronym is ETDAV not "EDTAV".
Paul Robson:
I can think of other more suitable acronyms. But never mind, ETDAV
if you like.
PR
>I suggest you turn to the
>section where he calculates the probability of the prophecies being
>fulfilled or not and see if you can spot the glaring errors and mathematical
>illiteracy.
Steve Jones:
If Paul is referring to "Evidence that Deserves a Verdict" then he can
quote from it if he wants to make his point so that others on the List
can judge for themselves whether Paul is right or not.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Oh, you've found it then ? Hysterical, isn't it.
Steve Jones:
As one `mathematical illiterate' I personally have no stake in whether
McDowell is guilty of "mathematical illiteracy"! The point is that
whatever the exact probability, it is intuitively obvious that the chance
of Jesus fulfilling many OT prophecies is astronomical.
Paul Robson 27 Nov
Only because McDowell's presentation is quite staggeringly
illiterate.
Steve Jones:
Paul tacitly concedes this by his claims that Jesus either contrived to
fulfill the prophecies and/or the gospel writers just made them up.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
No, actually what I said (or meant) was that Gospel Writers "made up"
the prophecy fulfilments.
A simple example would be casting lots for the garments at the
crucifixion.
If you read Matthew he occasionally prefixes it with comments like
"so that the prophecies may be fulfilled".
Steve Jones:
He knows that if Jesus did happen to fulfill a large number of prophecies
and then was in fact the founder of a world religion, to say it was just a
chance coincidence would be vastly improbable.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
It amuses me that you think the spread of Christianity is connected in any
way to the quality of the arguments used by the religion's apologists.
SJ>Here is what theologian Robert C. Newman (who is also an astrophysicist
>>and a leader of the ID movement) writes about this:
PR>[snip]
>SJ>There has been considerable argument about the interpretation of this
>>passage. 30
Steve Jones:
Note that Newman admits there are alternative interpretations and
gives a footnote to some of them.
PR [actually Newman I think Steve]
>A very reasonable interpretation, however, notes the
>>significance of a decree issued by the Persian king Artaxerxes I during
his
>>twentieth year (445 B.C.). This edict officially approved Nehemiah's
return
>>to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls (Neh 2:1-9)
PR>This is not true. This is in Nehemiah 2:1-6
Well, "Nehemiah 2:1-6" *is* within "Neh 2:1-9"!
PR> and refers to giving Nehemiah letters of safe conduct.
Steve Jones:
Yes. And the "safe conduct" was to enable Nehemiah to go to
Jerusalem and "rebuild" it:
Paul Robson:
The walls. 2:5 is the REQUEST. 2:8/9 states what the decree
actually is. Or to be precise what the letters of safe conduct are.
Steve Jones:
Neh 2:5 "and I answered the king, `If it pleases the king and if your
servant has found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city in
Judah where my fathers are buried so that I can rebuild it.'"
PR>The decree to rebuild is in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23
>and Ezra 1:1-4, but is in 538BC.
SJ>This is indeed one of the interpretations that Newman mentions. But it is
>only a decree to "build a temple ... at Jerusalem" (2Chr 36:23; Ezr 1:2).
>The only passage AFAIK that speaks of a "the issuing of the decree to
>restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dan 9:25) is Neh 2:5:
>PR>Nehemiah 2:1-9 is about two things
>[1] letters of safe passage 2:7
Steve Jones:
Paul ignores Neh 2:5 above which is the reason for Nehemiah needing
"letters of safe passage" in the first place!
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
No. Neh 2:5 is what is requested. What would you like ? This please !
Well you can have this ! [Letters of safe conduct]. It isn't a "decree"
PR>[2] timber to rebuild the walls 2:8.
Steve Jones:
The timber was not to "rebuild the walls" but to "make beams for" 1)
the *gates*" of 1) "the citadel by the temple"; and 2 "the city wall"; as
well as or 3) Nehemiah's "residence":
Neh 2:8 "And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the king's
forest, so he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the
citadel by the temple and for the city wall
Paul Robson:
You just said the timber wasn't to rebuild the walls !
Steve Jones (Nehemiah. Not that I mean you are Nehemiah. That would
be impressive)
and for the residence I
will occupy?" And because the gracious hand of my God was
upon me, the king granted my requests."
Note that the same word "rebuild" (Heb banah) is found in Dan 9:25
and Neh 2:8, but not in any other of the claimed starting dates.
Also, only Neh 2:8 concerns the building of *Jerusalem* whereas the
others deal with the building of the *temple*. The whole focus of Dan
9 is on Jerusalem (e.g. Dan 9:2, 12 & 16) and so is the whole of
Nehemiah.
Paul Robson:
Err... well, Neh 2:8 doesn't seem to be about the city. It's about the
walls. It's a timber requisition request.
SJ>"There are several commandments or decrees in Israel's history
which have been suggested as the terminus a quo (beginning) of the
70 weeks. These are:
[snip]
And, as we read, he was sent, and he rebuilt Jerusalem." ... "This
decree then is the 'commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.'
There is no other decree authorizing the restoration of the city.
PR>It doesn't say that !
It *does* say that! Compare:
Dan 9:25 (AV) "Know therefore and understand, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem..."
Neh 2:5 (AV) "And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if
thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send
me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may
build it."
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
That's not the decree ! That's what he requested. The letters of safe
conduct and contents are detailed in 7-9. There's then (unsurprisingly)
lots of stuff about walls.
>PR>Using 445BC comes out at 39AD anyway,
Steve Jones:
It actually comes out as 38AD. There is no 0AD between 1BC and
1AD.
But Paul is assuming that a modern calendar of 365.25 solar days
were used. If Daniel was writing in the 6th century BC, then it
is possible he was still using an earlier 360-day calendar. Remember:
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Oh, hogwash. You just want it because it "works". There's no other
sane reason to use 360 days.
PR>which is why the cheat of
>>360 day years is used, and here it comes.
SJ>There is no "cheat of 360 day years". There is good evidence from
Daniel himself that 360 day years were used in Hebrew prophecy.
>PR>Which you haven't mentioned......
Steve Jones:
I explained above why I haven't mentioned 360 day years in my first
post.
Paul Robson:
Yes...... I noticed.
SJ>And remember again my quote that the Jewish historian Josephus
>mentioned that the Jews were expecting the Messiah at about this time:
PR>They were expecting Messiah's every five minutes.
Steve Jones:
Note how Paul just slides over contrary evidence. Josephus says that
"at that time" the Jews as a whole were expecting the Messiah based
on an "oracle ... found in their sacred scriptures" which "more than all
else incited them ... to the war" against Rome.
Besides, there was no evidence that the Jews "were expecting
Messiah's every five minutes" *before* this period. It was only because
they were expecting the Messiah during and after this period that there
were a lot of false Messiah's at about this time.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Notice you don't consider the possibility that this might have been one
of them.
>SJ>"But what more than all else incited them [the Jews] to the war
>[revolt against Rome, A.D. 66-73] was an ambiguous oracle,
>likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that
>time one from their country would become ruler of the world. "
>(Josephus, Jewish War 6.5.4., in Newman R.C, in Geivett R.D. &
>Habermas G.R., eds., "In Defense of Miracles," 1997, p.223).
>
>If the Jews were expecting the Messiah by around 66AD in fulfilment of
>prophecy then this one in Daniel 9 is the only one AFAIK they could have
>meant that was in the ballpark. And by using 444 BC, 70 `weeks' and 360
>day years they would have got to AD38. This is not good enough (because
>in fact they were wrong-the Messiah had already come!), but no other
>combination of dates and years is as close.
>
>It is my contention that the 445BC x 69 x 7 x 360/365.25 -1 = ~ 31
>calculation is the one that best fits all the facts.
Steve Jones:
I wrote the above before I was fully aware of Newman's Sabbath year
cycle method of calculation. Either that or the 360-day year
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
Which ever works best eh ? And don't tell them first up that you are only
counting 6 years out of 7 because it's agricultural rotation,eh ?
Don't you think it makes the argument much less "impressive" when you
add in all this detail, and point out minor problems like apologists being
unable to agree on the interpretation !
>PR>Nonsense. The 445BC is a starting date chosen because it works, not
because
>what it says.
Steve Jones:
Again I am pleased that Paul admits that at least one "starting
date...works"! If none of the combinations of starting dates and
methods of calculations worked, then Paul would have an argument.
As it is, he is just using anti-supernaturalist prejudice as an `argument'.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
No, I am using blatant fixing as an "argument". Don't you think it
undermines your credibility that you change your calculation in mid
stream ? Don't you think it is bizarre ? Why aren't you using BOTH
the 360 year "solar year" and 6 days out of 7 then, if they are so
"reasonable" ?
Steve Jones:
But it is false for Paul to claim that is the only reason it was chosen.
First, other dates work too-see Davis and Archer's argument for a
starting date in the "seventh year of King Artaxerxes" (Ezr 7:7), i.e.
457 B.C.
Paul Robson 27 Nov;
And this is because it's a fiddle. Different apologists have tried
different ways of getting the sum to come out.
Steve Jones:
Second, I chose 445BC because the word "rebuild" (Heb banah) in
Dan 9:25 is found in Neh 2:5, but not in any other of the claimed
starting dates.
Paul Robson:
Even though it isn't a decree to build the city.
PR>The 360 days is a fudge factor tortured out of another part of
>the Bible, because it works.
Steve Jones:
No. Behind Paul's assumption is that he knows infallibly that Daniel, in
a prophecy involving at least one symbolic element, namely "sevens"
for years (which Paul acknowledges), must have mean 365.25 day
solar years.
Paul Robson 27 Nov:
No. Behind Paul's assumption is the obvious conclusion that apologists
will say any old crap to attempt to convert people.
Steve Jones:
This is despite there being evidence: 1) of a 360-day year calendar in
use in Mesopotamian before the Babylonian Captivity that Daniel was a
part of; 2) that the Babylonians only brought their 365.25 day calendar
in about this time (587BC); and 3) the Jews maintaining different
religious and secular calendars from 587BC to at least 70AD.
Also Paul ignores my main point that the *Jews* must have been using
some sort of combination of starting date and calculation method that
yielded an early 1st century AD result because Josephus says they were
expecting the Messiah at about this time.
Paul Robson:
Why ? Haven't you noticed that Christians have been seemingly expecting
the 2nd coming of Jesus every year for the last 2,000 ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 02:47:36 EST