Reflectorites
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:47:25 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
>SJ>>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)."
>PR>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".
It would help if Paul read what I write more carefully. I wrote that:
"*those who deny outright the very possibility of the supernatural* no
doubt have some ingenious ways of getting around it".
>PR>Odd that you didn't mention your years have 360 days in them.
>SJ>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.
>PR>A mass of detail ?
That's right. I could have gone through my books and commentaries
and supplied a lot more detail (as I have done since).
>SJ>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.
>PR>So, the approach is we use what gets us closest to the answer we
>want, is that right ?
No. The approach is to "use what gets us closest to the answer" that I
assume be the *truth*, namely that Jesus was the Messiah.
Paul is doing *exactly* the same thing from his perspective, which is
that he assumes the truth is that Jesus is not the Messiah.
If Jesus really was the Messiah, then my approach of trying to find the
interpretation of Dn 9:24-27 that best fits all the facts (including the
fact that Jesus was the Messiah) is on the right track. OTOH if Jesus
was not the Messiah then Paul is on the right track.
>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.
>SJ>Good. That's a start!
>PR>And the rest of it is bunk.
That is Paul's *opinion* and he is entitled to it.
>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").
SJ>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.
>PR>Really.
Yes. If there was nowhere in the Bible that 360 day years were used,
Paul would have a case. But there is and so he hasn't.
>SJ>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.
>PR>So why are we use this as a measure for Daniel ; other than it conveniently
>gives you the answer you want.
See above.
PR>Do you *really* think apologists would say
>it was invalid if 365.25 worked out exactly ?
In fact there *is* one combination of starting point and a 365.25-day
year which works out to 26AD, which is about the year Jesus was
baptised (see below).
But I still think either the 360-day year or the sabbath year cycle are
better. There is no particular reason why the Hebrews in Daniel's day
would be using a 365.25 day calendar.
>SJ>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.
>PR>It's approximations ! And what on earth has Revelations got to do with it
>anyway!
Revelation draws on the imagery of Daniel:
"The seven sections are parallel. Our final argument in support of
the parallelistic position is the fact that we find exactly the same
thing in the prophecies of Daniel, which has been called the
Apocalypse of the Old Testament. Thus the parts of
Nebuchadnezzar's dream (chapter 2) correspond exactly with the
four beasts of Daniel's dream (chapter 7).... When we study
Revelation 13:1-10, we immediately notice that its symbolism is
rooted in Daniel 7:2-8. " (Hendriksen W., "More than Conquerors:
An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," 1966, pp.21,46)
PR>It doesn't say this is *exactly* 42 months.
See below about `progressive parallelism'. Briefly, the book of
Revelation is a series of 7 visions which parallel each other throughout
the entire Church age (between Jesus first and second advent):
"The book of Revelation consists of seven sections They are
parallel and each spans the entire new dispensation, from the
first to the second coming of Christ." (Hendriksen W., 1966, p.23)
The periods of "a time, times and half a time" (Rev 12:14), i.e. 3 1/2
years; "1,260 days" (Rev 12:6); and "forty-two months" (Rev 13:5) are
exactly the same period:
"There is another line of reasoning which confirms our position that
each of the seven sections extends from the beginning to the end of
the new dispensation and that the seven run parallel to one another.
Different sections ascribe the same duration to the period described.
According to the third cycle (chapters 8-11) the main period here
described is one of forty-two months (11:2), or twelve hundred and
sixty days (11:3). Now, it is a remarkable fact that we find that
same period of time in the next section (chapters 12-14), namely,
twelve hundred and sixty days (12:6), or a time and times and half a
time (3 1/2 years) (12:14). The three designations-forty-two
months, twelve hundred and sixty days, time and times and half a
ime- are exactly equivalent. So the section on the trumpets
chapters 8-11) must run parallel with that which describes the battle
etween Christ and the dragon (chapters 12-14)." (Hendriksen W.,
966, p.19)
PR>Let's be honest.
>When Anderson invented this nonsense he was looking for a fiddle
>factor. Newman used a different one.
Paul is just repeating himself like a broken record! He seems unable to
grasp the fact that Anderson, Newman, and I are working from the
basic assumptions that: 1) Jesus was the Messiah; and 2) Daniel was a
supernaturally inspired prophecy which predicted the date of Messiah
Jesus' advent and crucifixion.
Paul OTOH is working from the basic assumption that Jesus is not the
Messiah and supernatural predictive prophecy is impossible.
If Jesus was in fact the Messiah and Daniel 9:24-27 was in fact a
supernaturally inspired prophecy predicting His advent, the Anderson,
Newman, and I are on the right track and Paul is on the wrong track,
and vice-versa.
PR>Incidentally, hadn't you noticed one of your sources says 360 days is
>invalid.
I have already answered this too. Newman was speaking about
Anderson's variation of the 360-day theory. I said from the beginning
that I did not necessarily accept Anderson's version.
>SJ>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 Henriksen'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.
>PR>Personally, I think anyone who views Revelation as worthy of exegis is
>rather sad.
It is only to be expected that Paul would believe that, since Revelation
is largely predictive prophecy and Paul denies that such a thing can
even exist.
In fact many Christians might partly agree with Paul that Revelation is
too difficult for exegesis because of its unfamiliar imagery.
However Christian exegetes like Lenski, Warfield, S.L. Morris and
Hendriksen have shown that the underlying structure of Revelation is
in seven parallel visions each covering the same period, i.e. that
between Christ's first and second advent. Once that structure is
grasped, the difficulties largely melt away.
PR>Of course, the simpler solution : that these are apologetics
>arguments concocted because they "work" - doesn't seem to occur to
>Steve.
Of *course* it occurs to me! I have said as much several times in this
thread and in fact in this very post. I will say it again. I *assume* that
Jesus really was the Messiah and that Dan 9:24-27 is genuine
predictive prophecy and try to find an interpretation of it which best
fits all the facts. This is the same hypothetico-inductive methodology
that scientists in general and evolutionary biologists in particular use.
*If* the basic assumptions are wrong, then the interpretation will be
illusory, or even delusory. OTOH if the basic assumptions are right,
then a satisfactory interpretation which fits all the facts should be there
to be found.
The real problem is that the boot is on the other foot. Paul seems to be
unable to even *imagine* that Jesus could be the Messiah, Dan 9:24-27
could be genuine predictive prophecy, and that there should be an
interpretation which fits all the facts.
>PR>>It is like the cubit argument that makes Pi 3. It is not true, because
there
>>is no claim of exact values.
>SJ>In this case there is no claim that there are *not* exact values either!
>PR>Nor are there in Revelations.
This is a misunderstanding of imagery. The periods of 3 1/2 years,
1,260 days and 42 months are literal, "exact values". It is what they
point to that is not necessarily exact.
>PR>Let me ask you this. Suppose that it had worked exactly with 365.25 days
>to a year.
>SJ>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.
>PR>I would look at it with rather more interest.
Note that Paul does not say that he would "accept it as a genuine
prophecy and evidence of the supernatural"! The fact is that Paul's
basic assumption is that Jesus is not the Messiah and Dan 9:24-27 is
not predictive prophecy, so if it "had worked exactly with 365.25 days
to a year" Paul would just say (which he *does* in fact say) that Jesus
and/or the disciples either manipulated events and/or made them up.
PR>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.
No. I *did* answer the question. I was setting Paul up! The fact is that
there *is* a "365.25 days to a year" interpretation (see below).
>SJ>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).
>PR>Actually, I claim that the start date doesn't fit; the terminus is unknown ;
and your calculation is bunk.
These are just *claims* by Paul with no supporting evidence.
PR>Tell me, Steve, how come you know when
>Jesus was crucified when everyone else doesn't appear to.
This is false-see previous.
>SJ>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:
>PR>No, you still haven't answered the question. Can't think why.
In fact that might be the exact truth: Paul literally "Can't think why".
To Paul it is probably literally *unthinkable* that Jesus might really
have been the Messiah and Dan 9:24-27 might really be predictive
prophecy.
In all his posts, not *once* has Paul ever shown that it has ever even
occurred to him that I may be right. It is probably not even on Paul's
`mental map' that Christianity could be true.
>SJ>"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:
PR>Oh, so we are now going on about the beginning of the ministry, not
>the crucifixion. How come you know this ?
Note that Paul confirms what I said earlier: "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" to
which Paul said "I would look at it with rather more interest." But
when I show an interpretation that uses 365 day years and comes out
to 25AD (by which time Jesus would be 29-30 years of age), Paul
doesn't give it a moment's consideration!
PR>Do you have any arguments of your own, incidentally ?
Paul has increasingly become more personal. I assume this is because
he feels that the argument is not going his way.
But to answer Paul's question, unless otherwise indicated, what I post
(including support quotes) *are* my own arguments, qualified by my
introductory sentence(s).
>SJ>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)
>PR>Don't you think it is quite mind numbingly dense to keep quoting apologists
>who can't even agree ?
No. I think it is important to have a range of alternatives to chose from.
Besides, all the apologists I quote agree on the main facts that: 1) Jesus
was the Messiah; and 2) Dan 9:24-27 predicts when the Messiah would
come. The only differences among them is the terminus ad quo and
what the "sevens" mean in years.
BTW it is interesting that Paul criticised me for not quoting other
alternative interpretations in my first post, but now when I post other
alternative interpretations, Paul criticises me for that too!
>SJ>"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)
>PR>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.
Another red herring! If Paul has any criticism of Archer on Dan 9:24-
27 or Isa 7:14 or Mic 5:2, let him post it.
>PR>Do you really believe apologists would say "Oh this doesn't work,
because
>it should be using prophectic years ?"
>SJ>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":
>PR>Not answering the question. Archer uses those figures because they
>work.
See previous.
PR>Archer is an apologist, not a "scholar".
Archer is *both* "an apologist" and a "scholar". Who is Paul to be judging
Archer's scholarship?
>SJ>"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.
>PR>I'm truly amazed you think this is what science does.
That Paul is "amazed" is interesting, but I note that Paul does not
dispute the facts about modern science's "hypothetico-deductive
methodology".
PR>Your "reasonable interpretations" are fiddling the figures.
See previous..
PR>Apologists who list this
>"prophecy" don't in my experience mention
>
>1) the debatable start date
Well McDowell does for starters. I have posted this previously, and in
line with my policy of winding down this thread, I am not going to do
it again.
PR>2) the umpteen different year lengths or 6/7 cheat
To *Paul* they are "cheat"s, because under his naturalistic philosophy
they simply *cannot* be valid.
But Paul forgets there is no "year" in Daniel, just "sevens". Paul himself
agreed that they weren't weeks. So it is legitimate to try to work out
what time period Daniel meant. Reasonable options are: 1) 360-day
years - because the Jews' basic Mesopotamian calendar was 12 x 30 =
360 day years, and the Bible in both the OT and NT uses 360 day
years; 2) Sabbath day cycles - because the Jews used these and it fits
the pattern of Ex 23:10-11; Lev 25:3-7, 18-22; 26:32-35 ; Jer 25:11-
12; 29:10 and Dan 9:2; 3) 365 day years are the least preferable option,
because there is no evidence the Jews of Daniel's day used 365 day
years.
And Paul forgets that the Jews were expecting the Messiah in Jesus'
day based on this prophecy. And they must have been using one of
these combinations of terminus ad quo and year calculations.
PR>3) the unknown date of the terminus
There is only one terminus ad quo which mentions the rebuilding of
Jerusalem (Dan 9:25) and that is Neh 2:5.
That can be dated at "... in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes" (Neh
2:1), which apparently was 445-444BC.
PR>4) the multiple terminuses
See previous.
>SJ>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.
>PR>Yeah ; this is what I'm saying. They pick the interpretation not because
>it's credible or even honest, but because it works.
See previous.
BTW is Paul saying that there is one "interpretation" that is "credible
or even honest"? If so which one does he think it is and why:
1) terminus ad quo: the "decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dan
9:25)? Scripture reference (e.g. Ezra, Nehemiah, other)? Year (e.g.
445BC, other)? Give reasons.
2) sevens: "there shall be seventy sevens", i.e. 62+7+1 sevens (Dan
9:24,25,27). Are these literal weeks? literal 365 day years? 360 day
years? Sabbath year cycles? other? Give reasons.
Now on his own "not because it's credible or even honest, but because
it works" criticism, Paul should not pick a combination because it
*doesn't* work! He should pick what is *objectively* the best
combination and give reasons for his choice. And if that combination
works out the time of Jesus, then Paul should admit it and not start
"fiddling the figures".
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 12 2000 - 17:37:00 EST