Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jim Larmore · 04-11-2005, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

I wonder where you find a church which says that the Earth has a solid firmament above it. :huh:

Sven,
You have reduced yourself to whats known as a heckler. Is that what you want lurkers to see you as? Your supposed to be a well educated man that should be highly respected among his peers and here you are resorting to childish bantorings that shows a huge lack of maturity.

BTW, the "idea" of a solid firmament before the flood called a rachea is only one of many possible explanations for the Hebrew word used to discribe the firmament in Genesis. It has nothing to do with any church.

Jim Larmore · 04-11-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

I disagree with this. The efficacy of prophesy has nothing to do with how well someone long after the fact can decipher it, it is completely dependent on how well the people it matters to can understand it. If it is not understandable to them, it is either not prophesy or it is an admission G-d just plain sucks at communicating with his people.

Well, everyone has their opinions

. I don't have a problem understanding the language or the meaning of these prophecies. Its only when you place yourself into confused circles that you become confused. Confusing the issues is what critical skepticism is all about. This is definetely the enemies work.

Amaleq13 · 04-11-2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

You don't know that. Ever wonder why the magii came from a very long distance from the east?I think we can make a good assumption that it was because they knew the general time of His birth from studying the prophecys aand were looking. When the star appeared they came seeking the Christ.

Where is the prophecy that identifies the year of the Messiah's birth and mentions a star somehow identifying the location? According to you, this prophecy identifies the year the Messiah was to begin his ministry.

Sven · 04-11-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Sven,
You have reduced yourself to whats known as a heckler. Is that what you want lurkers to see you as? Your supposed to be a well educated man that should be highly respected among his peers and here you are resorting to childish bantorings that shows a huge lack of maturity.

I just can not resist answering ridiculousness. If this makes me immature, I'll have to live with it.

Quote:

BTW, the "idea" of a solid firmament before the flood called a rachea is only one of many possible explanations for the Hebrew word used to discribe the firmament in Genesis.

I don't know, but to separate the waters below and above the "firmament", it seems it had to be pretty solid. And your god was supposedly able to set the stars, the Sun, and the Moon in it. I really wonder why you don't have a problem with the astronomy of the past 500 years or so.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with any church.

I only brought churches up since you only want to be part of one which follows the bible in every word. Your problem, I suppose. Apart from the "firmament problem", there's of course also Jesus' position that demons cause diseases. I suppose there are few if any churches which recommend exocisms instead of drugs if some of their members get ill.

Quote:

Its only when you place yourself into confused circles that you become confused. Confusing the issues is what critical skepticism is all about. This is definetely the enemies work.

Well, it seems as if all creationist websites are influenced deeply by Satan - you described them so well here.

Jim Larmore · 04-11-2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unknown4

Jim, want to know the different date ranges I've seen on the web for what would be the 7th year of Artaxerxes (and that's Longimanus, not Mnemon. If Mnemon, then 457BCE goes out the window pretty much)?

Of course this is pure speculation on your part. If you study the writings of S.H. Horn and L.H. Wood its pretty clear that it is Artaxerxes Longimanus. If you want to stay confused then by all means keep reading and studying the skeptical/liberal accounts of all of this.

Quote:

So, why exactly should we accept the 457BCE date, aside from the idea that it fits to the time of 27CE when Jesus supposedly began his ministry

Heres a "Jubilee" reason why we accept 457B.C.This is from the chronology of the Jubilees

Quote:

Another series of Sabbatical years--that presumably occurred in the original jubilee cycle--can be identified in the era when Ezra the priest and Nehemiah the governor officiated at Jerusalem.

Ezra is indicated to have arrived at the capital city Jerusalem in 457 BCE (the 7th year of Artaxerxes 1).

Because a jubilee year would hypothetically have been celebrated in the year 422-421 BCE (autumn-to-autumn), it is clear that the year when Ezra arrived at Jerusalem (autumn-to-autumn of 458-457 BCE) would have corresponded with a Sabbatical year of the 50-year cycle (the 2nd Sabbatical of the cited jubilee cycle).

Quote:

(a date not all Christians agree with), which fellow Christians don't all agree on how long lasted, which you say supposedly lasted 3 and 1/2 years, right? ending at 30CE, right? Which you say is the middle of Daniel's 70th week, right? Even though the antecedent of "he" in Daniel 9:26 I think should naturally be the "prince who shall come", and not "an anointed one" mentioned before that. I mean, even fellow Christians I think would argue with you that the "he" in verse 26 doesn't mean Jesus.

It plainly says messiah the prince or in the Hebrew it is "Mashiach" or "annointed one", theres no confusing who this is referring to here.

Quote:

The Masoretic text is wrong in its punctuation (although funny thing I actually did find a website which agrees with the Masoretic text in the 7 weeks unto an anointed, yet the interpretation is Christian, and this person found a way to fit it to Jesus by saying the "Artaxerxes" was Mnemon by saying the first 7 weeks of Daniel were concurrent with part of "the 62 weeks").

History has Ezra returning from Babylon in the autumn of 457 and this is the reign of Artaxeres 1 or like you like to say Longimanus. The other Xerxes was number 11 i.e. Memnon was dated from 404 B.C. to 359B.C. so his time of reign doens't line up with the history at all. The one that applies is Artaxerxes 1 who reigned from 464 B.C. to 424 B.C..

Quote:

The start date of Daniel 9:24-27 is the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (not Mnemon), in his 7th year (not 20th).

Thats the one that works out yes.

Quote:

The Jewish encyclopedia seems to me to identify the Artaxerxes with Mnemon, since it refers to Ezra in 398BCE and Nehemiah in 385BCE, which I guess would be the 7th and 20th year of Mnemon: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ta...tle=CHRONOLOGY

But that departs from history so its not applicable.

Quote:

I've read enough websites so far, with different start dates and their reasoning for picking them, even perhaps the argument that Daniel's first 7 weeks were concurrent with part of "the 62 weeks" and I think that the Artaxerxes was Mnemon, not Longimanus, that I think most Christians will find a way to fit this to Jesus, no matter what. If someone uses Cyrus or Darius II as the start date, then a different chronology is used.

If you go with the decree that actually made it ( the building of the city) to happen then you have to stay with the 7th year of Artaxerxes. Now you need to find which Xerxes is the one to count on. I believe its the one that is associated with the travels and work of Ezra, so that has to be Xerxes 1.

Jim Larmore · 04-11-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Where is the prophecy that identifies the year of the Messiah's birth and mentions a star somehow identifying the location? According to you, this prophecy identifies the year the Messiah was to begin his ministry.

This is true and I'm sure they would have taken that into account by looking 30 years prior to the time of His ministries beginning to see His birth time.
In answer to your beginning question I think Numbers 24:17 is considered a prophecy for the star of Bethlehem.

Wallener · 04-11-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

This is definetely the enemies work.

Great, more backdoor proslytizing bullshit.

unknown4 · 04-11-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

This is true and I'm sure they would have taken that into account by looking 30 years prior to the time of His ministries beginning to see His birth time.
In answer to your beginning question I think Numbers 24:17 is considered a prophecy for the star of Bethlehem.

Why would they have thought "until an anointed, a leader" meant 457BCE+483 years=27CE? Also, Luke doesn't say he was 30 years old, but rather "about", right? And they would have known that Jesus would begin his ministry when he was about 30 years old? As opposed to 20? or 40? You act like the Jews wouldn't have known the exact dates, to show the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy to them, but yet you think the "wise men" knew the exact date of an somewhat obscure Daniel 9:25 "from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem"? And the proper interpretation of it? Interesting.

Plus, when do you think Herod died?

Amaleq13 · 04-11-2005, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

This is true and I'm sure they would have taken that into account by looking 30 years prior to the time of His ministries beginning to see His birth time.

Nope, that doesn't work because we've already learned, from your source, that the lower limit was changed to 20 under King David (1Chron. 23:24-26) in this post.

[added later] This also begs the question you have yet to answer adequately: why would anyone read the prophecy to refer to the beginning of a ministry rather than, for example, the birth of the messiah?

Please try again. On both questions.

Quote:

In answer to your beginning question I think Numbers 24:17 is considered a prophecy for the star of Bethlehem.

That "interpretation" doesn't appear at all legitimate. The "star" is clearly a metaphor for a specific individual and there is no indication that anyone is supposed to somehow follow the star to find him even if such a thing were possible.

Wallener · 04-11-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The "star" is clearly a metaphor for a specific individual...

No question this refers to a person or persons rather than a celestial object.

Quote:

There goes forth a star from Yaakov,
there arises a meteor from Israel,
it smashes the pate of Moav,
the crown of all the Children of Shet.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.