Reflectorites
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:47:25 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[continued]
[...]
>SJ>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.
>PR>Which you will no doubt churn out if I ask. And will be the bog standard
>apologetics arguments.
It is interesting that Paul criticised Christian apologists when they don't
agree, but here he criticises them when they *do* agree!
>PR>and several target points. This one,
>>>I believe, uses the 360 day years to hit its target.
>SJ>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"!
>PR>Oh yes, if you work backwards from the answer you want and
>except demented interpretations because they work, you can
>get it.
No. If there was no reasonable terminus ad quo or method of calculation,
*none* of them would work.
>>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.
>SJ>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.
>PR>You see, this is not the issue. Just because "you can't rule something
>out" doesn't make it a credible argument.
Why is it not "a credible argument"? If there is evidence that 360-day
years were in use in Mesopotamia and the Bible, then they are a
viable candidate interpretation of the period of time meant by Daniel's
"sevens" ((Dan 9:24,25,27).
>PR>A fiddle factor! Figure out how
>>to get the "right" answer, torture it out of the Bible and hope nobody
>>notices.
>SJ>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".
>PR>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.
Note how Paul's unquestioned, unquestionable *assumption* is that they
must all be wrong! But *why* must they all be wrong?
It will be interesting to see what Paul's objective interpretation of the
terminus ad quo and sevens is.
One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to expect that Paul will do what
he claims his opponents, but in reverse. Paul will (assuming he even
answers the questions at all), will almost certainly "work backward" from
his view that Jesus *cannot* be the Messiah and chose a combination of
terminus ad quo and "sevens" that falls outside Jesus lifetime.
>SJ>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.
>PR>Actually, with about 4 starts 3 ends and 3 different methods of calculating
>you can hit all sorts of dates.
No. There is no need to calculate "ends", since they flow from the "starts"
and "methods of calculating". And there are four (not 3) different methods
of calculating" = 16 possibilities. Here they all are:
literal 365-day 360-day sabbath
Start weeks years years year cycles
--------------------- ----- ------ ------- -----------
1. Ezr 1:14 539BC 530BC 56BC 63BC 64-57BC
2. Ezr 5:3-7 519BC 510BC 36BC 43BC 43-36BC
3. Ezr 7:11-16 457BC 448BC 27AD* 20AD* 21-28AD*
4. Neh 2:1-8 445BC 436BC 39AD 32AD** 28-35AD**
Single years are the start of a "seven". Those marked with an asterisk fall
within the life of Jesus. Those marked with two asterisks fall within Jesus'
public ministry (~30-33AD). Thus five combinations of starting point and
method of calculation yield a result which falls in Jesus' lifetime and two of
those fall within His public ministry. One of those which fall just before
Jesus public ministry (27AD), could fall on the year Jesus was baptised by
John the Baptist (Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11), and thus be a real possibility.
If Paul wants to pick his preferred combination, let him do so, and
support it with *objective* reasons.
Note if Paul picks a date which falls outside of Jesus' lifetime and then
works backwards from that to a combination of starting date and method
of calculation, then he would be doing what he accused Christians of!
>>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]
>SJ>Note again Paul's emotional language: "cheating", "idiotic" and
>"nonsense". This assumption flows from Paul's basic assumption that
>Jesus *cannot* be the Messiah.
>PR>No, it's from the observation that you are using multiple authorities
Paul does not say what is wrong with this.
PR>and different fiddles,
See previous.
PR>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 !)
I have said they are *alternatives*.
PR>and that
>you conveniently didn't mention this first time out.
See previous.
>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.
>PR>Because like the rest of your argument it's a load of old apologetic
>codswallop.
That it is "old" is not true. Newman's sabbath year cycles are new AFAIK.
That it is "apologetic" is indeed true:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=apologetics+
Main Entry: apologetics ... 1 : systematic argumentative discourse in
defense (as of a doctrine) 2 : a branch of theology devoted to the defense
of the divine origin and authority of Christianity ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As to "codswallup" Paul may like to *think* this, but he needs to *show*
it.
PR>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.
Paul's own words like "mathematical bilge" show his "closed mindedness".
Paul refuses to open his mind to the possibility that the "skeptics" might be
wrong and the "theists" right.
PR>Do you know what I mean when I talk about the punctuation
>problem ?
If Paul has a point, let him make it.
>>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.
>PR>Brief ! Yes, all the other apologists have excuses as well.
See previous.
>SJ>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.
>SJ>I don't know which "Christians" Paul has in mind.
>PR>You for a start.
That's one, and I have now mentioned a lot of "minor details about Dan
9:24-27 in my subsequent posts. Are there any more "minor details" that
Paul would like me to mention?
So which *other* "Christians" who "present this particular prophecy" (Dan
9:24-27) "without mentioning all the minor details", does Paul have in
mind?
>SJ>But I have several Christian apologetic books which mention "all the
>minor details".
>PR>Really. You didn't think the multiple calculations worthy of comment
then.
See previous.
And Paul ignores the main point that they *do* mention "the minor
details".
>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"?
>PR>Well, let's start with EDTAV shall we.
ETDAV?
>>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".
>PR>I can think of other more suitable acronyms. But never mind, ETDAV
>if you like.
It is not a question of what I "like". That is its acronym.
>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.
>SJ>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.
>PR>Oh, you've found it then ? Hysterical, isn't it.
Not really. McDowell might be right or he might be wrong. That's nothing
to get "Hysterical" about. Unless one is *desperate* to find fault.
BTW the way Paul words this, I suspect he does not have a copy of
McDowell's "Evidence that Deserves a Verdict" but is just going on what
others have told him.
>SJ>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.
>PR>Only because McDowell's presentation is quite staggeringly
>illiterate.
Paul's extreme prejudice shows in his choice of words: "staggeringly
illiterate", etc. If McDowell was wrong, he was wrong. If he
misunderstands probability arguments, he is like 99% of humanity.
And Paul just ignore the real point that "whatever the exact probability, it is
intuitively obvious that the chance of Jesus fulfilling many OT prophecies is
astronomical."
>SJ>Paul tacitly concedes this by his claims that Jesus either contrived to
>fulfill the prophecies and/or the gospel writers just made them up.
>PR>No, actually what I said (or meant) was that Gospel Writers "made up"
>the prophecy fulfilments.
Which confirms my point. Paul would not have to say this if the chance that
one man could have fulfilled many prophecies was not astronomical.
Picking on McDowell's alleged ""mathematical illiteracy" is an attempt to
obscure this point.
PR>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".
Agreed. So what is Paul's point?
>SJ>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.
>PR>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.
Well probably it was not. Apologist are mainly defenders, not evangelists.
>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
>SJ>Note that Newman admits there are alternative interpretations and
>gives a footnote to some of them.
>PR [actually Newman I think Steve]
I am not sure what this means.
>>SJ>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
SJ>Well, "Nehemiah 2:1-6" *is* within "Neh 2:1-9"!
>PR>and refers to giving Nehemiah letters of safe conduct.
>SJ>Yes. And the "safe conduct" was to enable Nehemiah to go to
>Jerusalem and "rebuild" it:
>PR>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.
Yes. The request by Nehemiah for him to be *sent* by the King to
Jerusalem to rebuild it.
>SJ>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
>SJ>Paul ignores Neh 2:5 above which is the reason for Nehemiah needing
>"letters of safe passage" in the first place!
>PR>No. Neh 2:5 is what is requested.
Yes. See above.
PR>What would you like ? This please !
>Well you can have this ! [Letters of safe conduct]. It isn't a "decree"
The Heb. for "decree" in Dan 9:25 is just dabar, "word".
Paul ignores the main fact that Artaxerxes gave the *word* for Jerusalem
to be rebuilt and sent Nehemiah to do it.
The "letters of safe passage" and permission to cut wood from the King's
forest, all flow from that fundamental decision by Artaxerxes that
Jerusalem should be rebuilt.
>PR>[2] timber to rebuild the walls 2:8.
>SJ>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
>PR>You just said the timber wasn't to rebuild the walls !
Paul needs to read more carefully. I said "the *gates*" of ... "the city
wall"". The walls themselves were made of stone:
Neh 4:2-3 "and in the presence of his associates and the army of
Samaria, he said, "What are those feeble Jews doing? Will they
restore their wall? Will they offer sacrifices? Will they finish in a
day? Can they bring the stones back to life from those heaps of
rubble--Tobiah the Ammonite, who was at his side, said, "What
they are building--if even a fox climbed up on it, he would break
down their wall of stones!"
PR>Steve Jones (Nehemiah. Not that I mean you are Nehemiah. That would
>be impressive)
I will tell Nehemiah when I meet him that you mistook me for him! :-)
PR>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.
>PR>Err... well, Neh 2:8 doesn't seem to be about the city. It's about the
>walls. It's a timber requisition request.
No. See above. It was for *gates*.
>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:
PR>[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 !
SJ>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."
>PR>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.
See above.
>>PR>Using 445BC comes out at 39AD anyway,
>SJ>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:
>PR>Oh, hogwash. You just want it because it "works". There's no other
>sane reason to use 360 days.
See previous.
>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......
>SJ>I explained above why I haven't mentioned 360 day years in my first
>post.
>PR>Yes...... I noticed.
Good! Maybe Paul will stop harping on it like a broken record! His continually
doing so just shows up the `drowning man clutching at straws' quality of Paul's
arguments!
>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.
>SJ>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.
>PR>Notice you don't consider the possibility that this might have been one
>of them.
Nor does Paul!
But if they fulfilled the prophecies and established a world religion like
Jesus did I would consider them as a "possibility". But none of them did.
Only Jesus did.
>>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.
>SJ>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
>PR>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 ?
See previous.
PR>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 !
No. As in science, it is normal to have disagreement on complex questions.
But I expect that Newman's sabbath year cycle interpretation will gradually
become the one that most (if not all) apologists agree on.
>>PR>Nonsense. The 445BC is a starting date chosen because it works, not
>>because what it says.
>SJ>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'.
>PR>No, I am using blatant fixing as an "argument".
See previous.
PR>Don't you think it
>undermines your credibility that you change your calculation in mid
>stream?
No. I am still making my mind up.
PR>Don't you think it is bizarre?
What I think is "bizarre" is the emotionally charged words that Paul uses of
his opponents! That tells me that Paul knows his argument is weak. He is
like the old preacher who wrote in his sermon notes: "argument weak here
- shout!"
PR>Why aren't you using BOTH
>the 360 year "solar year" and 6 days out of 7 then, if they are so
>"reasonable" ?
Because they are *both* reasonable alternative interpretations. Either the
360-day year or the sabbath day cycle: 1) have Biblical warrant; and 2)
were used by the Jews at the time.
As long as there is *one* reasonable alternative, that is sufficient to show
that Jesus is the Messiah to a neutral person. The chance that: 1) a
reasonable (i.e. have Biblical warrant and were used by the Jews at the
time) combination of a terminus ad quo and "sevens" would fall in the
middle of Jesus's 3 year public ministry between 30-33AD; and 2) that
Jesus would go on to found a world religion is *negligible*.
>SJ>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.
>PR>And this is because it's a fiddle. Different apologists have tried
>different ways of getting the sum to come out.
See previous.
>SJ>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.
>PR>Even though it isn't a decree to build the city.
See previous.
>PR>The 360 days is a fudge factor tortured out of another part of
>>the Bible, because it works.
>SJ>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.
>PR>No. Behind Paul's assumption is the obvious conclusion that apologists
>will say any old crap to attempt to convert people.
Paul ignores the point and trails another red herring!
The fact is that "apologists" don't normally expect their arguments "to
convert people". Their mission is to: a) defend Christianity from intellectual
attack; and b) show the reasonableness of Christianity.
But I do think that an *unbiased* consideration of the evidence of Dan
9:24-27 would "convert people."
The problem is getting past the anti-supernaturalistic bias of people who
have been brought up on a diet of naturalism, and who want that naturalism
to be true, i.e. Christianity to be false.
Paul's `body language' is of a person who *desperately* wants Christianity
to be false. If Paul was calmer and more clinical, I would regard him as a
stronger opponent. But as it is, by Paul's exaggerations and close-
mindedness, I regard Paul as unintentionally *confirming* my arguments!
>SJ>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.
>PR>Why ? Haven't you noticed that Christians have been seemingly expecting
>the 2nd coming of Jesus every year for the last 2,000 ?
Another red herring!
It is interesting how Paul just ignores the corroborating evidence that the
Jews were expecting the Messiah about the time of Jesus. Since there are
only a few combinations of terminus ad quo and "sevens" that could yield
this (see above), this confirms that these interpretations were within the
Jewish mainstream of 1st century AD.
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 - 17:37:03 EST