|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2004 : 10:13:58
|
Does this seem credible?
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/king.html
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/king2.html
Daniel predicted Jesus as King, to the day! Let me know where you think this is wrong from a skeptics point of view.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 10:32:53 [Permalink]
|
| No supirse here. There are many incredible prophesies, in whic detail is given. Includinga couple in the Psalms where location is given. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 13:22:46 [Permalink]
|
Well, ChristianAnswers.net offers 464 BC as the year in which Artaxerxes Longimanus took the throne. So does Biblical Horizons. This would make the 20th year of his reign start in 445 BC, the following Nisan in 444 BC, and the prophecy becoming fulfilled in 33 AD, a year too late, because Jesus proclaimed Himself King a year earlier. Too bad.
This annotated Bible claims that Newton calculated the date of the king's seventh year as 457 BC, thus his 20th would have started in 444 BC, and the prophecy fulfilled in 34 AD. Two years late. Damn the luck. Zion Ministry agrees.
True Light Ministries claims that the king rose to the throne in 467 BC, and so the prophecy should have been fulfilled in 30 AD. Two years off the other way! (That page also shows a baker's dozen of different starting points.)
The Secret of Eternal Life.com offers up the idea that the 20th year of the king's reign was actually 454 BC, after which Jesus would have been late by nine years. The author(s) appear to try to "fix" this by saying that Jesus was actually born in 4 BC, but he still winds up five years late by the calculations in the links in the OP.
On the other hand, Bible Prophecy Research claims 465 BC as the start of the king's reign, as does Messianic Prophecy, BibleProbe, and GospelGazette. Bible-Exposition.org also agrees with the 446 BC starting date.
The above are the pages within the first two pages of results from a Google for "Artaxerxes Longimanus". I think the main thing to be learned from all this is that ancient Persian history isn't as exact as some would like us to believe.
The majority of the above sites believe in Biblical prophecy, but don't often agree on when this particular "prediction" begins, and often use different mathematic methods to all get to the same place: a date of either Jesus' death or His ride into Jerusalem as self-proclaimed King (well, a couple are cited above just because they mention when Artaxerxes Longimanus supposedly started being king). But, since they all assume the Bible to be true, they all jump through various hoops to get the math to work out.
One of the obvious problems is all these "traditions" which we're supposed to take as assumptions. At least one web page stated that the "first year" of a king's reign didn't start until the beginning of the next calendar year of their rise to the throne, meaning all of the sites in the last section (and the links in the OP) appear to be off by a year. Another thing I would have to double-check (but haven't yet) is the gregorian-calendar equivalent of the 1st of Nisan back in 446 (or whenever) BC, since some are claiming precision to the day. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 14:24:34 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, Dude, you Rock... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 15:36:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave W,
How much time do you have on your hands? I looked at these other possibilities and some of these web sites but it took me about a week! .
I know there are other possible start dates, But do you think that the 445 BC date is possible based on how it has been derived?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But, since they all assume the Bible to be true, they all jump through various hoops to get the math to work out.
This is a broad statement without any proof. I admit some will try to fit the dates to make it work, but I disagree that they all will  .
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 17:25:40 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
How much time do you have on your hands? I looked at these other possibilities and some of these web sites but it took me about a week!.
Actually, the above took me about a half-hour, which is why it's not top-notch work.quote:
I know there are other possible start dates, But do you think that the 445 BC date is possible based on how it has been derived?
I didn't examine that question in detail. If Artaxerxes got the throne sometime in 465 BC, and if Nisan of 464 BC marked the start of the "first year" of his reign, and if he made his pronouncement at the start of the 20th year of his reign, it would indeed be 445 BC. And counting the requisite number of days from March 14th of 445 BC does take us to April 6th, 32 AD, if all of those particular calculations are correct, and the concepts from the Old Testament can be "translated" to the Gregorian calendar. If not, they're probably off, or just a tad vague.
Also note that within the pages I found above, there is talk about whether or not the 490 years have (or are, or will be) "suspended" at any time, throwing whole new wrinkles into the idea. Some say that "clock" is suspended now, and won't start again until the Church on Earth is "complete." Some say it started earlier, was suspended back in the 400's BC, and ended with Jesus' death. The whole 490 years, that is, not just the first 69 "weeks."
There are a lot of assumptions which the authors of all these pages expect people to accept without question, and which make the numbers work out. I would rather not. I haven't even gotten to looking into the evidence presented for the April 6, 32 AD date.quote:
This is a broad statement without any proof. I admit some will try to fit the dates to make it work, but I disagree that they all will .
Oh, it's a broad statement all right, but the evidence is within the pages I linked to. The "hoops" are of various sizes, some easier to justify than others.
The Gregorian calendar with its peculiar take on leap days, for example, wasn't created until many centuries after Christ. If the Jews back in Artaxerxes's day had attempted to run the same calculations, I seriously doubt that "April 6th, 32 AD" would have been the answer.
In other words, it all seems contrived so that only now can we go back and say, "oh, yeah, the prophecy was spot-on," when those it really mattered to have been dead for nearly 2,000 years. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
