Religion and science

[Karel]

I did not say that Jesus died in 29 C.E. but rather that the Messiah appeared in that year.

[snip by Karel]

It's interesting that Daniel 9:25 said prophetically "that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks," i.e. 69 weeks.

The evidence shows that "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" occured in 455 B.C.E. in the twentieth regnal year of Persian King Artaxerxes I. (See Nehemiah 2.) There is (not surprisingly) disagreement among historians as to the year of Artaxerxes' reign, but I believe there is sound reason to place the year of the accession at 475 B.C.E. (This date can be calculted in relation to the death of Themistocles. Also, a Babylonian business document in the form of a clay tablet was found at Borsippa that links Darius II's first year with Artaxerxes 51st accession year.)

Obviously nothing significant regarding the Messiah's appearance took place 483 (7 x 69) days after Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem's walls, so something else must have been meant. It turns out there is a scriptural, prophetic precedent wherein a day represents a year, such as in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. If we apply this formula to the prophecy in Daniel regarding the 69 weeks, we get 455 B.C.E. + 483 years = 29 C.E. because (-455 + 483 = 28 and you must add one more to account for the fact that there is no year zero.) This could explain why in the year 29 C.E. "the people were in expectation," as Luke states at Luke 3:15.

That is interesting. However, it also rang a bell. A quick check on the reign of Artaxerxes I showed remarkable unanimity among modern scholars. I found one dissenting voice: the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, as I already thought I remembered.

The obvious criticism against the WBTS interpretation is that it relies heavily on conflicting reports from a very disturbed time in Greek history to discredit the existing King lists of Persia. Which seems to be a strange way to go about it. The Persian archives are more likely to throw light on the (in that time) confused Greek chronology than the other way around.

I then noted that your translation of Dan 9:25 is from the New World Translation of the WBTS. BTW, I have no opinion on the difference between this unique translation and all other translations I could check. Then I looked up its version of Gen 2:19, and I found "your" translation "was forming" for the wayyiqtol wayyitser. (And I do have an opinion on that translation.)

I also remembered your christology (The Son as subordinate to the Father), which is also a WBTS point of view, and your day-age creationism, which is also shared by the WBTS.

Which raises the question in how far you are guided by the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you a witness yourself, or do you just use their publications for your education?

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

I would prefer that you do not associate me with any denomination. Suffice it to say I am familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses and their teachings, and I happen to think they've got an awful lot of stuff right.

[Karel]

I would prefer that you do not associate me with any denomination. Suffice it to say I am familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses and their teachings, and I happen to think they've got an awful lot of stuff right.

Sure, just asking. But what is the rub? And they have of course an awful lot of things wrong too, especially in Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?.

Regards,

Karel

[riverbabe]

IMHO, this is a good read

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/is-religion-man-made/

Wish Karel wasn't on vacation and was here to comment.

River