Download Free Apps & Games @ PHONEKY.com
Download Free Apps & Games @ PHONEKY.com
Subject: Reply to The Seventy Weeks Pro
Replies: 23 Views: 1291
halman 25.03.11 - 03:10pm
I can agree with almost everything said upto your last post elijah2,bar the date of the ''going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem'' ie. when the 490 years begin.We only differ by 2 years.You put it at 457 b.c. and we,455 b.c. The reason is when the 20th year of king Artaxerxes was,when the order was given.
He as*cended the throne in 475 b.c. with his first regnal year beginning in 474 b.c. So the ''twentieth year of Artaxerxes'' was 455 b.c. counting from ascending the throne. Nehemiah 2:1. *
halman 25.03.11 - 03:19pm
Though permission was given to rebuild in the Jewish month of Nisan, in the early part of the year,it didn't take effect until months later when Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem and began the work of restoration. Since he was further away than Ezra was,it took him longer to travel as he was in Shushan 200 miles east of Babylon.Most likely,Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem near the end of Artaxerxes 20th year,455 b.c. It is then that the ''seventy weeks'' or 490 years, began. *
halman 25.03.11 - 03:34pm
So,the 490 years would end in the latter part of the year 36 a.d. The first ''seven weeks'' or 49 years cover the time of rebuilding etc. until 406 b.c. Next,the ''sixty- two weeks'' making a total of 69 weeks or 483 years,takes us to ''Messiah the Leader''. Including part of 455 b.c. and part of the final year, this would extend into the year 29 a.d. when Jesus was baptised.Gospel writer Luke says ''In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar...John... came into all the country around Jordan *
halman 25.03.11 - 03:46pm
Kindly wait until I've finished, elijah2. John was preaching baptism in symbol of repentance of sins.Now,the 15th year of Tiberius was 29 a.d. and John was 6months older than his cousin,Jesus. Jesus came a few months later, to be baptised,at the age of ''about thirty years old''. Also, the people ''were in expectation'' of the Messiah's appearance - Luke 3:1,2,15, and 23 *
halman 25.03.11 - 03:57pm
So,the calculations both match,to 29 a.d. being the year of the Messiah's appearance ie. his public baptism. As for Artaxerxes,the evidence of inscriptions and sculptures unearthed, indicate a coregency between Xerxes, his father,and Darius I. If this covered 10 years and Xerxes ruled alone for 11 years after Darius died in 486 b.c., then the first year of Artaxerxes would have been 474 b.c. *
halman 25.03.11 - 04:08pm
Again,Athenian General Themistocles defeated Xerxes' forces in 480 b.c. He later fell out of favour with the Greeks and sought protection at the Persian court, where he was well recieved. This happened when Artaxerxes had but ''lately come to the throne'' according to the Greek historian Thucydides.The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus puts the death of the General at 471 b.c. He had requested a year to learn Persian before having an audience with Artaxerxes,so must have arrived no later than 473 b.c. *
halman 25.03.11 - 04:16pm
473 b.c. is also supported by Jerome's 'Chronicle Of Eusebius'. Also, German scholar Ernst Hengstenberg said that the reign of Artaxerxes commenced in 474 b.c. in his 'Christology of the Old Testament' as do other sources. He added ''The twentieth year of Artaxerxes is the year 455 before Christ'' *
elijah_2 25.03.11 - 06:08pm
Are you sure you are not making a mistake in the year that Artaxerxes began to reign?
Because you say it's 474 B.C. But the History books say it's 464 B.C. Maybe that 7 you have there should be a 6
Artaxerxes Persian king began his reign in 464 B.C. *
elijah_2 25.03.11 - 06:51pm
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica,
ARTAXERXES I - king of Persia Whose real name was, Achaemenid king of Persia (reigned 465 to 425 bc).
He was surnamed in Greek Macrocheir (Longhand) and in Latin Longim . A younger son of Xerxes I and Amestris, he was raised to the throne by the commander of the guard, Artab , who had murdered Xerxes. *
elijah_2 25.03.11 - 06:56pm
Now his reignal year didn't began the very year he ascended the Throne (465 B.C.), because that year was already come to and end. He really start reigning the next year (464 B.C.). *
halman 26.03.11 - 12:03pm
No,showed you what others have said,and the historians nearer the time.The ascension then regnal year are correct *
elijah_2 26.03.11 - 12:13pm
Well just like I said before in other areas in my groups. I am not going to quote scholars to contradict a scholar that you quoted. Just like I said I'm not into quoting bible verses to try an contradict another Bible verse that another may quote. Because, that will just cause confusion in the minds of the Reader. I can quote many scholars to back me up, but I not go do that. As a matter of fact; I don't really trust the words of a scholar to all that, I will more likely trust the words of a Historian over a scholar. *
halman 26.03.11 - 12:14pm
Go back and read carefully, what I've posted. I know about Artaxerxes also being called Longim etc. *
elijah_2 26.03.11 - 12:22pm
There is no need for me to read the posts again, because i read the posts over and over about six times already. And seen that neither you nor me was living in those times. An we have to depend upon the words of another, who so claim that they have gather of information those events that to place in history, so we got just either: believe and accept one or the other or none at all. And if it came to the test, I would more likely to believe the Encyclopedias (Britannica, America, ect) over a Scholar. As I said earlier; i am more likely to trust the words of a Historian over the words of a Scholar. *
halman 26.03.11 - 12:23pm
Besides,elijah2, you wanted a reply.Plus,what I quoted is from historians.Don't forget the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius being 29 a.d. when John the baptizer started his work.I'll leave you to think about it *
elijah_2 26.03.11 - 12:39pm
This places the fifteenth year of Tiberius from October 20, 27 to October 9, 28 CE. This fits with the arrival of Pontius Pilate by the fall of 27, with an earliest first Passover still in 28.
(New Testament Chronology, (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990). *
elijah_2 26.03.11 - 12:42pm
You see, you say, Tiberius Caesar fifteenth reign was in the year 29 A.D. While the history books say it's 27 A.D. *
elijah_2 26.03.11 - 12:46pm
That's one of the reasons I don't like to discuss matters that are based on human opinions. I rather stick to the Word of God and discuss things that can be proven their. Because, we cannot trust the words of man. But the word of God can be trusted. It will never lead astray. *
halman 26.03.11 - 02:31pm
Incorrect elijah2 and you mention about the error of men while then doing the same yourself. The proper calculations take it to near the end of 29 a.d. Jesus died at the age of 33 and a half on Nisan 14, 33 a.d. As for God's word the Bible,Jehovah's Witnesses trust that more than mens ideas and follow it's chronology.You believe you're in the true church, and I believe I'm in the true church. So,we're not going to get anywhere,young man.We already know about Israel,and who 'the Israel of God' is,today. *
elijah_2 26.03.11 - 03:03pm
Well the fact of the matter is, I can't argue an say this Historian or this Scholar or this Encyclopedia is right and another is wrong, because the truth is we were not living in those times, neither were most of them. So I rather stick to subjects that can be defended by scripture. And furthermore it's NOT just you and i that believe that we are apart of the true faith, but also every other person that belongs to another persuasion of faith. Because, the Baptist, the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Anglican, the Catholics, Mormons ects. All believe that the faith they belong to and hold to is the true faith. *
elijah_2 26.03.11 - 03:11pm
Hence, instead of we Reasoning from Scholarly point of view, let's Reason from the Scritpures. Because, for one, the Scriptures don't contradict. So let see: What the Bible Really Teach? *
halman 27.03.11 - 02:27pm
Of course other people in a faith believe it's the right one.What you fail to realize,is how you contradict yourself.First you say such a date, then you say as we weren't there we can't be sure. So that puts a doubt already on what you've said.As for reasoning from the Bible, yes,it should be done,but you've said quoting from it to prove opposing thoughts is not good.So,basically contradicting the whole of what you're saying in the first place.I'm not saying this to be funny,but use abit of logic. *
halman 28.03.11 - 05:00pm
Anyway,reading up to Reavealing The Messiah,yes, we basically believe the same,but with a 2yr difference of 29 a.d., 33 a.d., and 36 a.d. Look forward to the rest elijah2 and hope I didn't come across as critical.This is your topic for all to read and reason on so I respect that. Texting doesn't convey vocal tone or facial expression when getting a point across,unless someone is rude like in the public forums. *
elijah_2 11.05.12 - 05:57pm
I don't quite see where the contradiction is in my previous statement or statements. I first gave the common dates as been widely recognized by Historians. You on the other hand gave dates that are not accepted by majority of Historians and scholars worldwide. Therefore; instead of me saying my dates are correct and your dates are incorrect, or that your dates are right and my dates are wrong. I just went to the Fact that: You and i weren't there, nor were we living around those times to say without a doubt that this date is definitely correct, and that date is definitely incorrect. I though see any contradictions in that statement. *
