Easter According to Daniel

[3 Resurrections]

- there is no fudging the years of any decrees (coregency nonsense).

L O L ! Hypothetically, if you yourself were sharing a co-regency with a father, I doubt very much if you would have blown off a co-regency as being "nonsense". Co-regencies were not a historical anomaly - an aging monarch that desired a seamless transition for his kingdom to continue would give co-regnal powers to a son on more than one occasion. A co-regency was also beneficial in cases where the father as king was going off to war, and he desired that a seamless transition for his kingdom would take place in his son's continued reign in the event of the father's death in battle. Didn't the aging King David have Solomon anointed king while he was still living? Same type of thing.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

L O L ! Hypothetically, if you yourself were sharing a co-regency with a father, I doubt very much if you would have blown off a co-regency as being "nonsense". Co-regencies were not a historical anomaly - an aging monarch that desired a seamless transition for his kingdom to continue would give co-regnal powers to a son on more than one occasion. A co-regency was also beneficial in cases where the father as king was going off to war, and he desired that a seamless transition for his kingdom would take place in his son's continued reign in the event of the father's death in battle. Didn't the aging King David have Solomon anointed king while he was still living? Same type of thing.

There is still no way your coregency theory is relevant to anything. The math doesn't even help to work out to anything significant. You haven't even given any evidence as to why my research is flawed - other than you say it is.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is still no way your coregency theory is relevant to anything. The math doesn't even help to work out to anything significant.

The co-regency of Artaxerxes with his father is not a "theory". This co-regency began back in 474 BC. If you need archaeological proof of this, it is found in the "Annals of the World" by Ussher, who did NOT base the information for these dates on Ptolemy's canon.

The decree in the 20th year of Artaxerxes's reign is a date based upon that 474 BC year at the start of Artaxerxes's reign. That results in his decree given to rebuild Jerusalem's walls and street in 454 BC, which is the year that launched the intact, no-gap 490 years of Daniel's 70-week prophecy. The significance of this points to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection in the middle of that last 70th week, which ended with Paul's commission by God to concentrate his evangelistic endeavors to the Gentiles in AD 37. This has great relevance to you and me personally, as we are the beneficiaries of that evangelistic emphasis going abroad to the nations.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The co-regency of Artaxerxes with his father is not a "theory". This co-regency began back in 474 BC. If you need archaeological proof of this, it is found in the "Annals of the World" by Ussher, who did NOT base the information for these dates on Ptolemy's canon.

The decree in the 20th year of Artaxerxes's reign is a date based upon that 474 BC year at the start of Artaxerxes's reign. That results in his decree given to rebuild Jerusalem's walls and street in 454 BC, which is the year that launched the intact, no-gap 490 years of Daniel's 70-week prophecy. The significance of this points to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection in the middle of that last 70th week, which ended with Paul's commission by God to concentrate his evangelistic endeavors to the Gentiles in AD 37. This has great relevance to you and me personally, as we are the beneficiaries of that evangelistic emphasis going abroad to the nations.

First, Ussher is not an original source for any information. Where does he get his evidence from? This is not "archaeological proof" of anything.

Now, at least you provided some actual numbers for dates. And this is what I assumed but now you have confirmed. I could never understand what Paul has to do with any of this. "evangelistic endeavors to the Gentiles" is NOT one of the 6 reasons given for the 70 Weeks prophecy in Daniel. It has nothing to do with it. This is purely made up with no Biblical proof.

Further, if the end point was in 37 AD, then you mean to say that the mid point was in 33 AD - as the crucifixion of messiah Jesus. There are many reasons why the crucifixion did not happen in 33 AD, as is commonly stated. I did a 2 part video series which outlines them all. I won't list them all here. But two of the biggest reasons that it was not 33 AD have to do with facts in the New Testament related to botany. These are things almost no one recognizes.

1. In two of the Gospels, near the time of the crucifxion, as Jesus was walking to Jerusalem, He wanted to eat some figs from a nearby tree. There were no figs to be seen. Mark gives the detail that it was not the season for figs. So was Jesus being unreasonable thinking there should be figs but not finding any? Not at all. Do some research and you discover that fig trees have TWO seasons for figs. After the winter, when they first flower, the sterile female flowers quickly develop into fruit. This is the first harvest - a smaller harvest. One that happens at the end of April. The second harvest happens later in the summer after the fertile flowers have been visited by a certain wasp that only shows up in May/June. That is the main harvest of figs that Mark referred to.
So if, as is commonly stated, the crucifixion date was April 3, 33 AD, that is MUCH too early in April for Jesus to expect there would be figs on the tree. It was actually April 25, 31 AD - at the end of April.

2. The second botanical proof is the Feast of First Fruits and the winter barley harvest. According the Law of Moses, God requires the first of the winter barley harvest to be brought to the high priest so he can wave it before the Lord at the Feast of First Fruits. This is the day after the weekly Sabbath during the Passover week (always a Sunday). There MUST be ripe barley in order for this to happen. That is why it was so important for them to begin the year at the right time. If they began the year too early, there would not be any ripe barley for their required wave offering. The entire population could not harvest and eat the new harvest until AFTER this wave offering.
Winter barley finishes flowering and begins to show green ears (abib) around the time of the spring equinox. It takes roughly 3 weeks for it to ripen properly. Again, if one considers the assumed date of April 3, 33 AD, that is MUCH too early for there to be any ripe winter barley around. It's an impossible date. It can not be correct. However, by April 25, 31 AD there would most definitely by ripe barley for the First Fruits wave offering.

So, that's the kind of research proof that is required in order to make the case for the proper date. Unfortunately, your theory has none of this level of research to back it up.

 

[3 Resurrections]

First, Ussher is not an original source for any information. Where does he get his evidence from? This is not "archaeological proof" of anything.

Ussher's evidence is listed in his note #1184 regarding Themistocles sending letters to Artaxerxes when he had just recently been crowned king. To corroborate that evidence, the editors of Ussher's "Annals" also submit additional archaeological evidence for the 474 BC beginning of Artaxerxes reign under Ussher's note #1177 for the year 474 BC, if you care to look it up.

Now, at least you provided some actual numbers for dates. And this is what I assumed but now you have confirmed. I could never understand what Paul has to do with any of this. "evangelistic endeavors to the Gentiles" is NOT one of the 6 reasons given for the 70 Weeks prophecy in Daniel. It has nothing to do with it. This is purely made up with no Biblical proof.

I never said that Paul's commission by God to switch his evangelistic emphasis to the Gentiles had to take place within the 70 weeks. The switch of evangelistic efforts to the Gentiles was a sign that the 70 weeks was OVER by then. Paul's commission by God in his Jerusalem temple vision ended the 7 years of "confirming the covenant with many" of Daniel's people. Since the majority of the Jews and especially their leadership continued to reject Christ as being the fulfillment of the Messiah, God planned for the main focus of evangelism to go far off among the Gentile nations instead.

Further, if the end point was in 37 AD, then you mean to say that the mid point was in 33 AD - as the crucifixion of messiah Jesus. There are many reasons why the crucifixion did not happen in 33 AD, as is commonly stated.

There are several scriptural texts which give the reason why the crucifixion and the resurrection must be in AD 33 and no other year. If your botanical points are what you consider to be your strongest proof for an AD 31 crucifixion, that is not saying much.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Ussher's evidence is listed in his note #1184 regarding Themistocles sending letters to Artaxerxes when he had just recently been crowned king. To corroborate that evidence, the editors of Ussher's "Annals" also submit additional archaeological evidence for the 474 BC beginning of Artaxerxes reign under Ussher's note #1177 for the year 474 BC, if you care to look it up.

I never said that Paul's commission by God to switch his evangelistic emphasis to the Gentiles had to take place within the 70 weeks. The switch of evangelistic efforts to the Gentiles was a sign that the 70 weeks was OVER by then. Paul's commission by God in his Jerusalem temple vision ended the 7 years of "confirming the covenant with many" of Daniel's people. Since the majority of the Jews and especially their leadership continued to reject Christ as being the fulfillment of the Messiah, God planned for the main focus of evangelism to go far off among the Gentile nations instead.

There are several scriptural texts which give the reason why the crucifixion and the resurrection must be in AD 33 and no other year. If your botanical points are what you consider to be your strongest proof for an AD 31 crucifixion, that is not saying much.

Like I said there are MANY evidences that 33 AD is not correct. Many. And, yes, those are some of the best because they totally blow the 33 AD date out of the water. That you don't have an open mind to even investigate those shows a lot. I won't be wasting any more time giving you the rest. I've pointed out how deficient your theory is in facts. Moving on.
"There are several scriptural texts which give the reason why the crucifixion and the resurrection must be in AD 33 and no other year. " This is absolutely and utterly untrue. There are none.

 

[3 Resurrections]

"There are several scriptural texts which give the reason why the crucifixion and the resurrection must be in AD 33 and no other year. " This is absolutely and utterly untrue. There are none.

It is obvious that you have expended much time and devotion to the details of this 70-week prophecy and are dedicated to your findings as you see them. Your multiple videos illustrate this. I can respect anyone who is willing to sacrifice their time to dig deeply into a subject in an effort to find the truth. But please realize that most others on this forum (including myself) have also done due diligence in a like effort to find the truth. It has been a 12-year journey for me so far of almost full time scripture research on eschatology matters, and yes, I am still learning. I have had to jettison much of what I was taught from early childhood onward about eschatology in the process, and am still willing to do so when necessary.

This 70-week prophecy pointing to the revelation of Christ as the promised Messiah at the beginning of that 70th week and His crucifixion in the middle of that week of years is a year that also coincides with the ending year of the Revelation 20 millennium and the "First resurrection", which was that of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints on that same day. The middle year of the 70th week and the ending year of the literal thousand-year millennium intersect at the same point on the calendar. It's a checks and balances kind of thing. The year for both of these events must be the same, or you have not yet identified the correct year for either one.

The literal one thousand millennium years of Satan being bound lasted from Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid down in 968/967 BC until the millennium ended in AD 33 with Christ's resurrection, when He became the "chief cornerstone" foundation of the spiritual temple not made with hands.

With the decree in 454 BC (the 20th year of Artaxerxes's reign), the middle year of that last 70th week with Christ's crucifixion and the "First resurrection" also arrived at the AD 33 year. This intersects with the time of the millennium's ending year.

Moreover, the first year of Christ's public ministry (at the beginning of the 70th week) must also dovetail with the statement made by the Pharisees at Christ's first Passover, not many days after His first miracle at Cana. The Pharisees told Christ in John 2:20, "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" The particular year they said this was in AD 30, since Herod had begun the actual construction of temple renovations back in 17 BC. This AD 30 year at the beginning of Christ's public, miraculous ministry must also align with the other two intersecting AD 33 events above.

The reason why I am not considering your botanical points above as primary proof is that you are putting a bit too much mathematical precision to the day when the fig trees were bearing figs back in that first century year, and exactly what date the barley Firstfruits were ready that year. That is not possible for us to know. Even you have written above that it was "roughly" at a certain "season" when those occurred. You would have to know the precise weather conditions for that year and the agricultural reports for Jerusalem that year, which is, of course, an impossibility. And yes, I already knew about the "first-ripe figs", as in Micah 7:1 and Hosea 9:10.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

It is obvious that you have expended much time and devotion to the details of this 70-week prophecy and are dedicated to your findings as you see them. Your multiple videos illustrate this. I can respect anyone who is willing to sacrifice their time to dig deeply into a subject in an effort to find the truth. But please realize that most others on this forum (including myself) have also done due diligence in a like effort to find the truth. It has been a 12-year journey for me so far of almost full time scripture research on eschatology matters, and yes, I am still learning. I have had to jettison much of what I was taught from early childhood onward about eschatology in the process, and am still willing to do so when necessary.

This 70-week prophecy pointing to the revelation of Christ as the promised Messiah at the beginning of that 70th week and His crucifixion in the middle of that week of years is a year that also coincides with the ending year of the Revelation 20 millennium and the "First resurrection", which was that of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints on that same day. The middle year of the 70th week and the ending year of the literal thousand-year millennium intersect at the same point on the calendar. It's a checks and balances kind of thing. The year for both of these events must be the same, or you have not yet identified the correct year for either one.

The literal one thousand millennium years of Satan being bound lasted from Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid down in 968/967 BC until the millennium ended in AD 33 with Christ's resurrection, when He became the "chief cornerstone" foundation of the spiritual temple not made with hands.

With the decree in 454 BC (the 20th year of Artaxerxes's reign), the middle year of that last 70th week with Christ's crucifixion and the "First resurrection" also arrived at the AD 33 year. This intersects with the time of the millennium's ending year.

Moreover, the first year of Christ's public ministry (at the beginning of the 70th week) must also dovetail with the statement made by the Pharisees at Christ's first Passover, not many days after His first miracle at Cana. The Pharisees told Christ in John 2:20, "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" The particular year they said this was in AD 30, since Herod had begun the actual construction of temple renovations back in 17 BC. This AD 30 year at the beginning of Christ's public, miraculous ministry must also align with the other two intersecting AD 33 events above.

The reason why I am not considering your botanical points above as primary proof is that you are putting a bit too much mathematical precision to the day when the fig trees were bearing figs back in that first century year, and exactly what date the barley Firstfruits were ready that year. That is not possible for us to know. Even you have written above that it was "roughly" at a certain "season" when those occurred. You would have to know the precise weather conditions for that year and the agricultural reports for Jerusalem that year, which is, of course, an impossibility. And yes, I already knew about the "first-ripe figs", as in Micah 7:1 and Hosea 9:10.

There is some very strange theology that you present which has no biblical support. That being said, you continually state errors in dates which must be challenged.
Solomon's began the first temple in the 4th year of his reign which was 977 BC.
Herod did not begin temple restoration in 17 BC. He announced the project in 20 BC. It took 1 1/2 years to finish the first stage - in 18 BC. 46 years later is 29 AD.
If you would actually study botany you would realize that plants are very precise no matter weather. That is EXACTLY why God used the ripeness of the winter barley as the start of His feast calendar to begin with. All of my research is backed by peer-reviewed published scientific documents.
So, no, there are no biblical passages that "must" end up with 33 AD crucifixion.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Solomon's began the first temple in the 4th year of his reign which was 977 BC.

The year when Solomon laid the foundation stone for beginning temple construction can be confirmed by looking at the list of Tyrian kings and their regnal dates (most notably Hiram King of Tyre who helped Solomon from the beginning with workmen and supplies). This list compiled by one Menander of Ephesus is mentioned by Josephus in "Against Apion", and also in the ECF Theophilus to Autolycus Chapter 22 called "The Antiquity of the Temple". This states that in the 12th year of Hiram's reign the temple in Jerusalem was built.

The proposed years of Solomon's temple being built that result from comparing this historical information are 968 or 967 BC, which began a literal thousand years of a stationary, physical temple worship system in Jerusalem until Christ's resurrection rendered that physical temple obsolete in AD 33.

The fame of Solomon's physical temple at Jerusalem spread throughout the nations of the time who brought gifts to Solomon (Psalms 68:29). To broadcast throughout the nations the glory of God and the king that He was blessing with such wisdom and wealth was to dispel ignorance of the God of Israel. Satan's deception of the nations before that time had depended heavily on keeping them ignorant of the true God of Israel, but after that knowledge of the one true God began to spread, they could no longer claim deceived ignorance as an excuse anymore. This was one of the means God used to bind Satan's deception for those literal thousand years. The surge in the ministry of the prophets at this time was another. The dispersion of the tribes into foreign nations under exile was another means.

Herod did not begin temple restoration in 17 BC. He announced the project in 20 BC. It took 1 1/2 years to finish the first stage - in 18 BC. 46 years later is 29 AD.

Herod in 19 BC announced his intentions to renovate the temple, with assurances to the religious leaders in Jerusalem that he would gather materials for that renovation before he ever began to tear down the sections of the temple that would be renovated. By 17 BC, Herod had done so, and renovation activity began (forty-six years before that first year of Christ's ministry in AD 30).

To help fund this costly project, in 19 BC the religious leadership of Jerusalem requested and obtained special permission from Rome so that they could begin minting a copy of the abominable Tyrian shekel as the only permitted coinage that the temple would accept. All foreign currencies coming into the temple were exchanged for this Tyrian shekel copy - for a fee, of course, that was collected on behalf of the temple. This was the job of the "moneychangers" that Christ so abhorred. This Tyrian shekel copy minted in Jerusalem was the "mark of the beast" imposed on everyone wishing to worship at the Temple; a "mark" without which no one could buy or sell any temple sacrifices, or pay the yearly Temple tax for adult males.

All of my research is backed by peer-reviewed published scientific documents.

None of whom can know to an exact day when the figs ripened or the barley first-fruits sprang up in AD 30, 31, 32, or 33, etc.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The year when Solomon laid the foundation stone for beginning temple construction can be confirmed by looking at the list of Tyrian kings and their regnal dates (most notably Hiram King of Tyre who helped Solomon from the beginning with workmen and supplies). This list compiled by one Menander of Ephesus is mentioned by Josephus in "Against Apion", and also in the ECF Theophilus to Autolycus Chapter 22 called "The Antiquity of the Temple". This states that in the 12th year of Hiram's reign the temple in Jerusalem was built.

The proposed years of Solomon's temple being built that result from comparing this historical information are 968 or 967 BC, which began a literal thousand years of a stationary, physical temple worship system in Jerusalem until Christ's resurrection rendered that physical temple obsolete in AD 33.

The fame of Solomon's physical temple at Jerusalem spread throughout the nations of the time who brought gifts to Solomon (Psalms 68:29). To broadcast throughout the nations the glory of God and the king that He was blessing with such wisdom and wealth was to dispel ignorance of the God of Israel. Satan's deception of the nations before that time had depended heavily on keeping them ignorant of the true God of Israel, but after that knowledge of the one true God began to spread, they could no longer claim deceived ignorance as an excuse anymore. This was one of the means God used to bind Satan's deception for those literal thousand years. The surge in the ministry of the prophets at this time was another. The dispersion of the tribes into foreign nations under exile was another means.

Herod in 19 BC announced his intentions to renovate the temple, with assurances to the religious leaders in Jerusalem that he would gather materials for that renovation before he ever began to tear down the sections of the temple that would be renovated. By 17 BC, Herod had done so, and renovation activity began (forty-six years before that first year of Christ's ministry in AD 30).

To help fund this costly project, in 19 BC the religious leadership of Jerusalem requested and obtained special permission from Rome so that they could begin minting a copy of the abominable Tyrian shekel as the only permitted coinage that the temple would accept. All foreign currencies coming into the temple were exchanged for this Tyrian shekel copy - for a fee, of course, that was collected on behalf of the temple. This was the job of the "moneychangers" that Christ so abhorred. This Tyrian shekel copy minted in Jerusalem was the "mark of the beast" imposed on everyone wishing to worship at the Temple; a "mark" without which no one could buy or sell any temple sacrifices, or pay the yearly Temple tax for adult males.

None of whom can know to an exact day when the figs ripened or the barley first-fruits sprang up in AD 30, 31, 32, or 33, etc.

Nothing you wrote is accurate. It's very frustrating that you continually write "facts" which are very easy to research as wrong. It's such a waste of time and effort.
It's amazing to me how many people in these discussions have to contort, misinterpret and outright make up history in order to match their preconceived, agenda-driven theological notions. Instead, let the text say what it says (even though it can be confusing) and treat the writers with intellectual honesty. It's pointless to have a discussion with these types. It's not even about a difference of interpretation when you have combat outright false facts.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Nothing you wrote is accurate. It's very frustrating that you continually write "facts" which are very easy to research as wrong. It's such a waste of time and effort.

I'm sorry I am giving you the impression that I am making up facts. I don't always have the time to submit all the source material I have dug into to arrive at these conclusions.

I have not arrived at the 968/967 BC date of Solomon's foundation stone being laid down according to my own terms. If you have the time and/or the inclination, look up Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology and their article entitled "967 BCE.: How the Lynchpin Date for Solomon's Temple Was Determined".

This year began a literal thousand years of a physical temple worship system authorized by God, (during which Satan's deception of the nations was being bound). That millennium period of a literal thousand years ended with Christ and the "First resurrection" - in AD 33 - which also intersects with the same AD 33 middle year of Daniel's 70th week when the Messiah was crucified and resurrected. The Revelation 20 millennium of Satan's deception being bound from the time of Solomon's physical temple foundation stone was meant to foreshadow the superior value of Christ's finished sacrifice and resurrection making Him the "chief cornerstone" foundation of the spiritual temple which we are based upon.

For consideration of the beginning year (17 BC as I propose) of Herod's renovation of the second temple (those 46 years prior to the start of Christ's public ministry - which was the start of the 70th week), please refer to www.billheroman.com and his NT History blog with his article entitled "A Common Error - Dating Herod's Temple" written back in 2009. He gives the possible years for this, allowing for some interpretive leeway in determining this year, given the earliest and latest year limits for Herod beginning construction which we must work with according to other historical time markers. In other words, this author's research grants that 17 BC is one of the years which is viable for Herod beginning construction of the temple.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I'm sorry I am giving you the impression that I am making up facts. I don't always have the time to submit all the source material I have dug into to arrive at these conclusions.

I have not arrived at the 968/967 BC date of Solomon's foundation stone being laid down according to my own terms. If you have the time and/or the inclination, look up Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology and their article entitled "967 BCE.: How the Lynchpin Date for Solomon's Temple Was Determined".

Since you do not have an open mind to verify my information, I decided that I will show you how it is done by verifying yours. I looked up the 967 BCE article and it was so very easy to disprove their whole house of cards. They rightly quote that "It [Solomon's temple] is the primary anchor given from which the Exodus can be dated (480 years earlier—see 1 Kings 6:1).". But they base their date on "Next, he turned to Josephus, who stated that King Hiram began to help Solomon with the building of the temple in the 241st year after the founding of Tyre (Antiquities 8.3.1;". But go to this text in Josephus here:

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 8, Whiston chapter 3, Whiston section 1

There Josephus specifically states "SOLOMON began to build the temple... five hundred and ninety-two years after the Exodus out of Egypt; but one thousand and twenty years from Abraham's coming out of Mesopotamia into Canaan,"

Josephus says 592 years. The Bible states 480 years. Then do the math with Abraham and Josephus states it was 428 years previous. But the Bible states it was EXACTLY 430 years previous. You can't have it both ways. That article is pure math voodoo and can not be trusted. The 967 BC date is proven to be false. Obviously you did not do any due diligence here.

Then I took a look at the Heroman article. Another bit of text full of speculation and very little proof of anything. "The actual building must have begun quite some time later. One or two or even three years is not an unthinkable amount of time for the immense amount of preparations that had to take place before reconstruction could begin. The tearing down would probably have been very quick, so the rebuilding could have begun in 19, 18, or perhaps early 17 BC."

All speculation. No proof. Shifting sand.

So, it's been very easy to do some due diligence and show that your theory does not hold water whatsoever.

 

[3 Resurrections]

This is another source which arrives at the 967BC year for Solomon beginning temple construction, but by using the Jubilees cycle to arrive at that year... digitalcommons.andrews.edu

I'll reproduce the pertinent information from p. #173-174 of his Seminary Studies 45 (Autumn 2007) entitled "Three Verifications of Thiele's Date For the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom" by Rodger C. Young as follows:

"A good portion of my own work has focused on the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles. There are several facets to this. One facet was establishing that the Hebrew text of Ezek 40:1 implies that a Jubilee was scheduled to begin at the time Ezekiel saw the vision that occupies the last nine chapters of his book. This was the subject of my previous article in AUSS. Another article, in WTJ, examined rabbinic traditions (Seder 'Olam and the Talmuds) regarding this Jubilee in the days of Ezekiel. These traditions stated that Ezekiel's Jubilee was the seventeenth Jubilee, and they placed another Jubilee forty-nine years earlier, in the eighteenth year of Josiah. It was shown that rabbinic traditions could not have invented this date by back-calculating from Ezekiel's Jubilee because the known calculation methods of the early rabbis were incapable of correctly calculating the years from Josiah to the vision of Ezek 40-48. Both the WTJ article and the AUSS article gave extensive documentation on why the Jubilee cycle was forty-nine years, citing the second-century B.C. Book of Jubilees and literature from Qumran, and also establishing the forty-nine year cycle by arguments based on practical and textual matters related to the Jubilee.

The two papers determined the date of the last two Jubilees according to the Julian calendar, and then gave evidence that the times of the Jubilees were known to Israel's priests ever since the entry into Canaan. Since the Jubilee was identical to the seventh Sabbatical year, the establishment of the date of Ezekiel's vision as occurring on the tenth of Tishri (November 2), 574 B.C., allows a complete calendar of pre-exilic Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles to be constructed. Projecting this calendar backward in time shows that the first year of the first Jubilee (and Sabbatical) cycle was the year beginning in Nisan of 1406 B.C. According to Lev 25:1-10, counting for the Jubilee cycles was to start when Israel entered Canaan, and so the Jubilee cycles establish Nisan of 1406 as the date of crossing the Jordan. The exodus, forty years earlier, was in 1446 B.C. The chronological note of 1 Kgs 6:1 states that Temple construction began 479 years after this, in the second month of the 480th year of the exodus era, which would be in the spring of 967 B.C. The same verse says that this was the fourth year of Solomon. Since Judean regnal years began in the fall, Solomon's fourth year was therefore 968t, and his fortieth and last year was 932t. This overlaps the first six months of the year 931n that Thiele established for the beginning of the divided kingdom, thereby providing another demonstration that Thiele's assumption that Solomon died in the latter half of this year, not in the first half, was not justified. As mentioned earlier, that assumption led Thiele into problems that he never resolved. It is this date, 931n, that is in exact agreement with the dates for Solomon derived from the Jubilee cycles, as long as we do not try to put Solomon's death on or after Tishri 1 of that year.

The date of the death of Solomon, as calculated from the Jubilee cycles, is thus in agreement with Thiele's determination that the year beginning in Nisan of 931 B.C. was the first year of the divided monarchy. The two methods of deriving these dates agree."

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

This is another source which arrives at the 967BC year for Solomon beginning temple construction, but by using the Jubilees cycle to arrive at that year... digitalcommons.andrews.edu

I'll reproduce the pertinent information from p. #173-174 of his Seminary Studies 45 (Autumn 2007) entitled "Three Verifications of Thiele's Date For the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom" by Rodger C. Young as follows:

"A good portion of my own work has focused on the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles. There are several facets to this. One facet was establishing that the Hebrew text of Ezek 40:1 implies that a Jubilee was scheduled to begin at the time Ezekiel saw the vision that occupies the last nine chapters of his book. This was the subject of my previous article in AUSS. Another article, in WTJ, examined rabbinic traditions (Seder 'Olam and the Talmuds) regarding this Jubilee in the days of Ezekiel. These traditions stated that Ezekiel's Jubilee was the seventeenth Jubilee, and they placed another Jubilee forty-nine years earlier, in the eighteenth year of Josiah. It was shown that rabbinic traditions could not have invented this date by back-calculating from Ezekiel's Jubilee because the known calculation methods of the early rabbis were incapable of correctly calculating the years from Josiah to the vision of Ezek 40-48. Both the WTJ article and the AUSS article gave extensive documentation on why the Jubilee cycle was forty-nine years, citing the second-century B.C. Book of Jubilees and literature from Qumran, and also establishing the forty-nine year cycle by arguments based on practical and textual matters related to the Jubilee.

The two papers determined the date of the last two Jubilees according to the Julian calendar, and then gave evidence that the times of the Jubilees were known to Israel's priests ever since the entry into Canaan. Since the Jubilee was identical to the seventh Sabbatical year, the establishment of the date of Ezekiel's vision as occurring on the tenth of Tishri (November 2), 574 B.C., allows a complete calendar of pre-exilic Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles to be constructed. Projecting this calendar backward in time shows that the first year of the first Jubilee (and Sabbatical) cycle was the year beginning in Nisan of 1406 B.C. According to Lev 25:1-10, counting for the Jubilee cycles was to start when Israel entered Canaan, and so the Jubilee cycles establish Nisan of 1406 as the date of crossing the Jordan. The exodus, forty years earlier, was in 1446 B.C. The chronological note of 1 Kgs 6:1 states that Temple construction began 479 years after this, in the second month of the 480th year of the exodus era, which would be in the spring of 967 B.C. The same verse says that this was the fourth year of Solomon. Since Judean regnal years began in the fall, Solomon's fourth year was therefore 968t, and his fortieth and last year was 932t. This overlaps the first six months of the year 931n that Thiele established for the beginning of the divided kingdom, thereby providing another demonstration that Thiele's assumption that Solomon died in the latter half of this year, not in the first half, was not justified. As mentioned earlier, that assumption led Thiele into problems that he never resolved. It is this date, 931n, that is in exact agreement with the dates for Solomon derived from the Jubilee cycles, as long as we do not try to put Solomon's death on or after Tishri 1 of that year.

The date of the death of Solomon, as calculated from the Jubilee cycles, is thus in agreement with Thiele's determination that the year beginning in Nisan of 931 B.C. was the first year of the divided monarchy. The two methods of deriving these dates agree."

Again very easy to disprove everything in these texts. First, Ez 40:1 does NOT imply any Jubilee year. There is NOTHING about a Jubilee or Sabbatical year in that verse. Second, the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 586 BC. Not 587 as is the assumption of that math. Thrid, the Jubilee year had already past - it was in 576 BC.

And finally, Thiele's work is very flawed. No dates from his work can be trusted. As I mentioned already, the time of the Judges is incorrect, the time of kings of Judah/Israel is incorrect.

I've looked at all this stuff before and studied it. It holds no water.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Again very easy to disprove everything in these texts. First, Ez 40:1 does NOT imply any Jubilee year. There is NOTHING about a Jubilee or Sabbatical year in that verse. Second, the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 586 BC. Not 587 as is the assumption of that math.

The author Rodger C. Young explains how Ezekiel 40:1 is a Jubilee year in his article entitled " Ezekiel 40:1 As a Corrective for Seven Wrong Ideas in Biblical Interpretation", p.#271-272 of his Seminary Studies 44 (Autumn 2006) at the same source - digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent

Ezekiel 40:1 is a Jubilee year because Young notes that the Jubilee year is the only time Rosh Hashanah was observed on the tenth day of the Tishri month (as Ezekiel 40:1 has it). In an ordinary year it was the first of the month Tishri.

This author Rodger C. Young gives a thorough treatment of the 586 BC or 587 BC date alternatives for the destruction of Jerusalem in this article, with a full, balanced consideration of all the competitive positions listed in a layout of tables for comparison. All things considered, he arrives at the 587 BC date for Jerusalem's destruction.

And finally, Thiele's work is very flawed. No dates from his work can be trusted. As I mentioned already, the time of the Judges is incorrect, the time of kings of Judah/Israel is incorrect.

That's a pretty absolute anathema against Thiele. No one is 100% incorrect - even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. The article I submitted above by Young on the "Three Verification of Thiele's Date for the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom" explains why Thiele's dates are critiqued by those like yourself - because Thiele did not himself arbitrarily assign the accession year or the non-accession year when each sovereign's reign began. This choice was never universal across the board in ancient times, which contributes to the confusion about pinning down exact regnal dates. Thiele's method was to allow the clues from the data from ancient times (where present) to reveal which choice was assigned in ancient times for the beginning of each sovereign's term in power - whether the partial year in which each sovereign's reign began was counted or not at the time.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The author Rodger C. Young explains how Ezekiel 40:1 is a Jubilee year in his article entitled " Ezekiel 40:1 As a Corrective for Seven Wrong Ideas in Biblical Interpretation", p.#271-272 of his Seminary Studies 44 (Autumn 2006) at the same source - digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent

Ezekiel 40:1 is a Jubilee year because Young notes that the Jubilee year is the only time Rosh Hashanah was observed on the tenth day of the Tishri month (as Ezekiel 40:1 has it). In an ordinary year it was the first of the month Tishri.

This author Rodger C. Young gives a thorough treatment of the 586 BC or 587 BC date alternatives for the destruction of Jerusalem in this article, with a full, balanced consideration of all the competitive positions listed in a layout of tables for comparison. All things considered, he arrives at the 587 BC date for Jerusalem's destruction.


That's a pretty absolute anathema against Thiele. No one is 100% incorrect - even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. The article I submitted above by Young on the "Three Verification of Thiele's Date for the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom" explains why Thiele's dates are critiqued by those like yourself - because Thiele did not himself arbitrarily assign the accession year or the non-accession year when each sovereign's reign began. This choice was never universal across the board in ancient times, which contributes to the confusion about pinning down exact regnal dates. Thiele's method was to allow the clues from the data from ancient times (where present) to reveal which choice was assigned in ancient times for the beginning of each sovereign's term in power - whether the partial year in which each sovereign's reign began was counted or not at the time.

Unfortunately for all those that still consider 587 BC the destruction of Jerusalem, it's impossible. According the Biblical information alone. But most don't think that even important. But as I've pointed out, evidence uncovered in ancient Jerusalem in just the last 3 years proves that it was 586 BC.

Again, Ez 40:1 has NO ties to ANY feast being celebrated. Anyone who claims this is making things up. It's just not anywhere in the verse.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Eclipse, You have hijacked this topic as per the opening post. I will come back to discuss when the six clauses of Daniel 9:24 are discussed.

3 Resurrections, Check your private messages. Thanks.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Eclipse, You have hijacked this topic as per the opening post. I will come back to discuss when the six clauses of Daniel 9:24 are discussed.

3 Resurrections, Check your private messages. Thanks.

Sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, there are claims which are error filled which must be addressed with actual facts. And it becomes spaghetti because people just talk in circles and keep bringing up more false claims.

You yourself have stated things which I asked you to prove in Jeremiah. But you have not done so.

 

[anetazo]

Easter is pagan holiday. Christian people are to have holy communion, which is Passover. First Corinthians chapter 5:7. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Its insult to Jesus for Christians to mess with Easter. Some people enjoy playing church. God won't bless them. They don't have God's protection. Unless they Repent and conform to God's standard. Those who engage in false religion think their going to Gods kingdom. Thier going to Sheol. Its holding place for the spirtualty dead or wicked. Easter is pagan nonsense.