Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor 86 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  moshe

  I have been facinated by the many theories about the 360 day calendar that ancient cultures used until about 700bce- from the Internet- maybe the counting of time was different for the ancients.

  The 360-Day Year

  All early calendars appear to be based on a 360-day calendar: the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, Hebrews, Persians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Chinese, Mayans, Hindus, Carthaginians, Etruscans, and Teutons all had calendars based on a 360-day year; typically, twelve 30-day months.

  In ancient Chaldea, the calendar was based on a 360-day year. It is from this Babylonian tradition that we have 360 degrees in a circle, 60 minutes to an hour, 60 seconds in each minute, etc.

  The Biblical Year Is 360 Days

  It is also significant that the Biblical year is also based on a 360-day year reckoning. 1 This critical insight unlocks several incredible prophecies which the reader is urged to discover-- in particular, the remarkable "70 Weeks" prophecy of Daniel 9, which is undoubtedly the most amazing passage in the Bible. 2

  All Calendars Change in 701 B.C.

  In 701 B.C., Numa Pompilius, the second King of Rome, reorganized the original calendar of 360 days per year by adding five days per year. King Hezekiah, Numa's contemporary, reorganized his Jewish calendar by adding a month each Jewish leap year (on a cycle of seven every 19 years). 3
  
  The Roman year began with March, the month named after Mars. (They later reorganized their calendar in 364 B.C. to begin on January 1st.) Most of the early cultures organized their calendars around either March or October. Why? Why was any change necessary after 701 B.C.? What happened to affect all the calendars after that year?

  Mars Interferes?

  The recent space age discovery of "orbital resonance"-the tendency of orbits to synchronize on a multiple of one another--has led to a fascinating conjecture that the orbits of the Earth and the Planet Mars were once on resonant orbits of 360 days and 720 days, respectively. A computer analysis has suggested that this could yield orbital interactions that would include a near pass-by on a multiple of 54 years, and this would occur on either March 25 or October 25. Such near pass-bys would transfer energy, altering the orbits of each. 4

  In near proximity, such pass-bys would be accompanied by meteors, severe land tides, earthquakes, etc., and this would help explain why all the ancient cultures were so terrified by the Planet Mars 5 and why calendars tended to reflect either March or October. 6 A series of such pass-bys could also explain a number of the "catastrophes" of ancient history, including the famous "long day of Joshua" and several other Biblical episodes. 7

  Stability appears to have been attained during the last near pass-by in 701 B.C., resulting in Earth's and Mars' present orbits of 365 1/4 days and 687 days, respectively. Provocative, but where's the evidence?
• 

  a Christian

  Nark,

  I wrote: Another way was to count them from the time the kingdom itself was founded. I can cite other instances where this form of reckoning was clearly employed if you like. You responded: Please do. But keep in mind that inasmuch as they are clear (in the text, that is) they will actually disprove your point, Well I guess I will not disprove my point then. Because such references are not clear in the text alone but only clear to one who studies their entire chronological context. But with that in mind, let's again look at Asa's reign. 2 Chron. 14:8-15 tells us of a war between Asa and "Zerah the Cushite." Then 15:10,11 describes for us the victory celebration which took place immediately thereafter, in Asa's "15th year." But just a few verses later in verse 19 we are told that "there was no war in Asa'a reign until his 35th year." (Many translations try to eliminate this apparent contradiction by inserting the word "more" into the verse, making it read "no more war." But check a literal translation such as Young's or Darby's, or check the Hebrew, or even our old beloved NWT, and you will find that the verse actually tells us that "there was no war in Asa's reign until his 35th year.") Do you think it is simply a coincidence that the "15th" year of Asa's reign, in which we are told that a war first took place, is also the "35th" year since the division of the kingdom ? Rehoboam reigned 17 years. Then Abijah reigned 3 years. Then Asa became king. His 15th year was the 35th year since the division of the kingdom. If the Bible writer was not using two different systems of reckoning in the same chapter in reference to Asa's reign then he had an awfully short memory. For he just got done telling us about a war which he said took place in Asa's "15th year." Why would he then only a few verses later say that "there was no war until Asa's 35th year"? You wrote: don't forget that the chronological reference is to Asa's reign, i.e. to the Judean kingdom which claims to be David's dynasty and would never consider the so-called "schism" as its starting point ... So you say. But the Bible writer was not some politically correct royal court reporter. Bible writers considered the schism to be of monumental importance. That's the date when ten of the twelve tribes of Israel began refusing to honor God's law to worship him at Jerusalem's Temple. Besides, this way of understanding the scriptures is not something I just dreamed up. This is the way nearly all Bible scholars who have written on the subject of Bible chronology have long understood these passages of scripture. (See for instance Edwin R. Thiele's "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 1983, pg 84) The only alternative is to believe that the books of Kings and Chronicles are filled with scores of senseless contradictions. Of course, it often seems that's what many people prefer to believe.
• 

  Narkissos

  If the Bible writer was not using two different systems of reckoning in the same chapter in reference to Asa's reign then he had an awfully short memory. For he just got done telling us about a war which he said took place in Asa's "15th year." Why would he then only a few verses later say that "there was no war until Asa's 35th year"?

  If this clever conjecture about the possible history behind the text is admitted (at that level, why not?), then your question becomes:

  If the Bible writer was using two different systems of reckoning in the same chapter in reference to Asa's reign then he either wanted to lose his readers or he had an awfully short memory. For he just got done telling us about a war which he said took place in Asa's "15th year." Why would he then only a few verses later say that "there was no war until Asa's 35th year"? You focus on solving possible historical problems behind the text. But even if you succeed in doing so that will change very little as to the problematic state of the text itself. Yet it was an assumption as to the text itself (i.e, a sort of "inerrancy" postulate) that moved you to look for "historical" solutions in the first place. However, the only "inerrancy" you can possibly establish will never be that of the text as it is, but that of a "paratext" (made up of the text plus your explanation).
• 

  M.J.

  "I think it is best viewed as a witness to God or Christ -- and no witness is infallible."
  
  I haven't had the time to follow this thread in depth, but the brief presentation of the above viewpoint was very well done, IMO.
  
  I'm admittedly far from being proficient in theology, but I came across the following relevant quote:
  
  "Religion is the possibility of the removal of every ground of confidence except confidence in God alone" --Karl Barth
• 

  hillary_step

  MJ,

  "Religion is the possibility of the removal of every ground of confidence except confidence in God alone" --Karl Barth

  ...and therein lies its greatest strength and also its greatest weakness.

  HS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Thanks for your interest in my writing project. I'll let you know when it is ready for publication.

  Please do. I would certainly be interested.

  Burn
• 

  BurnTheShips

  But I wasn't merely presenting that option as a "devil's advocate"; it really is a logical option and one that has a place in Christian history, whether it is the belief of copyists engaged in altering the text who view themselves as fixing an already corrupted text, or the Roman Catholic view in the continuing revelation and authority in the church, or even the fundamentaist ideas in the KJV-only movement who regard the English translators as producing a perfected text. And the fundamentalist view that predicates acceptance of Christian belief on inerrancy of the Bible is hardly the only option that Christians have expressed. Some are quite comfortable with their faith in Christ while acknowledging an errant Bible because their faith does not depend on written revelation alone, or they trust the revelation is reliable regardless of whether it is 100% accurate or not. Isn't that what faith is about, after all? It is believing without full assurance where real faith comes into play, as it was in the case of Abraham. It seems to me that there is a weakness of faith in the insistance that the Bible must be 100% accurate (at least in its original form, which unfortunately does not exist for anyone today) or else it cannot be trusted. I'm sure you have seen the view expressed that because God gave his revelation to man, and because man has mediated that revelation, it will always be limited by what man can comprehend and express. The very nature of the text itself limits the revelation. As soon as a person reads anything, the process of (re)-interpretation begins, let alone the pliable nature of the form itself. I think it is best viewed as a witness to God or Christ -- and no witness is infallible. As some have expressed it, the Bible is more like John the Baptist. It points to Christ and tells you all you need to know to find him. But John was imperfect and had his faults and he should not be confused with the one he witnessed about. One does not assume that John had to be infallible and perfect in order to function as a witness. But that is what the notion of inerrancy assumes.

  Leolaia. I am speechless. You express it so much better than I ever could.

  Thank you.

  Burn
• 

  belbab

  Narc,

  You lost me, which is not very difficult. I started looking dazed back in the post about brackets, and continued down to last post.

  I think I will have to go back to reading Freddy Franz's Babylon The Great Has Fallen to clear my mind.

  I gotta go back and start from the beginning, of this thread, and also back to Horeb, if I can find the place.

  I'll be back.

  Belbab
• 

  hillary_step

  A Christian,

  So far as the rest of your list of questions, I noticed you added "etc. etc." at the end of them, implying your list of such questions is nearly endless.

  Endless is an exaggeration, but it certainly adds up to hundreds of Biblical discrepancies. I have just listed a few above, but if you wish me to continue I am certainly willing and able. ;)

  HS
• 

  a Christian

  Nark, You asked: If the Bible writer was using two different systems of reckoning in the same chapter in reference to Asa's reign then he either wanted to lose his readers or he had an awfully short memory. For he just got done telling us about a war which he said took place in Asa's "15th year." Why would he then only a few verses later say that "there was no war until Asa's 35th year"? You know, that's a good question. The best answer I can give you is that those comments employing a second system of reckoning, in close proximity to the one that was first used in the text, may have been added much later by the book's final author, who was actually more of an editor than an author. This writer may not have been aware of what system of reckoning the original historian, whose work he was incorporating into his own, had previously employed. Obviously the books of Kings and Chronicles are a compilation of historical records, most of which were much older than their final author. For the Jewish monarchy, from Saul to Zedekiah, existed for some 500 years. You wrote: the only "inerrancy" you can possibly establish will never be that of the text as it is, but that of a "paratext" (made up of the text plus your explanation). However you choose to look at it. But the fact remains that if it can be shown that the Bible's chronological history of the Jewish monarchs contains absolutely no inaccurate information, and that even the vast majority of apparently conflicting data found in "variant" sacred texts is actually complementary to the data contained in the Masoretic Text, many will gain a greater respect for the Bible.