Hi Mike,
: First I want to thank you for the tone of your post. It was neither insulting or mean spirited. Which is more than I can say for the posts of some here.Your comments were all intelligent and constructive.
Well, while I usually try to be both insulting and mean spirited, I think you're basically a nice guy and so I've refrained.
You're virtually always the same, despite what most people would see as severe provocation. Not that it isn't sometimes deserved.
: You wrote: Excellent comments, City Fan!
: I was already well aware of the information City Fan posted and already noted earlier in this thread on more than one occasion that the sun to moon distance ratio is very seldom exactly 400...
I'm aware of that. But the point is that, according to everything you've said until now, your entire argument about multiples of 4*10^X being biblically significant hinges on an EXACT number. Sometimes you seem aware of this, and sometimes not. You can't have it both ways, Mike. If you want an argument based on exact numbers, then stick to it and don't be yapping about slop in the real numbers. If you allow for some slop, then stop arguing about how close your various multiples are to an exact figure, allow that an unspecified amount of slop is ok, and be done with it. But if you do, then you must logically argue about what kind of limits you'd accept for your argument to still hold. If you don't, you're on a slippery slope, where no matter how far the limits slip, you'd still want to hold on to your basic claim. Thus, if a claim of "400 for this" actually turns out to be "100 for this", you could easily accommodate it -- which obviously makes the claim entirely meaningless.
: You wrote: [there is] "nothing new under the sun". ... I also found a reference in my old files to discussions that Mike and I had on the old H2O forum in 1999, so it's obvious that we've been going at it for some time.
: Yup, I've been studying this subject matter for several years now. During this time I have discussed this subject matter and all it entails with many people, including some of the world's most highly respected scholars in several fields of study. So, when you say, there "nothing new under the sun," for me that includes virtually all of the comments you have just made.
My point was that, if you looked at the old posts, you'd have found that I showed conclusively that some of the arguments you're still presenting -- in particular, claims about exact multiples of 4*10^X and your claim that on average, about once in 400 years total solar eclipses occur at any given spot on earth -- are demonstrably wrong.
: You wrote: Seiss referred to many scriptures to 'prove' the prophetic significant of the Great Pyramid, including Isaiah 28:16, Zechariah 4:7, Job 38:6, 7, Psalm 118:22-24, Matthew 21:32, 44, and Acts 4;11.
: None of those scriptures say anything at all about the Great Pyramid or any structure in Egypt.
Precisely my point. They do, however, say something that a clever expositor might exploit.
: That being the case, since the Bible does specifically say that "there will be signs in the sun, moon and stars," I believe I have been on much more solid ground, biblically speaking, looking closely at the physical heavens for possible indications of divine design than those who have studied the Great Pyramid looking for the same.
Nonsense. The Bible says nothing whatsoever about what such "signs" would entail. So when you try to assign a specific meaning to what the Bible does not explicitly describe, you're on just as unsolid ground as were the many Great Pyramid expositors. Plenty of expositors have interpreted those signs as being purely symbolic; others have claimed that they're real and have assigned all sorts of supposedly "real" interpretations to them. To date, all have failed.
: You wrote: I doubt that you've convinced many intelligent Christians of your ideas up to this point.
: You're right about that. Because I have not discussed my ideas with many intelligent Christians. The fact is I have not yet shared my entire study with anyone. And without someone actually closely reviewing my entire study, including all of my studies on Old and New Testament chronology, they could not possibly be convinced that my understanding of this matter is correct. I believe that will change in the not too distant future when my studies are published.
I seriously doubt that. The little drubbing you're getting here on JWD is but a tiny foretaste of what you'll get if you actually get your studies published. You'll have to have answered all of the criticisms brought forth here, and a lot more besides, to get your ideas accepted.
: You wrote: As history shows, applying numerology to the Bible has always resulted in extreme embarrassment to the proponents.
: That is because they have used Pyramid numerology and Bible chronology to predict the time of Christ's second coming.
Not just that. In ALL cases where people have applied numerology to the NT, they've screwed up royally. Can you think of even a single instance where there's an exception? If not, why would you think you're the lone exception in 2000 years?
: I am not doing that. I have only said that the signs I see in the sun, moon and stars point to the fact that 4,000 years past between Adam's creation and Christ's birth.
Perhaps not doing what you said, but you're certainly using numerology of sorts.
: You wrote: Another thing you've entirely ignored is the fact that many of the Bible's references to signs in "sun, moon and stars" are obviously symbolic. ... All of the above passages indicate that the "signs in sun, moon and stars" involve a dimming of these luminaries, and therefore have nothing to do with some kind of ratios of their physical sizes.
: I agree with you.
Then that should be the end of it.
: However, all of the passages you cited were not the ones I have cited in reference to, "the sign of the Son of Man." I believe before Christ's return the passages you cited will be fulfilled in a symbolic way, when Christianity is outlawed. At that time, "stars will fall from heaven," "the powers of the heavens will be shaken," and "the sun and the moon (heavenly, spiritual lights) will be darkened." However, that does not mean that all passages in Scripture which refer to "the sun, moon and stars" and "the sign of the Son of Man" appearing "in the sky" must be understood to refer only to the non-physical heavens.
Well, then, you'll have to deal with all of the relevant passages and show why some apply as I said and some don't. Otherwise you're just sweeping problems away with meaningless generalities. You have to get specific.
: You wrote: If these "signs" are nothing more than the ratios of the physical size of the sun and moon, then these "signs" have always been there ... it has been known since as far back as 1769 how far the earth is from the sun and the moon is from the earth, and their respective sizes .... for at least 235 years.
: I never said these signs "are nothing more than the ratios of the physical size of the sun and moon".
But that's the whole point of your argument that exact multiples like "the sun is 400X bigger than the moon" and "the moon is 400X closer than the sun" mean anything other than pure coincidence.
More importantly, you've implied that these "signs" have only become evident recently, although you've carefully avoided any actual time frame, perhaps already knowing that you'd be pinned down on this. I'm not sure that you're being upfront with people on this board.
: I believe for someone to see and understand these signs they must possess far more than a basic knowledge of astronomy. I believe they must also possess a proper understanding of Bible chronology.
But the bottom line is the ratios of sizes. You ain't got that, man, you ain't got nuthin.
: You wrote: Also, the "sign of the Son of man" is obviously different from the "signs in sun, moon and stars".
: That is not obvious to me.
Well it should be. For one thing, there are two sets of terms applied: "signs in sun, moon and stars" in various forms, and "the sign of the Son of man". For another, these are always referred to as happenings within a larger sequence of events. I see no hint anywhere in the Bible that these might not be different. Feel free to scripturally enlighten me if you disagree.
: You wrote: So you actually accept the JW chronology, except for the 607/587 problem. Whew!
: No.
Good! I thought you might be a backslider.
: They have much wrong. For instance, they use Ezek. 4's references to "390" years of "the sin of the house of Israel" to say that the kingdom of Israel was divided following the death of Solomon 390 years before the destruction of Jerusalem. This cannot possibly be a correct interpretation. For as Edwin R. Thiele clearly showed in his "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings," no such chronological reconstruction of the divided kingdom is possible without rejecting many very well established historical facts.
You ought to say some words about that to our resident idiot-scholar who is a militantly braindead JW who blindly supports Watchtower chronology despite all contrary proofs.
: My study, which I believe is the most thorough ever done on this subject, and which largely agrees with Thiele's work shows that Jerusalem fell in 587 and the kingdom was divided in 935, 348 years earlier, not 390 years earlier as JWs tell us.
Sounds good to me.
: You wrote: Surely you know that a great many bible scholars have shown that a literal interpretation of the geneologies in various parts of the Bible are internally inconsistent and are extremely unlikely to be anything more than mythical traditions.
: I have studied these issues at great length and disagree with such Bible scholars.
Well, then, you'll have to prove it.
: I wrote: JWs also assign a 2 BC date to the birth of Christ. However, nearly all New Testament historians tell us that Christ was born in about the year 5 BC, some three years earlier than JWs say.
: You responded: You're relying on outdated scholarship. According to the latest scholarship, Jesus' birth is dated to mid-January, 2 B.C. (Cf. Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition, 1998, pp. 366-7).
: Of course, I own and have read Finegan's latest book on this subject, along with a copy of his earlier work. I disagree with his latest conclusions for many very good reasons.
I will only comment on a few of your arguments, since I'm not an NT scholar and don't want to get involved in such a tedious enterprise. Suffice to say that I tend to trust world-class scholars much more than amateurs. I speak from our mutual JW experience. I'm sure you understand.
: You wrote: Luke 3 indicates that shortly after John the Baptist appeared, in the 15th year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1), Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry in the autumn. Finegan shows that the 15th year of Tiberius was 29 A.D., and that this year is established beyond question.
: I agree with all of that except the word "shortly." I believe John began his ministry 3 and 1/2 years before Christ began his ministry.
I've read all of your arguments several times, and I still think that they're essentially grasping at straws, and that you're ignoring many stronger arguments. I'll comment sporadically on some of your arguments.
: You wrote: Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was about 30 years old, and that is precisely consistent with a birth in 2 B.C. Obviously, a birth in 5 B.C. makes Jesus about 33 years old, so this date is wrong.
: I believe the solution to this problem can be found by taking a closer look at the word Luke used in Luke 3:23 which has been widely translated as "about." That Greek word is "hosei." Bible historians who date the birth of Christ to about 5 BC believe that Luke's saying that Jesus was "about 30" in 29 AD allows room for us to understand that Jesus could have been two or three years past 30 when he began his ministry. They also tell us that "hosei," the word Luke chose to use before the number 30, actually indicates a greater indefiniteness than the Greek word "hos" which Luke used elsewhere to convey the thought that the number he mentioned may not have been exactly as stated. And, Greek lexicons indicate that "hosei" may have actually been used here by Luke to mean more than just "about." They show that Luke may have used this Greek word to say that Jesus was then beginning his ministry "as if" he were 30, "as though" he were 30, "like" he was 30 or since he "had already been" 30. Why? Because Jewish men usually began their service to God at age 30 and were not permitted to do so before that age.
A couple of things here. First, hardly anyone would think that a person who said of a man who is 45 years old, "he is about 30", is giving a correct statement. Nor would that be true of a man who is 35. Or probably even 33. Both English and Greek usage, it appears to me, is that when people say "John is about 30" they mean give or take a year or so. "Or so" doesn't usually extend to three or more years. So the most likely case is that when the Bible says that Jesus was about 30, it really means 30 plus or minus not more than one year.
Second, you strongly argue that John the Baptist must have really started his ministry at precisely the age of 30, not based on an explicit divine calling he heard when he was about to begin it, but because he knew of various prophecies that pointed to him "just doing it", and he knew that 30 was the right time traditionally for the priestly class of Levites. Yet in the case of Jesus -- the greatest of all prophets and priests -- you claim an exception, that he was about 33 years old rather than 30. Why an exception? Not because it's needed in a general sense, but because you need the claim that there were exactly 4000 years between the births of Adam and Jesus to be true. So you're inconsistent in your argumentation here, and it's obvious why.
Third, a good deal of your argument rests on proving that John the Baptist began preaching some 3 1/2 years before Jesus did. While your argument is interesting, so far as I can see, you've discarded the rather clear language of Luke 3:1-7, which states that "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ... the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins... He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, ..." The clear message is that as a result of the "word of God" that "came to John" "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar", John "came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance". There is no hint of a delay of three and some odd years from the beginning of John's preaching to his receiving "the word of God", no hint that John began preaching three and some odd years before receiving this "word of God". The message is that John, very soon after receiving this message, began his preaching. I am not aware of any Bible commentators who disagree with this position, so if you have your own ideas, you're on thin ice.
You argue that the clear implication of the above passages is "only an assumption", but your only justification for dismissing the implication is a rather tortuous explication of various OT passages concerning Elijah. And, of course, your need to prove 4000 years from Adam to Christ.
There are a number of rather strong arguments that Jack Finegan advances that you need to deal with. In this thread, given a limited amount of space, you obviously can't do so. Nevertheless, in my opinion the balance of evidence is in favor of Finegan's chronology of the New Testament.
I'll leave further discussion of this to whoever might wish to after your final work is published.
: In confirmation of this conclusion you may find it very interesting to read an article on the Star of Bethlehem by Colen Humphreys here:
: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/S&CB%2010-93Humphreys.html
I've given my view of Humphreys' silliness in a previous post.
: I wrote: : I then have my attention drawn to the fact that our sun has a diameter that is exactly "400 times that of our moon,"
: You responded: Wrong again. Other posters have shown this several times.
: I have learned to refer to the 400 ratio between the moon's diameter and the sun's diameter as "nearly exact" from now on. Though I think you should be able to forgive me for my past error since 864,000 miles and 2,160 miles are the most widely cited numbers for their respective diameters.
I understand quite well where you got your figures. What I cannot understand is why, when I myself pointed out all of this to you as far back as 2001, and other posters pointed it out several times in this very thread, that you have kept on repeating those figures. One can only conclude that either you really didn't pay much attention to a lot of good critical posts, or you had to have the facts beaten into you. As Carl Jonsson has said of JWs, "they have to be virtually drowned in facts to get them to see it." That doesn't bode well for your future as a biblical apologist.
: I wrote: : and to the fact that the sun is also about "400 times as far away from us as the moon,"
: You responded: From the above figures, it?s clear that the ratio of the sun/earth and moon/earth distances varies from about 363 to 419, with an average of 389 -- not 400. So your statement is quite misleading.
: Notice the quotation marks around that statement. Notice also that I used the word "about" to qualify it, which the author of the article at the NASA web site I quoted from did not bother to do.
Quite right. But it seems to me that you're evading responsibility for trying to understand what a writer means when he says "400 times". Context determines what a reader should understand. Context is everything! When a normal person says that a thing is four hundred times bigger than something else, he most often means "four hundred as opposed to three hundred or five hundred". Some writers might mean "400 as opposed to 450 or 350". Or "400 as opposed to 401 or 399". Often, an unspecified amount of rounding off is done, and the reader is expected to understand or gloss over it. Think of it in terms of driving: when a driver says he drove 400 miles, how accurate do you think he wants to be? In popular writing, such as you've used for your figures, it's often not possible to tell from context just how accurate the figures are supposed to be. Is it 400 as opposed to 401 or 399? Is it 400.0000 as opposed to 400.6666 or 399.3333? Or 400.0000000000 as opposed to 400.6666666666 or 399.3333333333? It's all in the number of significant digits assumed by the writer and the reader.
Once again, your arguments hinge on exact figures, whereas real figures are not exact.
: I wrote: and to the fact that the sun is also about "400 thousand times as bright as the full moon,"
: You responded: Abaddon has already shown that the ratio is about 402,000:1, so you're wrong again.
: I am? 402,000 is not "about 400 thousand"?
Yes, you're wrong. According to your above quotations, you said that the sun is "400 thousand times as bright as the full moon". You interpolated "about" as a later addendum. Please don't make me plow through pages and pages of material to prove this; you know perfectly well your earlier intent.
: Since when?
Since you argued about exact figures.
: Again my source did not even use the qualifying word "about" as I did.
Of course not. You quote from a popular source, not from a science journal. And in any case, you as an intelligent reader are expected to figure out the number of significant digits in the various figures given. It's not rocket science, just common sense.
: I wrote: and to the fact that we can observe a total eclipse over any one spot on earth "on average about every 400 years,"
: You responded: Again not so.
: You then proceeded to talk to us about annular eclipses, etc., while my statement referred to only to "total eclipses."
Right, but the point I made was that it's not easy to distinguish objectively between total eclipses and annular eclipses, because some eclipses start out as annular at one location on the earth, evolve to total at another point (because the distance from the earth to the moon is not constant during the eclipse), and perhaps go back to annular towards the end. Therefore, to claim something about total eclipses without discussing annular eclipses and the boundary between them, when trying to enunciate exact figures for their global frequency, is to fool oneself.
: Finally you wrote: about every 375 years for total eclipses.
: However, my quoted source (The Sun - Our Star, Robert W. Noyes, 1982, page 145) tells us that, "The average time between total eclipse paths crossing one location is about every 400 years."
Note the above discussion about rounding off and significant digits.
: You don't even cite a reference for your "about every 375 years" statement. But you expect all here to accept your source as being more accurate than mine. And I'm sure most here will.
Of course they will, because most readers know that I do my homework. Here are the facts as I've reconfirmed:
"Any point on Earth may, on the average, experience no more than one total solar eclipse in three to four centuries." ( http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=11202 )
"Total solar eclipses are rare events. Although they occur somewhere on the Earth approximately every 18 months, it has been estimated that they recur at any given spot only every 300 to 400 years." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse )
In light of these references, I hope you understand my above explication of rounding and significant digits.
As for my statement about 375 years, I retrieved that from our 2001 discussion. For some reason, I neglected to record the reference, but I found it again. The basic reference is originally from the Journal of the British Astronomical Association (Vol. 92, No. 3. pages 124-126 (April 1982) by Jan Meeus; article quoted in the book Mathematical Astronomy Morsels, Jan Meeus, 1997, Willmann-Bell, Inc., pp. 88-92). Jan Meeus is a Belgian astronomer and meteorologist, and has published many books on eclipses and other astronomical subjects. See the online catalog of Willmann-Bell for any number of examples of his publications ( http://www.willbell.com/ ). Meeus states:
We then, finally, obtain the following mean frequencies for any given point at the Earth's surface: a total eclipse once in 375 years, an annular eclipse once in 224 years, which, by combination, gives an annular or a total eclipse every 140 years for a place chose at random. Because our results are based on a sample of observable eclipses, they are subject to uncertainty of about 16 years' standard error for total eclipses.
Meeus also quotes (p. 88) an older classical textbook, Astronomy (H. N. Russell, et al), as follows: "We find that in the long run a total eclipse happens at any given station only once in about 360 years." Meeus observes that "these authors, however, give no details about how this mean frequency one total eclipse every three years has been found," and then proceeds to do his own statistical calculation.
I should note that the sources you quoted for the figure of "one eclipse per 400 years" also gave no references for their claims. So it's a bit much for you to take me to task over this. Note that Meeus gives full details in his article and book on how he arrives at his figures. Also note that the noted eclipse scholar F. Richard Stephenson (in Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation, Cambridge University Press, 1997) approvingly refers to Meeus' calculations on page 54: "According to the statistical estimate of Meeus (1982), the main interval between total eclipses at any given point on the Earth's surface is about 375 years, while for annular obscurations it is approximately 224 years."
Finally I want to make doubly sure you understand another point I tried to make. Solar eclipses occur as total or annular, and there is really a continuum between them. It's purely a matter of subjective judgment in some cases as to which is which. Since the combined total of eclipses, given above by Meeus, is about one eclipse per 140 years, you absolutely must deal with this question in order to come even close to a claim that each place on earth experiences a total solar eclipse about every 400 years.
: You wrote: Surely the Creator, if he really wanted to put physical signs in the sun and moon, could have arranged things such that the moon had a precisely circular orbit around the earth, and the earth-moon system a precisely circular orbit around the sun. And, of course, an exact ratio of 400:1 in diameters and distances -- a ratio that would be perfect, unchanging, to beyond our limits of measurement.
: Yes, He could have. But I think He was precise enough to catch our attention.
Correction: perhaps precise enough to catch your attention, but not necessarily that of most people.
: So much so that many astronomers marvel at our earth's sun/moon/400/diameter/distance ratio, which they tell us is responsible for producing total eclipses, calling it "a coincidence unlike anything else in nature," and a "serendipitous relationship unmatched in the solar system."
True enough, but there are lots of coincidences like that in all sorts of things. Surely I don't have to search around for examples to prove this to you.
: I wrote: and to the fact that our galaxy is said to have "400 billion stars,"
: You responded: you're relying on outdated figures, Mike. If you read that in any literature older than a few years, you're not taking into account new findings. Recently, astronomers have discovered that the galaxy actually contains a continuous range of sizes of large objects, from large planets like Jupiter, to super-large planets that just barely didn't ignite and form a star, to tiny stars that just barely ignited, to gigantic stars. These tiny stars are apparently far more numerous than larger stars, but because they're so small and faint they can only be observed indirectly. There are also a huge number of "dark stars", including white dwarfs too dim to observe from the earth, and neutron stars that can be observed only when interacting strongly with matter that falls on them.
: Ok, so maybe I should say, "400 billion observable light emitting stars".
How do you know that? Sagan, who you quoted, certainly didn't say that. And the point I made is that it's yet again a matter of subjective judgment as to how many "observable" stars there are. What is observable? Can you state the criterion with authority? Of course not. No one can.
In any case, the claim is simply wrong, because no one knows the answer, except to an extremly rough estimate that might be wrong by one to two orders of magnitude.
: I wrote: For the number 400 certainly can be viewed as a short form or "sign" form of the number 4,000,
: You responded: Sure. But why keep to the base ten numbering system? Why not use base 60, as the Babylonians did? Why not take the square root and round off? Why not divide 40-patterns into 5 x 8 patterns and find all manner of multiples thereof? Where do you stop?
: Why would God use mankind's most popular numerical system (the base 10 numbering system)?
: For the same reason His only begotten Son, "became flesh and lived for a while among us." (John 1:14) God loves us. So he speaks to us in our own language so we can understand him.
Oh come off it! I gave the example of the Babylonians because both they and the Mayans used base 60 arithmetic, which shows that base 10 arithmetic is not "our own language" -- it's merely the most common way to express numbers today.
Your claim implies that God, when designing our universe and the humans that would inhabit it, arranged things such that base 10 would be the "natural language" -- whatever that means -- of arithmetic as practiced by humans. Don't you think that's stretching things more than a bit?
: Of course, it is also my position that God put these signs in the sky to help people in our day put their faith in Jesus Christ.
Which is precisely the point of argument here.
: And nearly all people today use the base ten numbering system.
Sure, in our modern times. But remember that the "signs in sun, moon and stars", as you've expounded, existed long before humans came on the scene. And the various numerical ratios are ever-changing due to the recession of the moon from the earth, etc.
: You wrote: you still refuse to acknowledge that the figures you claim are exact are not exact at all. For example, in your above post to one, you said: : I certainly realize that the 400 X distance ratio in comparing the earth's distance from the sun to the earth's distance from the moon is not a constant. In fact that ratio is only exact twice every lunar cycle, in other words, about twice a month. But it can truthfully be said that the sun is always exactly 400 X the size of the moon, in diameter, and it is always about 400 X as far away. ..... How can you continue to restate this falsehood?
: How can you continue to call it a falsehood?
Because it's demonstrably a falsehood, especially in the context you've defined, which requires that the various ratios be exactly 400 in order to have other than academic significance.
: I cited several very credible sources which gave the dimensions of the sun and moon.
Yes, which you've already admitted, more or less, were rounded off, and that other sources give more exact figures which result in variable ratios that don't average out to exactly 400.
: The ratio of those dimensions as cited is an exact 400.
Which you admitted above, and in a post responding to Abaddon, was a roundoff error!
: You and Abaddon cited other sources which give a very slight difference in those dimensions. If your sources are correct and mine are incorrect then the ratio is about 400.5.
Since we're splitting hairs here, note that the NASA figures yield 400.67. If you have better figures than NASA, let's see them.
: If that is the case then I should have said "an almost exact 400".
That'll really let you grab the ring, alright! LOL! Since your argument requires an exact 400, "almost 400" doesn't cut it. Unless, of course, as I said above, you manage to present an argument where you can set reasonable limits, and the reasons for them, on the bounds of the ~400 ratios.
: For Abaddon to have repeatedly called me a liar over this very small difference was ridiculous.
He didn't. Apparently you've gone back to the relevant posts and cleared this up.
: The fact of the matter is the sun/moon diameter ratio may indeed be an exact 400. For, from what I have read, measuring the sun's diameter appears to be a very inexact science, as pointed out here: http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/~adelabr/Leister01_28.pdf#search='solar%20diameter%20measurement'
More "dog ate my homework" argumentation. The stuff in the link gives no comfort to your claims, Mike. At best it shows that the sun's diameter is variable -- which in itself clobbers your claim of exactly 400, since a variable diameter for the sun, in conjunction with a constant diameter for the moon, obviously results in a variable ratio.
AlanF