Will this be "the Sign of the Son of Man"?

by a Christian 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  a Christian

  Leolaia,

  You wrote: he does say that Jesus was "about 30" at the time and he previously indicated when Jesus was born. Why the imprecise figure? I believe the solution I offered to this problem earlier makes the most sense. The Greek word translated as "about" is "hosei." Greek lexicons tell us that it indicates a greater degree of 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 they also indicate that "hosei" may have 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. You wrote: the parallels between ch. 9 and 11 of Daniel militate against such an interpretation.

  I have read interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27 which apply these verses to Antiochus IV.

  They begin with the first "seven weeks" being said to be the 49 years of the exile 587-538 BC. (Not bad so far.) Then come the sixty-two weeks (434 years) which are said to have run from the first return of the Jews to the beginning of the persecutions by Antiochus. But since this calculation takes us well past the time of Antiochus (even if we count those 434 years as lunar years) these 434 years are said to be only an approximate number. (From 538 BC to 171 BC only 367 years passed.) The final week of seven years are then applied to the time of the persecutions by Antiochus from 171 to 164 BC.

  Now if 434 years only equaled 367 years I might buy it. But they don't. The Messianic interpretation which I have here posted fits with absolute precision. On the other hand, this "Antiochus" application is a lousy fit. In spite of "the parallels between ch. 9 and 11," I am thoroughly unimpressed with this interpretation. But to each his (or her) own.
• 

  a Christian

  Back to the subject we started with, the asteroid Apophis possibly turning out to be "the sign of the Son of Man."

  I just discovered that Jewish Passover, Nisan 14, the day of Jesus Christ's death, also falls on April 13th in 2036. (Passover begins the evening of the 12th and runs to the evening of the 13th.)

  This is not at all common. Most of the time these two holidays are several days or even a month apart.

  On April 13th, 2036 the asteroid Apophis will return to earth after an absence of exactly seven years on what will then be both the actual day of Christ's death and the traditional day of his resurrection, to then possibly strike the earth.

  That makes this asteroid's appearance on that date even more likely to then be widely seen as "the sign of the Son of Man."

  Remember 1975? Well 2036 is gonna make you forget all about it.

  I just verified that these two holidays (Passover and Easter) fall on the same day in 2036 at this Web Site: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:7CDCowJXWFwJ:engert.us/erwin/Bible/Easter%2520Passover.doc+Passover+date+2036&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
• 

  Narkissos

  a Christian,

  The basic problem, I feel, is that we are not assessing the likeliness of a scriptural interpretation by the same criteria.

  I rest on rather common literary and historical standards: in the absence of positive textual evidence to the contrary, a text means just what it appears to mean at simple reading. The ideas that the interruption of sacrifices in Daniel means everything but the actual interruption of Jewish sacrifices, or that Luke means the beginning of Jesus' ministry when he says, in plain OT style, that "the word of God came to John," sound simply ludicrous to me. I hope you understand why.

  On the other hand you seem to regard the Bible as a somehow "magic" whole where global consistency of interpretation becomes the main criterium. Approximate correspondence between the text and history in Daniel, or lack of "significant" dates for the NT major theological "events," leave you unsatisfied. I understand that, although it's not a problem to me (it's very natural, in my perspective, that the 2nd-century-BC author of Daniel had only a very vague idea of the time period between Jerusalem's fall and his own time, about which he is quite precise; or that the late 1st- or early 2nd-century writer of Luke would mix up events of the early or middle 1st century, cf. also Acts 5 about Gamaliel, Theudas or Judas the Galilean).

  We can go in circles about such things indefinitely unless we recognise the basic motives of our difference of appraisal. It's not only about whether there is a "God" behind history, but whether God likes accurate planning and round numbers... (such as, choosing a year where Passover falls exactly on Easter; from this perspective a full moon three days before Easter is only mildly satisfying... or is it even better?)

  Leolaia,

  Good point about John's clothes. Along with the ones I made previously (especially the dropping of the post-Transfiguration pericope) it makes Luke the second least likely Gospel to look for a Elijah-John/Elisha-Jesus typology (second to John where the identification of John to Elijah is explicitly denied, 1:21).
• 

  Narkissos

  Afterthought: about the approximative Lukan use of ôsei with a numeral, I'll let you compare Luke 9:14,28; 22:(41),59; 23:44; Acts 1:15; 2:41; 10:3; 19:7. The comparative sense "like" of course exists but to me it is more likely without a numeral (22:44; 24:11; Acts 2:3; 6:15)
• 

  a Christian

  Nark,

  You speak about our different perspectives. From your reference to the "2nd-century-BC author of Daniel" I can see our biggest difference. The writer of Daniel claims to have been Daniel himself and he claims several times in his book to have written it in the sixth century BC. Since you apparently believe that the writer of Daniel was a liar and a fraud, and by extension most likely that other Bible writers were as well, I don't see the point in your closely analyzing any of the Bible's contents. For, if you are right, then none of its contents may be truthful or of any great value.

  But then that may be why some people study the Bible, to find evidence that it is not inspired by God, so they can then use that "evidence" to "help" Bible believers understand that they are wasting their lives believing lies.

  Or maybe I am totally off base here. If you don't believe the words of Bible writers to be true why do you bother studying the Bible?
• 

  Caedes

  Since you apparently believe that the writer of Daniel was a liar and a fraud, and by extension most likely that other Bible writers were as well, I don't see the point in your closely analyzing any of the Bible's contents. For, if you are right, then none of its contents may be truthful or of any great value.

  But then that may be why some people study the Bible, to find evidence that it is not inspired by God, so you can then use that "evidence" to "help" Bible believers understand that they are wasting their lives believing lies.

  Or maybe I am totally off base here. If you don't believe the words of Bible writers to be true why do you bother studying the Bible?

  How patronizing.
• 

  a Christian

  Caedes,

  You wrote: How patronizing.

  I'm sorry. I guess I could have worded that more tactfully. But I really don't get it. Maybe I am missing something here. But if I believed the Bible was written by a bunch of crazy men who thought God was talking to them when he was not, along with a few liars and frauds who were trying to pass off recently observed historical events as prophecies written centuries earlier, I certainly would not waste my time reading it.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  A Christian

  Did you see Billy the Ex-Bethelite's post on Losch's "newer light" Down Under? A little mention about the "Sign of the Son of Man" and how this coming will have everyone seeing Jesus, possibly as a vision. I don't want to sound offensive, so let me first say that your idea of Apophis is more creative and interesting than ideas from Losch and company. But to me at least, it looks like their speculations are closer to what the author was conveying.

  But I really don't get it. Maybe I am missing something here. But if I believed the Bible was written by a bunch of crazy men who thought God was talking to them when he was not, along with a few liars and frauds who were trying to pass off recently observed historical events as prophecies written centuries earlier, I certainly would not waste my time reading it.

  As one of those unbelievers, I'll tell you why I still spend some of my time on the Bible. Its not about gaining absolute "Truths" or insider info on "what is to come". Its about how people in differenet eras, in different social conditions and with different worldviews tackled questions of ethics, morality, and purpose. By learning as much as you can about those variables as well as trying to gain some insight into the motives and goals of the writers you learn more about the human condition back then. I really don't think human nature has changed all that much in the millenia since. I can then take all that and introspectively focus on myself, hopefully with my learning something useful about myself that would make me a "better" person. Of course just what constitutes a "better" person is up for debate to many- as it was in the past.
• 

  Narkissos

  The writer of Daniel claims to have been Daniel himself and he claims several times in his book to have written it in the sixth century BC.

  I was smiling at the anachronism of that expression, but, in view of your claims that "Daniel" did prophesy about Jesus' time I realise you might even mean what you wrote...

  Since you apparently believe that the writer of Daniel was a liar and a fraud, and by extension most likely that other Bible writers were as well

  Here's the crux of the matter: the words "liar" and "fraud," with the negative moral judgement they imply, do not correspond to the widespread practice of pseudepigraphy in ancient Judaism. The writers of pseudepigraphic literature (including those "apocryphal books" which you would readily recognise as such, because they happen not to have made their way into your Bible canon) were obviously pious and sincere. And yet they used pseudepigraphy as an effective method to deliver what they genuinely thought to be a divine, edifying message to their contemporaries.

  You (as most modern "Bible apologetics" and "Bible-bashers") simply can't help judging peoples of other historical times and cultures by your anachronistic modern standards. To you it would be a lie and a fraud to posture as a 16th-century writer delivering a prophetic message for the 21th century. You simply assume that a 2nd-century BC writer would have felt the same way. But that may be completely wrong.

  I don't see the point in your closely analyzing any of the Bible's contents. For, if you are right, then none of its contents may be truthful or of any great value.

  But then that may be why some people study the Bible, to find evidence that it is not inspired by God, so they can then use that "evidence" to "help" Bible believers understand that they are wasting their lives believing lies.

  Or maybe I am totally off base here. If you don't believe the words of Bible writers to be true why do you bother studying the Bible?

  Yes you are off base. I am no longer a "believer" by any common standards, but many scholars who do use the historical and literary approach to the Bible every day (and accept the fact of pseudepigraphy among many other things) are.

  As you may have understood by now, I don't feel it is "lies" because it doesn't correspond to our modern conception of historical "truth". And personally I don't really care how people may "waste their lives" (aren't we all "wasting" ours, in one way or another)? The Bible is just very much a part of my story and I have to relate to it.

  Reciprocally, I have sometimes wondered how people who did claim to believe that the Bible is inspired of God dared to engage in what I feel as incredibly twisted interpretations of it. But I suspect it is part of faith creativity, just like ancient pseudepigraphy.
• 

  Witness 007

  Yes I should forgive you for posting this non-sense....you will die old and grey in this world still waiting...that is my curse on you!!!!