| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 16:20:35
|
Cornerstone Foundation Post Number 41
Is it possible that from creation until about the sixth century B.C.E. that the sun and the moon were synchronized with the year being 360 days and a cycle of the moon being exactly 30 days.
We have been told there is evidence in Scripture and in history to indicate that a catastrophic occurrence caused the earth to shift on it's axis causing the solar and lunar cycles to be what they are now.
We don't know how reliable this "evidence" is.
If it is true, that would certainly reconcile many if not all of the discrepancies between reasons for solar or lunar calendars.
Marty |
 |
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 17:10:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cornerstone Foundation
Cornerstone Foundation Post Number 41
Is it possible that from creation until about the sixth century B.C.E. that the sun and the moon were synchronized with the year being 360 days and a cycle of the moon being exactly 30 days.
Or how about this:
There's also a quote from Ovid saying something like: "Arcadians . . . are of a race that predates the moon." (Citation provided to me: Ovid. Fasti (Roman Holidays) Translated by Betty Rose Nagle. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995. Book 2 Line 289.) Apparently the ancient world knew the moon is a newcomer. <g> |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 19:58:27
|
Greetings Marty,
if so, one needs to explain why the pyramid of Giza has its four foundational sockets exactly 365.242 pyramid cubits apart. Conjecture states the building of Giza approximately 2760 b.c. The solar year seems to have not changed abit. Enoch lived 365 years. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 15:47:54
|
| Robert-James, I knew you would just blow off the essay with out even trying to refute what the Hebrew scriptures say about the moon. We are talking about the Tanakh not Giza. The pyramids do not have any statutes for the Israelites concerning Abib, etc. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 15:55:47
|
| Marty, the link to the post is www.karaite-korner.org . Go down to the link for the essay "New Moon in Scripture" (I think that is the name). The part I snipped and posted can be studied as it is to see the point this man is making. Nehemiah Gordon is fluent in biblical hebrew as well as a scholar working on the DSS project. He also has done a very interesting study on the Shem Tov Heberw Matthew. |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 19:01:14
|
Greetings All, I come to the ecclesia in the wonderful name of Yahushuah, The Messiah of Israel, and by His shed blood, He purchased our redemption from a sin filled life! I first in my infancy, knew Him as Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 19:19-20 is very hard to discern. The hebrew numerics for these two verses is 5448.
The pyramid of Giza is 5448 pyramid inches...bottom to top.
Too bad the talmudist Jews and BatKol still reject the Chief Cornerstone.
Those seekers who don't like numerics, and yes, it can be dangerous, pray tell me what Isaiah 19:19-20 references?
Karaites reject Yahushuah...aka Jesus. Need I say more? |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 19:50:36
|
Robert-James, yes you do need to say more if you don't want to evade dealing with the Hebrew texts which address the moon. How about refuting the above essay instead of ad hoc remarks. You dance around the point and throw up smoke instead of showing us point blank how the Hebrew scriptures and words provided in the Nehemiah Gordon essay are false. Yes, Giza is very interesting, but YHWH did not see fit to offer it up as a gauge by which to measure the sacred calender outlined in the Torah Covenant... As for numerics.. did you know that in the Koran there is a verse which speaks about a certain metal and that the numerics match up exactly to the atomic weight of said metal? I will look it up and post it. There are other wonders like this that each religion holds up as proof that their 'sacred scriptures' are the real inspiration from the Creator.
As for rejecting the 'cornerstone'... Yes, I reject the JESUS FICTION of the COUNCIL OF NICEA literalists.. Many also got beheaded by the literalists for rejecting the same JESUS FICTION directly after the NICEAN CREED was instituted. Are you the new version of the crusades? I find it funny how you reject the part of the NT which states that the Holy Spirit came down and impregnated the Virgin Mary. Is that what you are saying when you claim that Yoseph was Yahushua's biological father? If I am wrong on this last part let me apologise in advance while asking at the same time what you mean when you say that Yoseph was the bio-father of Yahushua. You used to do quite a job showing the error of the virgin birth. If you still preach this, along with Yahushua NOT being YHWH come down in the flesh body, why are you not pointing the same finger you point at me at yourself? Certainly you remember the many, many hours we spent talking about this as well as the many debates you had with the 'Ed Chandlers' of the scene on this point.. it seems that if you still stand by these statements then you too are rejecting the NICEAN version of the 'cornerstone', just as I do.. |
Edited by - BatKol on 09 Feb 2004 19:58:06 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 20:11:54
|
| BatKol. do you accept the atonement of Yahushuah's blood sacrifice for Israel and yourself? i.e. not by works, but by complete submission unto the Faith. Do you believe in a literal resurrection of Yahushuah? |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 20:17:38
|
BatKol,
I believe the overwhelming evidence for a calendar is that it is solar. Said evidence is not plainly listed in the Bible, but it is there. I think the article by Gordon shows leaps in logic. I would ask, why can't a "Keseh" moon mean one that is covered in light? A full moon? This is what I believe as I conjecture towards the end in my web page here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk12/Xian/Cal/ChristKeptPassover.html
which highlights the fact that Jesus kept a different passover day than the jews. Who is right? (Jesus is!) Please read my small web page and tell me why Jesus kept passover one day before the jews. Thanks.
Walter |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 19:15:47
|
Greetings Walter,
I agree totally about the different passover day. So much is hidden in plain sight! Just like the resurrection day...at daybreak...when the sabbath had ended! Wisdom was with the Father before the foundations of the worlds. And Job was asked, "where were you? and Job just bowed his headship to the Mighty One, and received wisdom, which was worth all of Job's travail. A humble and contrite heart is all He asks of us. |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2004 : 11:31:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robert-James
... Just like the resurrection day...at daybreak...when the sabbath had ended! ...
I'm going to be my usual counter-culture self and suggest that Mark 16:2 is not correctly rendered.
Mark 16:2* And very<3029> early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising<393> of the sun.
Look up the Strong's numbers.
<393> is from 303 and the base of 5056
<5056> means
1) end
1a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be
(always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end
of a period of time)
1b) the end
1b1) the last in any succession or series
1b2) eternal
1c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue
1d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose
2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)
... to suggest that they got to the sepulchre exceedingly early in the 'morning' which was as the sun was 'ending' / setting - dusk. My interpretation would then be in agreement with other Bible verses that the day starts at nightfall. |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2004 : 12:00:27
|
Berkano,
Looks like we all can't stay on topic around here. To address your questions, I'll make some suggestions - but these are not to be construed as definitive answers.
I woud suggest patterning after the way the old documents showed the date: "this five and Twentieth day of the Second Month vulgarly called April in the year of our Lord One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and Two," or "this five and twentieth day of the second month, vulgarly called April, in the year of our lord one thousand six hundred and eighty-two." (From my compilation referenced in my first reply to your question.) I would stick with long-recognized ways of writing rather than being inventive on formal documents. The only difference between these forms is in the use of initial upper case letters. I don't know why they are different but I suspect it would have to do with jurisdiction: state versus State.
I think that using Roman months names is OK, but I would prefer to use them as used above, merely augmenting the numbered month (March being the first month).
As for private, coded dates, I see nothing wrong with that, except if you're really using a common shorthand and you slip and use it on a formal document sometime.
Always write out numbers - all numbers. Not '72; not 1972; not nineteen seventy two; but one thousand nine hundred and seventy two. Walter Cronkite, the old news anchor for CBS, always used that last form, if you recall. The year 72 was when the Roman empire still ruled the world; also in 04. What's 19-72? There was something I heard regarding a question asked of a government office about a federal court. The answer said it was abolished in 1973 (or some such thing). Really, that referred to a page in a book and not a year! Therefore, I'd suggest "in the year of our Lord" be used before the spelled out year. Also write "fifty-six cartons of egg" and not "56 cartons of eggs," no mater how big and long the number gets.
Don't know about receipts.
Walter |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2004 : 21:58:21
|
Greetings All.
The septuagint differs vastly {from the KJV} on the datings of the first ten fathers, and the year they produced a son. The septuagint has this coming year {Abib 1, March 20th} called 2004, to be the year 7412 A.A. [after Adam} I have written non-statuary abatements using this as the correct year, and for the Roman's, include the Roman dating in a box...{2004}. 2004, or the year two thousand four...again, from what? I can defend the year seven thousand twelve in a Lawful court. 2004 any which way written, is a FICTION,not based in scripture. Just food for thought brethern. "Give Us this Day Our Daily Bread". And We shall come into perfection on the Third Day. The manna {what is it} ends, once one crosses the river Jordon. Yet the mixed multitude died in their wilderness. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 16:29:13
|
| Walter: I have read your essay. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. My time is very limited right now. I agree there is a great deal of conflicting accounts per the implimentation of the set-apart times. Scholars have been commenting on this em mass for quite sometime. My original question still stands. Where does the Torah instruct that Abib is the vernal equinox and why is it NOT the new moon. Every translation I have ever read thus far renders "new moon" when dealing with the calander. I have read many essays on the solar calander but I have not found one that is as 'convincing' as the one written by Nehemiah Gordon. No one is willing to refute it here which is a shame since this site has such a high traffic rate. It is a very important topic. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 16:40:49
|
Robert-James said: Yet the mixed multitude died in their wilderness.
BatKol: Please, please provide the scripture for the mixed multitudes dying in the wilderness.
Robert-James said: A humble and contrite heart is all He asks of us.
BatKol: Yes! Agree to the 1,000,000th power! This is YHWH's salvation program. No blood needed (Isaiah 1:11). John the Baptist knew that one could repent and have forgiveness w/o blood. Were his efforts false? Yahushua claimed that there was no one greater than John the Baptist (even though flesh John was the least in the Kingdom.. why? because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom which is not of this world and is neither here nor there. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 16:56:47
|
More on Mixed Multitudes:
Exodus 12:38 tells us the "mixed multitude went up with" the children of Israel. These mixed multitudes marched out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. For how long? Their presence during the quail incident, cited above, indicates that these peoples were still with the Israelites at least one year after the first Pesach. That means that the mixed multitude was present at Mount Sinai, some fifty days after the Red Sea crossing. This means they were present at the giving of the Torah.
Robert-James, How can you say that the Mixed Multitudes died in the wilderness???
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 18:50:39
|
Cornerstone Foundation Post Number 43:
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
BatKol: This is YHWH's salvation program. No blood needed (Isaiah 1:11).
Batkol: We respectfully disagree. Perhaps the above statement is too broad and may mislead readers of this forum. Please clarify your intent in making that staement.
Our understanding is that the covenant Yahshua ushered in was a "renewed" covenant.
The form of Yahweh's sacrifical requirements has changed but the substance has not changed.
A blood sacrifice is still required...but now rather than the blood of bulls or goats the requirement is that we rely on the sacrifice of Yahweh's unblemished Lamb, Yahshua.
Hebrews 9:22 states: For to bind anything by the Law it must be purged with blood; so without shedding of blood (there) is no remission (forgiveness of sins).
Hebrews 9:26b explains: ...but now once, for all in the end of the age; He has appeared to do away with sin, by the sacrifice of Himself.
Revelation 1:5b: ...Unto him (Yahshua Messiah) that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.
Marty
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 19:06:05
|
Marty said: Hebrews 9:22 states: For to bind anything by the Law it must be purged with blood; so without shedding of blood (there) is no remission (forgiveness of sins).
BatKol: Here is the problem. YHWH, again and again, through out scripture says he does not desire vicarious atonement. Let's start
another thread for just this topic. I seriously doubt that Paul actually said the above considering the part that is quoted is taken from Lev 17. If Paul was really the Torah scholar he claims, how did he miss the part where the grain offering was an acceptable sacrifice
for those who could not afford an animal? Also, David was forgiven of his murder of Uriah with out blood. In fact he was specifically told it was not nessisary... YHWH also said in the prophets that He never commanded a sacrifice upon coming out of Egypt... hmmmmmm.
There are parts between the NT and the OT that don't match up. This is a big one. I am totally open to re-considering this position IF these contradictions can be cleared up. Let's call the new thread "Forgiveness".. I'll write an opening statement and we can start a nice study on the topic.
|
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 19:15:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Walter: I have read your essay. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. My time is very limited right now. I agree there is a great deal of conflicting accounts per the implimentation of the set-apart times. Scholars have been commenting on this em mass for quite sometime. My original question still stands. Where does the Torah instruct that Abib is the vernal equinox and why is it NOT the new moon. Every translation I have ever read thus far renders "new moon" when dealing with the calander. I have read many essays on the solar calander but I have not found one that is as 'convincing' as the one written by Nehemiah Gordon. No one is willing to refute it here which is a shame since this site has such a high traffic rate. It is a very important topic.
No problem about the time - I understand being busy.
I disagree that there are conflicting accounts on Christ's last passover. No conflict at all; there were two celebrations of passover, and Jesus kept it correctly. The account in John is really not confusing at all, because he clearly calls it the jewish (read: Pharisee) passover.
I prefer to examine the original Hebrew when figuring out why there are apparent discrepencies in the OT. I'm convinced a chodesh is a thirty-day month which ignores the lunar phase.
I might turn around your question to ask where the Torah says the year starts of the first new moon after the vernal equinox (VE)? Even the lunar calendar uses the VE! The evidence for using the VE is first in Genesis 1:14-16, recognizing that a 'light' there is something that *produces* light - the moon merely reflects it. Second, in that IAUE (God) commanded in Exodus 12:2 " 2* This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you." The Egyptians kept / keep a month tied to a rising star - this is "solar" - dealing with Earth's revolving about the sun; there's nothing in the Bible telling the state of the moon(yarech) in that story. The history of the calendar suggests the VE was used (link previously given). And when one's all done examining it, the moon just doesn't make the calendar work.
Gordon's next big play is on Psalms 104:
19 ¶ He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
20 Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.
21* The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.
22* The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.
23* Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.
Summary: the moon is a dumb rock to light the night (celebrations at night!?!) while the sun is attributed the characteristic of knowledge! Which one is higher?! The sun. Next we read the moon and night are for the beasts, while the sun and the day are for men. This yells "use the sun" to me.
The Biblical calendar is a subject open to many differing viewpoints, but, again, I say that once one researches it all, lays out all the feasts and figures it out: it is solar.
Walter |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Correct Writing of Dates
