Why does the 62 weeks of Daniel 9:26 begin 407 - 400 B.C.?

[divaD]

It's not an attempt to "prove" anything. The verse says what it says. You've already decided that it's Jesus and won't hear anything to the contrary.

But haven't you pretty much done the same thing as well? Haven't you already decided it's not meaning Jesus, thus you won't hear anything to the contrary? You also say this.."The verse says what it says". Those of us who conclude it's meaning Jesus, we too believe the verse says what it says. In this case, it's saying that it's meaning Jesus, an anointed one, aka the promised Messiah. Even tho you yourself don't believe the NT to be God breathed, it's unlikely that professed Christians would ever agree with that. And since we believe the NT is as God breathed as is the OT, then according to the NT, logically, Dan 9 has to be referring to Jesus.

An aside tho. Apparently not all professed Christians conclude it's meaning Jesus the Messiah. So it's not just non Christians coming to the same conclusions as you. Who knows, but maybe there's something to what you're saying. And if so, that means it's merely a coincidence that Jesus also seems to fit the profile of the one in question in Dan 9. To be honest tho, I have a hard time thinking it's only a coincidence, and that Jesus is not in mind here.

Your argument seems to be that no Messiah is in mind here, and that an anointed, and a Messiah, that these aren't the same thing. At least that's what I think your argument is, if I understood you correctly.

[Fenris]

But haven't you pretty much done the same thing as well? Haven't you already decided it's not meaning Jesus, thus you won't hear anything to the contrary?

No, I'm just reading the literal text and following that to a conclusion. I'm not searching frantically for a start date or a year length that ends the "70 weeks" at the year 32.

You also say this.."The verse says what it says". Those of us who conclude it's meaning Jesus, we too believe the verse says what it says. In this case, it's saying that it's meaning Jesus, an anointed one, aka the promised Messiah. Even tho you yourself don't believe the NT to be God breathed, it's unlikely that professed Christians would ever agree with that. And since we believe the NT is as God breathed as is the OT, then according to the NT, logically, Dan 9 has to be referring to Jesus.

Every king and priest was "anointed" in those days. Even gentile ones apparently. When it says "an anointed" it's just talking about "a king". Not the messiah. God even calls Cyrus "My anointed" in Isaiah.

An aside tho. Apparently not all professed Christians conclude it's meaning Jesus the Messiah. So it's not just non Christians coming to the same conclusions as you. Who knows, but maybe there's something to what you're saying. And if so, that means it's merely a coincidence that Jesus also seems to fit the profile of the one in question in Dan 9. To be honest tho, I have a hard time thinking it's only a coincidence, and that Jesus is not in mind here.

I don't see any profile at all. It talks about a king being "cut off" and "having nothing".

[Daniel Gracely]

Fenris,

I find your response most strange.

For example, after I quote myself stating that a course was from new moon to full moon, and then from full moon to new moon, etc., for each of the 12 months, you should infer I am simply pointing out that whatever the length of the lunar month is, there are two courses per lunar month. But instead you claim “That makes no sense either. Two orders per month would be 28 days…” Say what!? Why are you claiming that I think two courses equal 28 days? In fact, every lunar month is at least 29 days long. And today’s lunar calendar has no two lunar months exactly the same length, since lunar months go through a cycle from 29.18 to 29.93 days in the course of the year. So I’m beginning to wonder if you actually grasp what I have been saying, since you mistakenly think I believe two courses equals 28 days.

Secondly, despite my referring you to 1 Chronicles 24, you continue to claim: “The list of priests is actually a second-temple list.” Here is the relevant passage from 1 Chronicles 24. Note in particular the mention of David in verse 3, and the mention of the division of the lots which Shemaiah the scribe wrote before the king, i.e., David, in verse 6. Also, Zadok and Ahimelech are said to be witnesses to the division of lots, and these men were contemporaries with David. So your claim that the below list is a “second temple” list is baseless. Again, I find it most strange, especially after I directed you to the appropriate passage, that you would continue to claim this is a second-temple list. Note the passage below:

24:1Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 24:2But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office. 24:3And David distributed them, both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, according to their offices in their service. 24:4And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided. Among the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen chief men of the house of their fathers, and eight among the sons of Ithamar according to the house of their fathers. 24:5Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for the governors of the sanctuary, and governors of the house of God, were of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar. 24:6And Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and before the chief of the fathers of the priests and Levites: one principal household being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar. 24:7Now the first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah, 24:8The third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim, 24:9The fifth to Malchijah, the sixth to Mijamin, 24:10The seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah, 24:11The ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecaniah, 24:12The eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim, 24:13The thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab, 24:14The fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer, 24:15The seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Aphses, 24:16The nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezekel, 24:17The one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul, 24:18The three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah. 24:19These were the orderings of them in their service to come into the house of the LORD, according to their manner, under Aaron their father, as the LORD God of Israel had commanded him.

As for the Genesis 7 and 8 statements in which 5 months are equal to 150 days, it is derived from the below passages. Keep in mind that “prevailed” does not mean “to increase”, but simply means to have prevailed over a non-watery condition, understood in this context as having made a resting of the ark impossible:

7:11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 7:12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights…. 7:18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters…. 7:24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

8:3And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. 8:4And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Again, the longest five consecutive lunar months of today’s lunar calendar does not reach 150 days. In fact, it does not quite reach even 149 days.

This evidence of a 360-day year at the time of Noah continued until about the 8th century BC. Such a 360-day year is found in ancient calendars from India, Greece, Persian, Babylonian, China, and Egypt, with no mention of an intercalated month..

[dancedwithdolphin]

Just for the record when the scripture records in Daniel that there is a Messiah (Instead of Christo, which is used for "all" annointed ones) I believe that Messiah to be Yeshua (Jesus). And Messiah is specific to the promises in scripture, there is only one Messiah.

May I also say that the new testiment did not come out of the void. The gospels are eyewitness accounts to Yeshua. Acts are eyewitness accounts of certain apostles. And the rest are teachings from the old testiment thru the revelation of Yeshua and what that meant to us.

I am stil learning and what you guys are talking about is very interesting. I must admit much of it is over my head. But I appriciate the conversation.

[Daniel Gracely]

Fenris,

I would encourage you to consider the Shroud of Turin as an indirect corroboration that the anointed one of Daniel 9 is referring to Jesus, the Messiah. The image of the Man in the Shroud is so photographic in nature, that one non-Christian art historian (interviewed on the PBS program, Secrets of the Dead) actually claims that photography was invented in the 14th century, in order to explain the image. To me this shows how far someone will go to NOT believe.

I was a graduate art history student at SUNY-Binghamton when the famous carbon-14 dating of the Shroud took place. When the results were announced, no one in the art historical community put up a fight for their academic discipline. That is, no one said (or at least, no one was quoted as saying) "Well, you know, there is not a single image from the time period suggested by the carbon-14 dating, in which the nail prints are shown in the position they are in the Shroud. Every image up to this era shows the nail prints in the middle of the palms." No, nothing said. Just silence. For every discipline other than Science knows that Science has given them the permission to pursue a secular agenda. This is why no one in mainstream Academia challenged the findings, and still don't. This further explains why, in the liberal art historical department in which I found myself, our class was assigned to write a paper on the third world housing conditions in Kingston, Jamaica. You see, the 'art' history professor made a tenuous connection between architecture and alloted land space, in order to talk about the evils of British imperialism and their building compound, versus the housing of native peoples. Such a discussion might have its place, but surely not as a main feature in an art history class.

Not all professors were committed to this radical agenda to the same degree, but the overall trend was certainly in that direction and away from conoisseurship. This is what I mean by professors who are not going to challenge Science, which has given them a relativisitic framework from which they can launch their own agendas, whether Marxist, feminist, etc. In fact, I still have one syllabus from a class in those days in which, were I to cover up the books listed under the first week of a 14-week class, none of the other reading material in the remaining 13 weeks would lead you to believe the class was even in the art history department. This was in the later 1980s, BTW. I can only imagine it has gotten worse since then.

Anyway, the PBS episode went on to explain that UV light shows that the carbon-14 sample was taken from a soiled, contaminated area of the cloth. In fact, none of the newspapers of the time, including Time Magazine's famous "Debunking the Shroud" article bothered to mention that the Shroud had been partially burnt from a fire, and that therefore such smoke contamination destroyed the uniformitarian conditions necessary to ensure a proper carbon-14 dating. Such somke contamination should come as a natural objection to anyone familiar with the Shroud's history. Yet Time Magazine et al never saw fit to even mention such possibilities, doubtless because they think it would 'confuse' readers.

Much more could be said about the detractors' counterclaims, such as that paint was found on the cloth (though in fact all concede the image itself contains no paint), that the image can be reproduced (when in fact none of the so-called reproductions of the image have reproduced an image like the Shroud's, in which only the initial surface of the top layer of threads contains the image), and so sorth.


I've never been one to catalog the many 'splinters of the Cross,' or follow the Catholic line on all their relics. But the Shroud is in a unique class by itself, that is, for anyone who will consider ALL the evidence, and not just those biased 'evidences' Science inisists we receive, as it prepares to spank any of the academic disciplines who would dare disagree with her.

[Fenris]

Fenris,

I find your response most strange.

For example, after I quote myself stating that a course was from new moon to full moon, and then from full moon to new moon, etc., for each of the 12 months, you should infer I am simply pointing out that whatever the length of the lunar month is, there are two courses per lunar month. But instead you claim “That makes no sense either. Two orders per month would be 28 days…” Say what!? Why are you claiming that I think two courses equal 28 days? In fact, every lunar month is at least 29 days long. And today’s lunar calendar has no two lunar months exactly the same length, since lunar months go through a cycle from 29.18 to 29.93 days in the course of the year. So I’m beginning to wonder if you actually grasp what I have been saying, since you mistakenly think I believe two courses equals 28 days.

The courses were weekly. There's no way to fit a weekly schedule into 29 days.

Secondly, despite my referring you to 1 Chronicles 24, you continue to claim: “The list of priests is actually a second-temple list.”

The list of priests is a second-temple list. See Nehemiah, among elsewhere. I'm not denying that the first temple priests did weekly service, but there weren't 48 weekly courses.

As for the Genesis 7 and 8 statements in which 5 months are equal to 150 days

Um, that isn't what the text says. It says that the water diminished after 150 days, not that 150 days is 5 months.

This evidence of a 360-day year at the time of Noah continued until about the 8th century BC.

All that means is that their calendars were imprecise, not that a year was 360 days.

with no mention of an intercalated month..

Again, 12 lunar months is 354 days. So even if a solar year was 360 days, a lunar calendar would move holidays through the seasons. This would require adjustment since the holidays were bound to the agricultural cycle.

[Fenris]

May I also say that the new testiment did not come out of the void. The gospels are eyewitness accounts to Yeshua. Acts are eyewitness accounts of certain apostles. And the rest are teachings from the old testiment thru the revelation of Yeshua and what that meant to us.

At issue here is Daniel 9, not whether or not Jesus existed.

[Fenris]

Fenris,

I would encourage you to consider the Shroud of Turin

Take it up with your fellow Christians. It's come up in the past and almost no one here seems to believe it is genuine.

[Daniel Gracely]

Greetings Fenris,

First, to me the division of 24 courses suggests two per month for 12 months. I think this is a natural conclusion from the text. I was wondering what in the text, or what extra-biblical or rabbinical source, has led you to suppose the courses are weekly, not bi-monthly. I hope you realize I asked for this information from you about 3 or 4 comments ago, if, in fact, you were aware of any sources that gave it. So far you have cited none.

Second, Nehemiah what? You give neither chapter nor verse nor specific argument. For example, are you saying the names of the 24 courses are all contemporaries of Nehemiah? I trust not, since the names representing the divided lots of priests in 1 Chronicles 24 are said to be those names chosen in David's time. But then to what in Nehemiah are you referring? At least you're finally conceding there was a division of orders in the First Temple, an implication not apparent from your earlier comment. But again, specifically what in Nehemiah?

Third, you misunderstand what "prevailed" means. The context of the scriptures I quoted above show that "prevails" includes BOTH increasing and diminishing, since while still in their diminishing state the waters are “mighty” and “strong”, which is how this word is elsewhere translated. Waters that cover the earth, regardless of whether they are increasing or diminishing, are said to "prevail" in relation to the earth (i.e., the land of the earth). Therefore the prevailing of the waters for 150 days lasted the 5 months as stated, from the 17th day of the 2nd month of Noah's 600th year, to the 17th day of the 7th month of the same. The fact of 5 months is deduced from the statements given. Your claim that “It says that the water diminished after 150 days, not that 150 days is 5 months” is false, as the below quote from Genesis shows. Note that the “hundred and fifty days” of 8:3 refers to the “hundred and fifty days” of 7:24, which included BOTH the increasing and decreasing of waters—from when the fountains of the deep and the windows in the sky were opened, to a subsesquent time of the waters' partial return from off the earth (the diminishing continued until the 10th month). Here is the relevant text:

^7:19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. ^7:20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. ^7:21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: ^7:22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.^7:23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. ^7:24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. ^8:1And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; ^8:2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; ^8:3And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. ^8:4And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.^8:5And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Fourth, we finally begin to see the cards in your hand, when you counterclaim that

All that means is that their calendars were imprecise, not that a year was 360 days.

That doesn’t sound like a very high view of Scripture to me. Hardly anything like “God-breathed”. And yours is hardly a justified inference when such biblically precise language reads “the seventeenth day of the second month” to “the seventeenth day of the seventh month”. Um, how much detail do you need? Hours? Minutes? Nano-seconds? Obviously what is “imprecise” is not the Scriptures but your lackadaisical attitude toward its precision. Indeed, if God is so careless about what Moses wrote about calendars, how can we be sure a similar imprecision is not attendent when Moses wrote that the Jews were a special people to God?

Fifth and finally, I don’t doubt that my fellow Christians on this site are capable of gross ignorance and even stupidity regarding the Shroud. I once had a salaried pastor tell me the Shroud couldn’t be authentic because the Catholic church had preserved it. What was I to think? That the Lutheran iconoclasts of the 16th century would have made sure to protect it? You say I should take it up with my fellow Christians? But, hey, this is your golden opportunity here to disagree with that great majority of Jesus freaks!

[divaD]

Every king and priest was "anointed" in those days. Even gentile ones apparently. When it says "an anointed" it's just talking about "a king". Not the messiah. God even calls Cyrus "My anointed" in Isaiah.

.

I agree with what you're saying here. Speaking of Jesus, He fits all of these I believe...priest..king...an anointed. So my point is this. An anointed can be a regular person such as a king, I mean someone that's not the Messiah, and that the Messiah can be an anointed, but that doesn't mean everyone that is an anointed, that this makes them a/the Messiah tho, as you have clearly shown. I don't know if this makes sense to you or not. My mind isn't working too great this morning, so this probably sounds all confusing, the way I tried to express it.

[Fenris]

Greetings Fenris,

First, to me the division of 24 courses suggests two per month for 12 months. I think this is a natural conclusion from the text. I was wondering what in the text, or what extra-biblical or rabbinical source, has led you to suppose the courses are weekly, not bi-monthly.

1 Chronicles 9:25 says the courses were 7 days.

Second, Nehemiah what?

See Nehemiah 10. It repeats many of the names from Chronicles 24.

Third, you misunderstand what "prevailed" means. The context of the scriptures I quoted above show that "prevails" includes BOTH increasing and diminishing, since while still in their diminishing state the waters are “mighty” and “strong”, which is how this word is elsewhere translated. Waters that cover the earth, regardless of whether they are increasing or diminishing, are said to "prevail" in relation to the earth (i.e., the land of the earth). Therefore the prevailing of the waters for 150 days lasted the 5 months as stated, from the 17th day of the 2nd month of Noah's 600th year, to the 17th day of the 7th month of the same. The fact of 5 months is deduced from the statements given. Your claim that “It says that the water diminished after 150 days, not that 150 days is 5 months” is false, as the below quote from Genesis shows. Note that the “hundred and fifty days” of 8:3 refers to the “hundred and fifty days” of 7:24, which included BOTH the increasing and decreasing of waters—from when the fountains of the deep and the windows in the sky were opened, to a subsesquent time of the waters' partial return from off the earth (the diminishing continued until the 10th month). Here is the relevant text:

That you have to make such a convoluted argument about a single word that isn't even in the language that the bible was written in shows the weakness of your point.

Noplace does it say that 5 months is 150 days.

Fourth, we finally begin to see the cards in your hand, when you counterclaim that



That doesn’t sound like a very high view of Scripture to me.

Since scripture doesn't say anyplace that a year is 360 days, I don't see how your comment applies.

Indeed, if God is so careless about what Moses wrote about calendars, how can we be sure a similar imprecision is not attendent when Moses wrote that the Jews were a special people to God?

Shrug. Plenty of people seem to believe that anyway. Doesn't bother me.

Fifth and finally, I don’t doubt that my fellow Christians on this site are capable of gross ignorance and even stupidity regarding the Shroud.

How lucky they are to have you here, to set them straight.

[Fenris]

An anointed can be a regular person such as a king, I mean someone that's not the Messiah, and that the Messiah can be an anointed, but that doesn't mean everyone that is an anointed, that this makes them a/the Messiah tho, as you have clearly shown.

Yes, that is my point.

[divaD]

Since scripture doesn't say anyplace that a year is 360 days, I don't see how your comment applies.

What you and Daniel are discussing, admittedly it's bit over my head. But as far as this 360 days being a year, I'm convinced there's something to it, because I have the math that proves it, well to me anyway, somewhere on one of these threads sometime back. Even if I found the thread, the math I was doing, it was going over folks' head. So I don't expect anyone could see I was on to something at the time.

[Fenris]

But as far as this 360 days being a year, I'm convinced there's something to it

There's something to it because if you pick the right starting date and if you make a year 360 days, you can get Daniel 9 to refer to Jesus. This is especially appealing if you already know that the chapter is about Jesus and you just have to figure out how to make the dates fit.

Or you can just read the chapter, calculate the date, and try and figure out who it refers to.

It's a free country, you can do whichever you like.

[Daniel Gracely]

Fenris writes:

1 Chronicles 9:25 says the courses were 7 days.

It certainly does. But 1 Chronicles 9:1 shows that the context of this statement applies to Jews returning from Exile, not necessarily to Jews prior to it. That it should appear here and not in 1 Chronicles 24, where it would have seemed more logical to have stated it at the beginning of the division of priestly lots of service under David, is suggestive. Arguably, then, the 24 courses in David’s time were observed two per month for 12 months in a 360-day year, each lasting either from new moon to full moon, or full moon to new moon. Then, later, after with the earth’s orbital change in the middle of the 8^th century BC, implied by the Babylonian calendar which for the first time notes the metonic cycle in 747 BC (and thus an orbital change in the earth), in which the lunar months became on average a half-day shorter, the 15-day courses which had fit neatly into 30-day lunar months now faced the problem of what priestly courses should serve during an intercalated month. The solution appears to be given in 1 Chronicles 9:25, in which the priestly courses would now be observed weekly. But again, this has nothing to do with the procedure of courses before the Exile, or at least before the 8^th century BC.

Second, I find it incredible that you should equate Nehemiah 10 with 1 Chronicles 24. It appears you are saying these ARE the same people, since you continue to maintain that 1 Chronicles 24 is a Second Temple list, since (you say) “many” of the names the same. In fact, at most it appears only 8 of 23 names are the same. The only conclusion I can draw from your statements is that your guiding hermeneutic in this case is the partial similarity of names between the lists, not the historical contexts of each list. For 1 Chronicles 24 plainly states that a division of lots was done in David’s time, while Nehemiah explains the list in his own time, some 400+ years later. That a minority of names are the same is not very remarkable. For example, the name Daniel appears in the opening list in Nehemiah 10, but since this Daniel is a Levitical priest, he was not the Daniel who served before Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. Like in many cultures today, descendents were sometimes named for their ancestors, and also the same names remained in use across generations.

I must say I would be surprised if your hermeneutical approach is typical of Rabbinic interpretation. For you cast aside the context in favor of an approach that takes no regard of very plain historical statements. What seems to be happening here is that you believe certain statements in the Old Testament if you find it convenient, but disbelieve others if you find them inconvenient. This explains your claim against me regarding the word “prevailed”, when you say:

That you have to make such a convoluted argument about a single word that isn't even in the language that the bible was written in shows the weakness of your point.

I find it odd that, earlier, you argued that Moses wrote imprecisely about calendars, but now accuse me elsewhere on the basis of the precision of words as they appear in the Hebrew “language in which the bible was written.” So which is it? Are the Hebrew scriptures imprecise or precise? Well, apparently for you they are imprecise if it gives you occasion to accuse an opponent, or they are precise if you imagine it gives you occasion to accuse an opponent. And so your hermeneutic turns out to be no hermeneutic at all, but merely a grand-standing of your opinion. And so I find it amusing that you would say it is I, not yourself, who makes the “convoluted argument”.

But of course I checked the lexical use of the Hebrew words gabar (rendered prevailed in Gen. 7:18) and rabah (rendered increased in Gen. 7:18) before ever speaking of their English meanings, lest I be accused of misrepresenting the Hebrew. That you should implicitly accuse me anyway of not representing the Hebrew faithfully, without yourself offering any argument in support of your accusation, is the reason I and others here can’t take your arguments seriously.

And so, all that I said in my previous comment about Gen. 7:19 – 8:5 stands, as informed by the Scriptures themselves. Again, “prevailed” shows a lexical use of “mighty” and “strong” etc. (This information can be looked up at BlueLetterBible.com.) Therefore, whether waters are increasing or diminishing, so long as they cover the land they show domination over it, and thus “prevail.” The explanatory context of the Scriptures themselves show us this meaning, as well as giving us the plain statement that 150 days is calcuatled from the 17th day of the 2nd month of Noah's 600th year, to the 17th day of the 7th month of the same, being 5 months.

Third, you state:

Since scripture doesn't say anyplace that a year is 360 days, I don't see how your comment applies.

Well, no, the Fenris-Scripture doesn’t say anything about a 360-day year, because the Fenris-Scripture is edited by Fenris, who variously selects what Hebrew scriptures he deems trustworthy or untrustworthy.

Finally, it’s rather pathetic to watch your ‘slice and dice’ method of response. That you should have to rely on your opponent’s form of response in order to form your own responses, is telling, and bespeaks of a certain co-dependence on him or her, possibily because you are unable to write any kind of sustained argument in simple paragraph or (forbid it!) essay-type response. Such an approach strikes me as somewhat derivative, suggesting the parroting of mentor’s ideas or traditional views, and a failure to think through the issues for one’s self. Doubtless this is why you find it convenient to try to lob a grenade into my argument about the Shroud of Turin, hoping to end the discussion early. What little pity you have even for 3^rd party readers, that you shouldn’t attempt to correct me about the Shroud! Yet where, I ask, is the response on this forum that would explain (1) why art history has never turned up a single Medieval image of nail prints a la the Shroud, in the era in which the Shroud was allegedly forgeried, or (2) why the “forgery” of the Shroud contains no paint in the actual image, or (3) why no one has reproduced an image in which only the initial layer of the top thread is affected, as is the Shroud? No, instead of helping out 3^rd party readers, your recipe of response is one handful of mud (tossed), sprinkled in sarcasm, smothered in avoidance. In short, apparently you do not answer because you cannot answer.

Yet I give you opportunity to answer yet another point, since you avoid answering the others.

NASA designer Peter Schumacher in his essay, Photogrammetric Responses in the The Shroud of Turin describes his surprise when the VP-8 Analyzer (which he brought from design to production) found a three-dimensional image in a photograph of the Shroud of Turin. The VP-8 Analyzer was created to help establish ‘signatures,’ i.e., light reflections specific to terrestrial objects, such as fault lines or vegetation growth lines. Thus if e.g., lakes or plowed fields were found to have a unique reflective light signature compared to other objects, then the Analyzer would know when it ‘sees’ a lake or plowed field. While Schumacher never suggests as much, one may suppose the U.S. Government may have ultimately hoped that one application of this budding technology would be to find marijuana fields at home (or poppy fields abroad) as part of its growing war against drugs. At any rate, Schumacher points out that the VP-8 was never intended to create three-dimensional imagery. For if the machine interpreted lighter objects as nearest to it, then dull rocks or dark vegetation surrounding a lake would be judged lower in elevation than the water. Thus Schumacher: “There is no correlation between reflectance and altitude [with the VP-8].” He also states:

It might be possible to produce, fabricate, modify, or alter the image of an object so that, when photographed, the resulting negatives would begin to resemble Shroud negatives. However, the Shroud of Turin is at least 650 years old, by any consideration. No modification, fabrication, or alterations of the physical reactions are required in taking a Shroud photograph. The methods used are the same used in making any other photograph. Yet the results of Shroud photographs have these unique characteristics. The photon rebound from the cloth, pass through the lens, harden the emulsion, and the result exists. No image studied, made prior to photography, or made after its invention, produces the same results as those observed relative to the Shroud of Turin image.

One would think that an artist’s goal is to make an image that is clearly and easily interpreted by the human visual system. One would not think that an image of low clarity and faintness of detail would be created at least 550 years in advance of the invention of a method (photography) to view the “subtle” details. It is important to note, no photographic enhancement method, such as “dodging”, “push-processing”, or “non-uniform illumination”, is needed to produce these unique results in a conventional photographic negative of the Shroud of Turin. It is reasonable to question how, and why, an artist might fabricate a work that responds so differently, when photographed, compared to all other “artistic works”. It is not reasonable to suggest the artist could “predict the outcome” (photo-negative) of the work before any reference by which to perform “quality control” of the work. Then, the artist would produce only one known work of this type, protect the method so no other works of this type could be produced, and be without fame for the talents, skills, and processes required. Artistic copies and artists’ illustrations of the Shroud do not produce the same results when photographed, as photographs of the Shroud produce.

Interestingly enough, Schumacher had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before installing a system for Dr. John Jackson of the Sandia Scientific Laboratories, when he witnessed the discovery of the three-dimensional properties. Says Schumacher:

Jackson placed an image of the Shroud of Turin onto the light table of the system. He focused the video camera of the system on the image. When the pseudo-three-dimensional image display (“isometric display”) was activated, a “true-three-dimensional-image” appeared on the monitor. At least, there were main traits of real three-dimensional structuring in the image displayed. The nose ramped in relief. The facial features were contoured properly. Body shapes of the arms, legs, and chest, had the basic human form. The result from the VP-8 had never occurred with any of the images I had studied, nor had I heard of it happening during any image studies done by others.

I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results were unlike anything I have processed through the VP-8 Analyzer, before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer isometric projection study.

Any interested 3^rd party readers here can google Peter Schumacher to see the image.