This is also the common consensus of the Church Fathers and scholars throughout church history (4).The Gospels also record that the crucifixion occurred the day before the Passover festival (5).For an End Time or Last Days view to be true it must agree with knowledge i.e. It must agree with both historical fact and present-day reality - what is observed.The interpretation must also be consistent with many Bible scriptures.Yes, there is more in the sky which declares “Messiah has come.” But to see these things, we must know when to look up. By law and custom, the Jewish people of Jesus’ day took the Sabbath as a day of complete rest (1).Peter used the sky as a proof that Messiah had come, but which sky did he use? Because no work could be done on the Sabbath, which we call Saturday, Friday came to be known as Preparation Day (2).
However, He has given believers His Spirit to guide them to the truth on such issues (John 14.26).The Biblical book of Exodus does not name the Pharaoh whom Moses encountered after his return from Sinai. The bibliographies in these sections are of more value than the discussions in the text, which adopts a very negative view on the historicity of the Exodus.This absence has provided the occasion for considerable controversy and speculation as to just who this Pharaoh was and when he ruled in Egypt. A strong picture has been made for the 19th Dynasty as the background for the Exodus in the work of K. Kitchen, to give a negative evaluation to the historicity of the Biblical account and that left him free to construct his theology unhampered by historical limitations (1962). Ernest Wright, on the other hand, held that theology must ultimately be rooted in history in his (1983).The problems we have discussed regarding Sir Robert Anderson's dates for the first 69 weeks of Daniel's 70 weeks are by no means unknown to dispensational scholars. Harold Hoehner of the Dallas Theological Seminary in his 1978 book, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, published an improvement on Anderson's dates that solved four of the difficulties. Thomas Ice has in the last few years published a repudiation of Anderson's dates and endorsed Hoehner's improvements. We first provide a summary of Hoehner's pertinent views on the subject, taken from Ice's discussion of them at Seventy Weeksof Ice is one of the foremost scholars and apologists promoting John Darby's doctrine of a pre-trib secret rapture. Hoehner advocates the time of Artaxerxes' decree as 444 B. To have Nisan later than Chislev (in the same year) may seem strange until one realizes that Nehemiah was using a Tishri-to-Tishri (September/October) dating method rather than the Persian Nisan-to-Nisan method. In conclusion, the report to Nehemiah (1:1) occurred in Chislev (November/December) of 445 B. and the decree of Artaxerxes (2:1) occurred in Nisan (March/April of 444 B. If conditions were perfect on the evening of April 18, 33 AD, the crescent could have been seen and Nisan could have commenced on April 19, making Tuesday, April 28 indeed Nisan 10.He and Tim Lahaye founded the Pre-Trib Research Center in 1993, an organization dedicated to defending Darby's scenario.) As valuable as Anderson's work continues to be, I believe that it does contain a few errors, even though this overall approach was a major breakthrough in understanding this part of Daniel's prophecy. Nehemiah was following what was used by the kings of Judah earlier in their history. Otherwise, the start of Nisan would have been delayed till perhaps April 20, making Nisan 10 fall instead on Wednesday, April 29.A body of scholarly work addresses the date of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. It was a day when food and other things needed for Saturday were prepared in advance.