|
Email me at frank
_basten @ yahoo.com (delete spaces) with any
questions or comments. Will be adding to this diary as there is need. The top post is the latest, with the former posts coming below it. |
|
The papers ready to print in the current editing round of touchups are: Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, It is best to save the file as a complete Web File, then open them in Ms Word and print from there, as I have formatted it to print best in that format. I use Word 2000 for these web files. |
|
The following is a list of the number of pages in Microsoft Word Format, as at 28 March, 2009 Assumption 1 –139pp Assumption 11 –8pp. Assumption 20 –17pp. Assumption 2 –69pp. Assumption 12 -23pp Assumption 21 –167pp Assumption 3 –10pp. Assumption 13 –49pp. Assumption
22 –10pp Assumption 4 –58pp. Assumption 14 –23pp. Assumption 23 –30pp Assumption 5 –9pp. Assumption 15 –21pp Assumption 24 –10pp Assumption 6 –22pp. Assumption 16 –506pp Assumption 25 –238pp Assumption 7 –11pp. Assumption 17 –11pp. Summary –46pp Assumption 8 – 83pp[1] Assumption 18 –115pp.[2] Revelation 3:10 –92pp. Assumption 9 –373pp. Assumption 19 – 13pp. Bibliography –47pp. Assumption 10 –22pp. Abstract-4pp. Index Page – 23pp. TOTAL PAGES approx: 2,344pp. |
|
Papers #8, #9, #16 #25 are big projects and are some time off before they are fit for printing. |
18th May, 2014 Still having a sabbatical while writing a book. Had my
ftp software out of action for a long time and couldn’t be bothered fixing
it, but the problem was much easier than anticipated, so have just
reconnected to update diary, and will hopefully will update some of the
broken links that occurred a few years ago for some quirky reason. Will pick at cleaning this site up here and there now that I have
the ftp gear going again.
|
28th February, 2010 Having
a sabbatical from these papers still. Did a read of Assumption 16 (parts of)
and 25 the other night and noticed how poorly they are
written. Am glad of these breaks from having the
nose close to the grinding wheel. It gives me a chance to step back; forget the material in the papers and then come back and
read them with fresh eyes, and a much better ability to be critical. I will
have little chance to address the material in #16 before June I think.
|
28 December 2009 Have
taken a break for some months from Assumption 16. Will be
off it for some months to come. Getting some distance from it, to get
a perspective. Hopefully when I come back to it, I
can how things are going and what changes need to be made more clearly.
|
August 11, 2009 Still
working on #16.
|
June 05, 2009 Still
working on Assumtion 16. Will be
there for quite a while as you will be able to see from the list of things to
do at the start of the paper. Can’t see
having this finished by the end of 2009.
|
March 21, 2009 moved the material on Hebdomad from
Assumption 25 to Assumption 16 and am beginning to
reformat that paper. I have just put a very brief summary of the research
where the material had been before in #25, along with the summary tables,
which will be filled out when I finish the same
tables in #16. Do not print No.16 for a while. It is being
changed constantly and will be so for the rest of 2009. No.25 will be
ready when I finish No.16, so that I can complete the table in No.25 under
the discussion of year-day principle in Dn9 there.
|
March 19, 2009 Have been working on getting the
material together on the history of Hebdomad in Latin and Greek primary
sources in relation to the Alexandrian version of Daniel, and Froom’s assertion that the year-day principle is “hinted at”
there. The material is being dumped in #25 at the moment,
and will form a separate paper when it is finished. It will probably end up
as a part of #16 as the topic is more pertinent there. If you are a Latin
reader and would like to help me with a translation of a few excerpts of
sources that have not been translated into English, send me an email. As you
will see in the section on the history of the use of Hebdomad, there are a few Latin primary sources needing translating. It
has been a fascinating journey this detour.
I have recently been collecting dictionary
entries in Latin, Latin-English, Latin-German, and Latin-French dictionaries
from 15th to 18th centuries, when dictionaries first
developed into more than just a glossary of words into alphabetically-listed,
with reference to sources used, to see the gamut of meanings provided by
these research tools to scholars of the time. The exercise
has been most fruitful, and confirms my position. |
December 29, 2008 Have
been distracted with work lately and have not done much except retrieve the
missing early Xian arithmological sources for the
use of hebdomad. Found an entry in Marcus Jastrow’s
Talmudic Dictionary that shows shabu‘a was
used by the Jews from 70 A.D. on to mean a septennate
of years or even a reference to the seventh-year of the sabbatical-year
cycle. (He still includes the standard
usage of a solar week as well.) This disproves Froom’s
theory that the Jews were thinking of the year-day theory when talking of
hebdomad in the Alexandrian LXX. Jastrow refers to this seven-year system as “year-weeks”
– the very term Froom has misunderstood when
quoting sources in PFF that use this term.
Am going to pursue this lead into intertestamental
Jewish literature to see how early this idea is recorded.
This accords with Charles’ opinion that the usage in Daniel 9 should be
treated differently from the other usage found in the OT where is usually
refers to the seven-day weekly cycle.
Thanks again to those scholars and readers
who have contacted me during the year offering comments, references and
suggestions. Your feedback has been
encouraging and I hope you enjoy the journey into unrealised
truths as much as I am. |
October 3, 2008. have been working on extra material for
#25 on the historical transmission of the meaning of hebdomad from the times
of Solon through to the Reformation, with a view to show how incorrect Froom is when he asserts that the Alexandrian LXX’s
translation of Dn9:24 “hints” at the use of the year-day principle. I
thoroughly demolish this silly notion, showing the usage of this word from Aristobulus, Philo, through the church fathers, Isidore of Seville, Bede, and the Glossa
Ordinaire, and onto the Reformation. Most of this
material will eventually go into #16 when I get around to reformatting it.
This has been a most intriguing journey for me personally.
|
February 20, 2008. Have
collected some extremely useful sources from Flinders University, South
Australia, and the University of Adelaide library recently when there in
February, to assist in finishing the editing of Assumption #9.
I am in a position to clean this paper up now and finish it, and so I hope to
have it done by year-end. Then I need to rework Assumption #16 and reformat
it. Then after that I can rewrite the Summary and
make it more pertinent to the changes I have made in each of the papers. I then need to put a section in there summarizing not only the
contents of each paper, but also to summarise my
overall argument – that the connection of the two time periods in Dn8 and Dn9
is maintained by SDA historicists only by a complicated chain of
interdependent invalid assumptions, with each being used to give validity to
the others; and to show that the whole edifice is nothing but a house of
cards, built as an inverse pyramid, with the many latter assumptions being
dependent on the former. And then make some
conclusions regarding the implications of each invalid assumption on the
other assumptions; thereby spelling out explicitly how each the invalidity of
the many assumptions each brings the edifice to the ground.
|
January 16, 2008 Have finished most of #25 for now. Need to
clean up the appendix, and a couple of notes in the paper need to be addressed. It is a very large paper, but I have done
that to cover every argument that has been raised in
favour with the year-day principle. But I think it can be reduced in size. However, for the
general reading public, I need to consider those who are not close readers.
Have spent some time recently looking
through Revelation 3:10 –the Death-knell of SDA historicism, and cleaned up
typos and added a few clarifications and re-sorted some parts to make it flow
better. It appears to be in better condition now. Have yet to look at some
more non-SDA scholars on this topic. Will do this when I
get to a Theological library.
Cleaned
up #13 recently.
Thanks
to those people who have contacted me over the last year offering their
support for my work. I am still waiting for someone to
submit me a paper(s) dealing with the points I raise and demolish my
arguments point by point. Is there no-one out there
who cannot spend the time to put me on the right track as to why my arguments
are all wrong? If I am in error, put pen to paper and save my soul! Is silence the best that Adventist scholarship
can do? I have addressed the
fundamental material in the DARCOM material on the connection between the 70
weeks and the 2300 days and shown its flaws. I think I have addressed it in
the appropriate manner. All I wait for is someone to spend the time to show
me the basic flaws in my papers – and that point by point, not just a blanket
denial of the material I have presented. I need to be convinced. Try me out.
This year will be just a cleanup year, where I
will be going over what I have done and improve the presentation. |
August 28, 2007
Have finished most of the material
in #25 for now. It can be printed off and
used. It is much better than what it was a few months ago. There are some things i am still chasing such as the
Mesopotamian origin for the septenate scale, and
the heptad, and the relation between the Babylonian week and the Hebrew week,
and the Babylonian Sabbath and the Hebrew Sabbath. |
June, 07
Monday, June 11, 2007 Saw some bulletin
boards talking about my material in #25 and people requesting a link for it.
Felt a bit ashamed as to its state, even though they are mercifully
overlooking the fact that it is a work in progress. Am working on #25 at the moment to get that up to some level of decency.
Hope to have it finished by the end of June. |
May entries
Have not been writing much since December; in
fact, I haven’t looked at the site at all for 6
months. Having a break and getting some distance from the documents to renew
my perspective on my style of writing. I find every time I go back to the
document after a spell, I can see how poorly it is written and then set about
to correct what I see. As a one-man-band this helps
me to improve the reading quality for you. The break also gives me the opportunity to
ponder the broader view of the central thrust of the papers and question the
validity of the points I raise, to reassess their solidarity or otherwise
(not that i have done a lot of that. In fact, I have not thought about it much
at all –been a real brain holiday. I may get back into doing more editing some time in the near future. |
|
December entries: I will not have Assumption No. 9 finished by
the end of year as hoped, but other material, I wasn’t expecting to get has materialised so that is good. Perhaps
by the end of 2007? Sunday,
May 18, 2014 Getting some brain space from the
papers for a while. Will get back into the papers in the new year.
Still converting #16 into Word and formatting, and working on #21. |
|
November entries Saturday, November 18, 2006 Have been having a break this week from No.21. Had No. 16 in Frontpage format for quite a while, which was a pain. So i have converted it back to MS word format, and have had to redo all the formatting again, as I had to filter it through Notepad to drop all the Frontpage formatting junk, and get back to raw text. Should finish that this week. Still not printable yet. Hope to finish it after cleaning up 16. November 12, 2006 Have finished most of the material
in #21 on the debacle of 1840, and its many errors. Moving on to
the discussion of October 22, or September 23 as the Day of Atonement for
1844. Then I need to organise and cull some
material stored in the Appendix. Saturday, November 04, 2006 Had a break last week. Am cleaning up the 1840 points in
Assumption 21,and looking at the issue of September
23 versus October 22, 1844 for the day of Atonement. Will
spend a bit more time on this in the coming week. |
|
Saturday, October 28, 2006 Typed in the translations of Censorinus into Assumption 16, and uploaded them. Still working on the European background to the Turkish position
in the balance of power in Europe for Assumption 21. Will be finished shortly. Saturday, October 21, 2006 Received two English translations of Censorinus’ Latin work “De Die Natali,”
yesterday, one a local work by a Latin hobbyist, and another from the
University of New England, by William Maude, 1900, the only copy in
Australia, and should have that up on Assumption 16 shortly. I will be submitting the full text to be posted on the LacusCurtius
site (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Censorinus/home.html)
as soon as I can type it all up. There is another version coming soon from a
current specialist in the field, a former reader in comparative philology. Have nearly finished typing the Treaty material
to be posted in Assumption 21. Then
to apply commentary in relation to Litch’s ideas.
Do not print these yet; they are still being proof-read.
I am finding many typos. Been reading Prof. Numbers
excellent book on “The Disappointed,” and especially the article by Eric
Anderson on Litch’s change of position on 1840. Also been
reviewing the doctoral dissertation by Dr. Brempong
Owusu-Antwi on the chronology of Daniel 9:24-27,
published by ATS. This is a thorough presentation and look forward to
getting close to his thinking on the matter. Initial reading found serious
flaws with his material on his explanation of shabua’,
which will be dealt with later. Other places the material is excellent. One
must question the integrity of the doctoral examination system in Adventist
institutions when external examiners are scholars tarred with
the same brush; in this case, Shea was the external examiner for this
dissertation. How inbred is a system like this!!
Especially when 10 of Shea’s works were used in the development of the
dissertation – which basically supports Shea’s
theories. Why are they not farmed out to some
scholars independent of the particular mould of SDAism and even ATS ism? Would the external examiner be
too critical of the dissertation? Would the program lose its
credibility? Wednesday, October 18, 2006 The 1919 Bible Conference paper refers to
Benson getting the “Blue Books” from London to prove his point before the
General Conference about the error of Litch’s
position. After chasing many false leads, the relevant lead turned up and I
eventually found these books to be the British and Foreign State Papers of
the British Parliament. In them are listed Treaties, pertinent letters,
reports and protocols for the appropriate year under review. They were called
“Blue Books” because they were bound in blue binding. Found the relevant Treaties and Protocols for
the incident between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan of
the Ottomans, and am posting the original French text in Assumption 21. The
treaties were in French, the diplomatic language of most treaties at the
time. A translation and comment will come later. These sources are probably readily
available around the world at most university Law library. Friday, October 13, 2006 Have been able to get to the University of
Adelaide library to access the Loeb Classical Library series and find the
works of Hippocrates, Solon, Aristotle, and Plutarch. Also
found some other good material on Solon, and Medieval History, relative to Litch’s theory about the fall of the Ottomans in 1840. Will be posting the material in no. 16 shortly. Also found some interesting material on Stephen for No.
18, which will be posted soon. Monday, October 09, 2006 Been working on 21 still. Read Pfandl’s
2004 book Daniel:
the Seer of Babylon this week and added pertinent extracts from his work
throughout the papers, and countered their points. Tuesday, October 03, 2006 Retrieved my first piece of
official information from British Govt. publications regarding the London
Conference.
See the material at the end of the paper Assumption No. 21, under Official
British Govt Publications. It confirms that 11 August, 1840 was a non-event in official documents. This
is from the Index of British Treaties, 1101-1967, vol. 2, p.210 by
Parry and Hopkins (eds.), H.M.S.O., London, 1970. |
|
September 29, 2006 Still working on #21. Still chasing material on the Treaty of London on July 15, 1840. Have located my prospective source at the National Archives in the UK. Have uploaded what I’ve done so far. It is interesting reading Spalding’s and Maxwell’s comments on the 391 year period, how they have seen the traditional position without any substantiation either at its beginning, in 1299, at the changeover point at 1449 and also at the end in 1840. So they have done a bit of “hop-scotch” and hopped lanes of thinking, starting the period with 1453 because it ends at 1844. Does 1844 fit the events supposed to mark it as specified in the prophecy? No, says Maxwell, but it is close enough. And Spalding is even worse and ignores the Turk all together, and just ends the period with the blowing of the seventh trumpet, which he says is the announcement of the investigative judgment. Interesting turnaround. Not a hint about the history in SDA land concerning the old approach and the problems with it; they just dish up a new theory. Reminds me of the JW prediction of Jesus returning in 1975; and the quick readjustment of the theory after the nonevent. And these SDA historicist writers go on in their blindness, not seeing that it is the method they work the scriptures, not the application that is the major problem, not just the inaccuracy of their interpretation. But this new theory for the time
period will probably become the norm, and we will PhDs soon on the topic,
because there are four factors begging to be married – 1453 is a historical
fact; the downfall of Constantinople happened that year, that is the first
truth; 391 is the addition of the units in Rev. 9 if you are a historicist,
that is the second fact; the third fact is 1844 minus 391 equals 1453; and
the last fact, is that 1844 is a date of significance in Adventist history;
it heralded the non-Return of Jesus, as proclaimed by Miller, and also in
Adventist thinking, the beginning of the investigative judgment. This is too tempting a
combination to resist it. The interpretation of the symbols in Rev. 9 will be
“bent” a little to fit the purposes of the conclusion, but hey, that is what
historicists do!! Mark my words, this “misinterpretation”
will catch on. September 27, 2006 Working on 21 at the moment.
Chasing some stuff for the prediction of Miller and Litch
concerning the Ottoman Empire. Monday, September 18, 2006 Finished 19 for the moment. Sunday, September 17, 2006 Finished No. 20, 23, 22
today. Saturday, September 16, 2006 Finished 6, 7, 11, and 12, 14, 15,
17. What a
marathon today was!! But it
is getting there. I can’t believe how flimsy the
whole argumentation is after reading 12 again. It is truly appalling that our
brightest minds suffer this garbage to be perpetuated.
It’s as bad as Tetsel with
his indulgences in the times of Luther – just a fabrication of lies. There is
no scholarly rigour at all. Came across a fascinating statement
by Ellen White giving unqualified endorsement to the content of the material
in Uriah Smith’s Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. This is a comment by the
“inspired authority” of the SDA church. Read it toward the end of Assumption
24. Let the scholars who believe in the full authority of Ellen White as
taught by the church, show their support this position of Ellen White on
Smith say Amen, knowing what they know of Smith’s errors. Friday, September 15, 2006. Put a quaint interpretation of Rev3:10 by
Miller in Rev.3:10 paper. Hope to have Nos. 6, 7, 12 done by tomorrow . Thursday, September 14, 2006 I have finished most of the cleaning up of
Assumption 4 and 5 for updating. No.6
is under the microscope at the moment, and will be
updated and posted shortly. No’s 10, 11 and 12. should be finished by this weekend. I am working through
the smaller papers first and then will work through the larger papers, 8, 9,
13, 16, and 18. Then I will get back into No.9. Liddell and Scott will have
to wait till next week, as can the Greek keyboard. Sunday, September 10, 2006 Have copied and transcribed the Liddell and
Scott entry for εβδομας into Assumption16 and hope to
have the abbreviations decoded by end of week. Still working out how to use
the Greek keyboard function to put the accents on the transcription, but that
will come. The primary sources from these references
will be appendicised in a few months when I can get
to these classical writings. Friday, September 08, 2006 I am having a rest from No. 9 for a while,
and am going back on all the papers and correcting their flow, the things
that are undone and cleaning up the typos that I always leave behind. Hope to
have this finished within a month. So if you are
planning on printing these, print them as I have finished these as mentioned
on the diary. No.2 --I have added a significant selection
of non-SDA quotes in Assumption 2 supporting my view that the construction in
Dn8:13 is one of epexegesis or apposition. Check towards the end of the paper.
Cleaned up some more typos and unfinished stuff in No.2. It is getting almost
reasonable. This can be printed. No.4 --Have been reshuffling the
whole paper around. It was in a mess. Totally disjointed. I have
tried to get it flowing a bit better. Still work yet
to be done on it in the way of references. Will upload the new version by mid week next week. |