The year Jesus was born and the 2,300 year prophecy

"And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (Dan. 8:14).

The time of year for Christ's birth was autumn.  A close approximation of Christ's birth date is determined per the explanation from a past post at the link below, being around the 10th day of the seventh month Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur (Hebrew, yom kaphar). The calculations for His birth month are done in a post I wrote at: 

https://biking4theblind.blogspot.com/2006/12/day-when-christ-was-born.html?m=1

Below is an internet article on the year King Herod died. The reason I'm pasting the article's last comment is for finding a better year for Christ's birth than the traditional 4BC. By having the death year for King Herod later than 4BC I can affix Christ's baptism to AD27, 483 years (the end of the 69th prophetic week) after the start of the already historically confirmed year of 457BC as the start of Daniel's 70 week Messianic prophecy. Thus, AD27, which started Christ's ministry, would also mark the beginning of the 70th prophetic week, this 70th week and the whole 70 week prophecy both ending at AD34. These two dates subsequently would put Christ's crucifixion at AD31, halfway into the 70th week. For 3 1/2 years He ministered to the Isrealites' needs, gained their confidences, and won their hearts. Through His abundant goodness He provided them His best of all gifts—repentance—the gift that keeps on giving. Then He laid down His life to ratify their repentance. Afterward, He would in Spirit, move His disciples to stay in Jerusalem for another 3 1/2 years to give the children of Abraham an extra grace period for repentance.

What a great privilege to be reconciled with the great offended God! But what would be the outcome for refusing the great privilege from heaven?

The Jews' determination to reject their Messiah Jesus would also determine their end in desolation, as forewarned in the 70 week prophecy. "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation [H3722, "kaphar"] for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." (Dan. 9:24). 

That brings us up AD34, and the conclusion of the 70 week Messianic prophecy. 

AD34, the end of the the 70 week prophecy, would then hand the prophetic focus over to the last segment of the larger 2,300 day prophecy, both prophecies having started simultaneously in 457BC. 1,810 years of the church age, starting in AD34, to the conclusion of the Daniel 8:14 2,300 year prophecy, would end in 1844. Ultimately, the Millerite message of Jesus coming was not a cunningly devised fable, but a providential event to turn the church's attention to the Most Holy Day of Atonement/period of imvestigative judgment.

Therefore, nailing down the key years of Messiah's baptism and crucifixion also tell us the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14. Shabby mathematics will create stumbling blocks for the saints who try to teach the truth of the heavenly sanctuary. The numbers must work. The dates must work. And 4BC doesn't work for a 30 year old Messiah beginning His ministry in AD 27.

So, the comment below is from the following link.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/herods-death-jesus-birth-and-a-lunar-eclipse/

The above commenter's scholarly and detailed history has a lot of drama, but it gives the impression that Herod's sons were very much into power grabbing, licence, and without a conscience. But all their premature claims to reigning in their father's stead actually help us in that they put in question when their official reigns began. 4BC doesn't seem to be true for their successions of Herod, which therefore leaves their father's death-year also in question.

"Read an excerpt from Andrew E. Steinmann’s book From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), pp. 235–238 [footnotes removed]; see also his article 'When Did Herod the Great Reign?' Novum Testamentum 51 (2009), pp. 1–29.

"Originally Herod had named his son Antipater to be his heir and had groomed Antipater to take over upon his death. However, a little over two years before Herod’s death Antipater had his uncle, Herod’s younger brother Pheroras murdered. Pheroras had been tetrarch of Galilee under Herod. Antipater’s plot was discovered, and Archelaus was named Herod’s successor in place of Antipater. Seven months passed before Antipater, who was in Rome, was informed that he had been charged with murder. Late in the next year he would be placed on trial before Varus, governor of Syria. Eventually Herod received permission from Rome to execute Antipater. During his last year Herod wrote a will disinheriting Archelaus and granting the kingdom to Antipas. In a later will, however, he once again left the kingdom to Archelaus. Following his death his kingdom would eventually be split into three parts among Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip.

"Josephus is careful to note that during his last year Herod was forbidden by Augustus from naming his sons as his successors. However, in several passages Josephus also notes that Herod bestowed royalty and its honors on his sons. At Antipater’s trial Josephus quotes Herod as testifying that he had yielded up royal authority to Antipater. He also quotes Antipater claiming that he was already a king because Herod had made him a king.

"When Archelaus replaced Antipater as Herod’s heir apparent some two years before Herod’s death, Antipater may have been given the same prerogatives as Archelaus had previously enjoyed. After Herod’s death Archelaus went to Rome to have his authority confirmed by Augustus. His enemies charged him with seemingly contradictory indictments: that Archelaus had already exercised royal authority for some time and that Herod did not appoint Archelaus as his heir until he was demented and dying. These are not as contradictory as they seem, however. Herod initially named Archelaus his heir, and at this point Archelaus may have assumed royal authority under his father. Then Herod revoked his will, naming Antipas his heir. Ultimately, when he was ill and dying, Herod once again named Archelaus his heir. Thus, Archelaus may not have legally been king until after Herod’s death in early 1 B.C., but may have chosen to reckon his reign from a little over two years earlier in late 4 B.C. when he first replaced Antipater as Herod’s heir.

"Since Antipas would eventually rule Galilee, it is entirely possible that under Herod he already had been given jurisdiction over Galilee in the wake of Pheroras’ death. This may explain why Herod briefly named Antipas as his heir in the year before his death. Since Antipas may have assumed the jurisdiction over Galilee upon Pheroras’ death sometime in 4 B.C., like Archelaus, he also may have reckoned his reign from that time, even though he was not officially named tetrarch of Galilee by the Romans until after Herod’s death.

"Philip also appears to have exercised a measure of royal authority before Herod’s death in 1 B.C. Philip refounded the cities of Julias and Caesarea Philippi (Paneas). Julias was apparently named after Augustus’ daughter, who was arrested for adultery and treason in 2 B.C. Apparently Julias was refounded before that date. As for Caesarea Philippi, the date of its refounding was used to date an era, and the first year of the era was 3 B.C. Apparently Philip chose to antedate his reign to 4 B.C., which apparently was the time when Herod first entrusted him with supervision of Gaulanitis.

"Additional support for Philip having been officially appointed tetrarch after the death of his father in 1 B.C. may be found in numismatics. A number of coins issued by Philip during his reign are known. The earliest bear the date 'year 5,' which would correspond to A.D. 1. This fits well with Philip serving as administrator under his father from 4–1 B.C. He counted those as the first four years of his reign, but since he was not officially recognized by Rome as an independent client ruler, he had no authority to issue coins during those years. However, he was in position to issue coinage soon after being named tetrarch sometime in 1 B.C., and the first coins appear the next year, A.D. 1, antedating his reign to 4 B.C. While the numismatic evidence is not conclusive proof of Herod’s death in 1 B.C., it is highly suggestive.

"Given the explicit statements of Josephus about the authority and honor Herod had granted his sons during the last years of his life, we can understand why all three of his successors decided to antedate their reigns to the time when they were granted a measure of royal authority while their father was still alive. Although they were not officially recognized by Rome as ethnarch or tetrarchs until after Herod’s death, they nevertheless appear to have reckoned their reigns from about 4 B.C."

Add that cache of evidence for a 1BC death of Herod to the main body of the article from which that comment came, and a date later than 4BC for Herod's death gets firmer. Speaking of the main body of the article, based on lunar eclipse dates the king's death could have three possibilities other than 4BC: 5BC and two for 1BC. The December 29, 1BC lunar eclipse would work perfectly for the 2300 year prophecy ending in 1844 (if my homemade timelines are correct; and please do your own math).

Here is some of the article's main body:

"...Mr. Tempelman does a good job of pointing out arguments in favor of a 4 B.C. date following the arguments advanced long ago by Emil Schürer. The difficulty is that we have a fair amount of information, but it is equivocal.

"The key information comes, of course, from Josephus who brackets the [Herod the Great's] death by 'a fast' and the Passover. He says that on the night of the fast there was a lunar eclipse—the only eclipse mentioned in the entire corpus of his work. Correlation of Josephus with the Talmud and Mishnah indicate the fast was probably Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month (mid-September to mid-October) and Passover on the 15th day of the first month (March or April) of the religious calendar. Josephus does not indicate when within that time interval the death occurred.

"Only four lunar eclipses occurred in the likely time frame: September 15, 5 B.C., March 12–13, 4 B.C., January 10, 1 B.C. and December 29, 1 B.C. The first eclipse fits Yom Kippur, almost too early, but possible. It was a total eclipse that became noticeable several hours after sundown, but it is widely regarded as too early to fit other information on the date. The favorite 4 B.C. eclipse seems too far from Yom Kippur and much too close to Passover. This was a partial eclipse that commenced after midnight. It hardly seems a candidate for being remembered and noted by Josephus. The 1 B.C. dates require either that the fast was not Yom Kippur or that the calendar was rejiggered for some reason. The January 10 eclipse was total but commenced shortly before midnight on a winter night. Lastly, in the December 29 eclipse the moon rose at 53 percent eclipse and its most visible aspect was over by 6 p.m. It is the most likely of the four to have been noted and commented on.

"None of the four candidates fits perfectly to all the requirements. I like the earliest and the latest of them as the most likely. The most often preferred candidate, the 4 B.C. eclipse, is, in my view, far and away the least likely one."

So, there stands a very good chance that Herod died and Jesus was born 2BC. Again, what's the significance? He then would be baptized in His 30th year of life, in AD27 (adding a 1 for the year zero). His atoning death be would be accomplished in AD31. And the finale of the 70 week Messianic prophecy would be AD34, 1810 years before 1844, which was the heavenly Day of Atonement.