| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Randy ®
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
 |
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:06:55 -0500,
in article <g7hgdh$t5e$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54ol9456gjb1frvjieoh2ftnpurqsdl1n7@4ax.com...
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:46:10 -0500,
in article <g7e273$k6o$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Glenn" <gamcclary@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:g77utn02nmd@enews1.newsguy.com...
The Omission of History From God's Word
Daniel's "Gap" (omission of human history) is visible in Chapter Nine,
between verses 26 and 27.
Horseshit.
In c. 167 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes "confirmed" the covenant with Menelaus
that he had made earlier with the traitorous priest Jason, but within a
year, Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and committed the abomination of
desolation, taking away the "sacrifices and oblations" by raiding the
temple
treasury and ordering that all tributes be paid to him.
"Desolations" were "poured out" on Antiochus as he continued to loose
battle
after battle to the Jews, the Egyptians, and, ultimately the Romans, and
he
died at the hands of his own soldiers, who were fed up with his
foolishness.
These are the historical facts, and they are indisputable.
[snip]
Ike
That they are indisputable, historical facts doesn't make them
anything more than a typical fulfillment of the prophecy.
No, shit, Sherlock--THE FIRST FULFILLMENT of them, from THE DESTRUCTION OF
THE TEMPLE to the END OF THE MACCABEAN REVOLT, which means that THE PROPHECY
WAS FULFILLED IN IT'S ENTIRETY before GOING ON TO ANOTHER STATEMENT.
THANKS.
YOU JUST CONFESSED THAT DISPENSATIONALIST ESCHATOLOGY is BULLSHIT.
Even
in your three, seventy year iteration, scheme of things,
NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING, asshole.
you
admit this isn't the "real" fulfillment, but have the final 70
year iteration remaining.
WHICH IS PRECISELY RIGHT, moron.
THE PROPHECY WAS BASED ON SEVENTY YEARS ALL ALONG, FOLLOWING DANIEL'S FORM,
JESUS' OUTLINE, AND JOHN'S STEP-BY-STEP CHRONOLGY.
FINALLY, RANDY REALIZES THAT THE FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLE, AND CONFESSES THAT
WHAT I SAID ALL ALONG WAS RIGHT, which means HIS ESCHATOLOGY IS BULLSHIT.
About time.
Ike
|
Dream on Hermanut. I've never disputed the historical facts
point to a typical fulfillment, and maintain that the real
fulfillment was never given in three 70 year iterations, but
70 sevens of years, which is precisely what the text of
Daniel 9, and the historical facts, indicate:
http://www.pulpitfire.net/360_Day_Prophetic_Year.htm
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:XhPmk.295002$SV4.268588@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: |
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
One of the curious things about the book of Daniel is its place in the
Jewish canon. Instead of being listed among the Prophets where you
would expect it, Daniel is part of the Writings.
What Bible have you been reading?
The Jewish Publication Society's translation, "TANAKH, The Holy
Scriptures" 1985 edition.
Daniel is the last of the major prophets, and the first of the minor
prophets, and he isn't located ANYWHERE NEAR the "writings."
Isaiah, Jeremiah, (Lamentations of Jeremiah), Ezekiel, DANIEL, Hosea,
Joel, etc., etc.
[snip the rest of the ignorant ranting]
Ike
P.S. There is no section of "prophets" in the Jewish canon to begin with.
It's the law, history books, poetry books, and OTHER writings, including
the books we refer to as "the prophets."
And the Jews never referred to these by section, but by the saying "the
law and the prophets."
So your argument is ridiculous in every way.
The Jewish canon is divided into three major sections: Torah, the
Prophets, and the Writings , The books and divisions are listed below:
Torah Five Books of Moses.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Nevi'im The Prophets
Joshua
Judges
1 & 2 Samuel
1 & 2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Minor Prophets
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Malachi
Kethuvim The Writings
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
The Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 & 2 Chronicles
I hope this helped.
|
Yes it did.
It proved you don't know what you're talking about.
The books listed as "the writings" were canonized AT THE END of the
BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY, when the Jews finished compiling them.
The traditions that went into the Pentateuch were compiled BEFORE the
Babylonian captivity, but borrowed heavily from BABYLONIAN MYTHOLOGY,
adapted to the JEWISH STORY.
The books of the "prophets" were adapted EARLY in the Babylonian captivity.
(Note that Jeremiah is listed in "the prophets," but Lamentations, which
describes the fallen state of Jerusalem, which the Jews always accepted as
being written by Jeremiah, is listed IN THE WRITINGS.)
THIS is why the LATTER BOOKS ARE IN THEIR OWN SCROLL, and NONE OF THIS HAS
ANYTHING TO DO with the JEW'S ACCEPTANCE or REJECTION of DANIEL, as you
falsely imply.
It simply has to do with the ORDER in which the books were canonized, NOT
THEIR VALIDITY.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
wax
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"colp" <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote
| Quote: | "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is Dan 1:21
which says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Yet
in Dan 10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Daniel 1:21 NET Bible
Now Daniel lived on until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Daniel 10:1 NET Bible
In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a message was revealed to
Daniel (who was also called Belteshazzar)
I agree that most translations say "continued on", but the context does
not agree with your interpretation.
Why not? The context is about Daniel's role as an advisor to the king.
And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none
like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they
before the king.
And in all matters of wisdom [and] understanding, that the king
enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the
magicians [and] astrologers that [were] in all his realm.
And Daniel continued [even] unto the first year of king Cyrus.
Daniel 1:19-21
|
Your interpretation is not unreasonable, however I believe that you are
reading things into verse 21 which is not there. The problem is that in
Chapter 5, Daniel was definitely not one of Belshazzar's advisors. So
Daniel did not remain in that position. In fact, Belshazzar appears to not
even know who Daniel is until his wife tells him about Daniel, and that is
only on the last day of Belshazzar's rules.
Chapter 5 brings up two further problems. It is true that Belshazzar's
father went insane, but his father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. And
in interpreting the handwriting on the wall Daniel interpreted the first
"Mene" to mean Belshazzar's kingdom is brought to an end, and interprets the
"Teqel" to mean that the kingdom will be given over to the Medes and
Persians. These two prophecies appear to have been fulfilled in the last
two verses of the chapter where Belshazzar is killed and Darius the Mede
takes control of the kingdom.
But who was Darius the Mede? There is no Darius the Mede recorded in
history, and we know the names of all the Median kings. In fact, the Median
empire never ruled over Babylon. The beginning of chapter 6, indicates that
Darius is fully a King, and not just a satrap or local governor.
| Quote: | In fact, we come to another inconsistency.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
I find it amusing that in Dan 1:3-7 that Daniel and his friends are
selected to receive three years instructions in Babylonian literature
and language.In verses 1:18-20 we learn that after the appointed time
(three years) that Daniel and his friends pass with flying colors. It
says nothing about him advising the king.
It probably wasn't a full-time position.
Now, in Dan 2:1, in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the king
has some dreams. Nobody can interpret the dreams until Daniel does
so. As a result, Nebuchadrezzr grants Daniel authority over the entire
province of Babylon and also appoints Daniel's friends to high office
(Dan 2:46-49.). All of this. one year before Daniel and his friends
finished their three year training.
They were brought to Babylon because they were from the elite of
Hebrew society. This and Daniel's success with the dream was probably
enough for the king to decide to appoint them over the province.
|
Why would Nebuchadnezzar have to test the young men in the third year of his
reign, if they already held high positions by the second year of his reign?
--Wax |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
wax
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
| Quote: | "wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
One of the curious things about the book of Daniel is its place in the
Jewish canon. Instead of being listed among the Prophets where you
would expect it, Daniel is part of the Writings.
What Bible have you been reading?
The Jewish Publication Society's translation, "TANAKH, The Holy
Scriptures" 1985 edition.
Daniel is the last of the major prophets, and the first of the minor
prophets, and he isn't located ANYWHERE NEAR the "writings."
Isaiah, Jeremiah, (Lamentations of Jeremiah), Ezekiel, DANIEL, Hosea,
Joel, etc., etc.
[snip the rest of the ignorant ranting]
Ike
P.S. There is no section of "prophets" in the Jewish canon to begin
with.
It's the law, history books, poetry books, and OTHER writings, including
the books we refer to as "the prophets."
And the Jews never referred to these by section, but by the saying "the
law and the prophets."
So your argument is ridiculous in every way.
The Jewish canon is divided into three major sections: Torah, the
Prophets, and the Writings , The books and divisions are listed below:
Torah Five Books of Moses.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Nevi'im The Prophets
Joshua
Judges
1 & 2 Samuel
1 & 2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Minor Prophets
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai |
Zechariah
| Quote: | Malachi
Kethuvim The Writings
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
The Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 & 2 Chronicles
I hope this helped.
Yes it did.
It proved you don't know what you're talking about.
The books listed as "the writings" were canonized AT THE END of the
BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY, when the Jews finished compiling them.
|
The fact that you are no longer disputing me on the divisions of the Jewish
canon indicates that you have learned something.
As for when the "Writings" were canonized, it was long after the Babylonian
captivity. Some authorities date it as late as the council of Jamnia in 90
c.e.
| Quote: | The traditions that went into the Pentateuch were compiled BEFORE the
Babylonian captivity, but borrowed heavily from BABYLONIAN MYTHOLOGY,
adapted to the JEWISH STORY.
|
On that I agree. Final editing of the Torah would most likely have been in
the period of the Babylonian exile. However, there are some who argue that
portions of "P" we were written after the return.
| Quote: | The books of the "prophets" were adapted EARLY in the Babylonian
captivity. (Note that Jeremiah is listed in "the prophets," but
Lamentations, which describes the fallen state of Jerusalem, which the
Jews always accepted as being written by Jeremiah, is listed IN THE
WRITINGS.)
|
Seeing that some of the prophetic books such as "Haggai", "Zechariah", and
"Malachi" were written after the Babylonian exile, you must be wrong. Plus
give them at least one hundred years before being canonized.
In all the books of the Later Prophets from "Isaiah" down, the author is
identified within the text. "Lamentations" is attributed to Jeramiah, but
itself is an anonomous book. Plus, "Lamentations" is not a prophetic book
These facts may account for it being left out of the Prophets. However, as
a Writing, "Lamatations" rates right up their with the other books in that
catagory.
| Quote: | THIS is why the LATTER BOOKS ARE IN THEIR OWN SCROLL,
and NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO with the JEW'S
ACCEPTANCE or REJECTION of DANIEL, as you falsely imply.
It simply has to do with the ORDER in which the books were canonized,
NOT THEIR VALIDITY.
|
Where did I imply that the Jews rejected "Daniel"? They included it among
the Writings. Being written in the middle of the second century b.c.e., it
was too late to be included in the Prophets.
--Wax |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 7, 3:14 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 7, 6:14 pm, "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is Dan 1:21 which
says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the king. Yet in Dan
10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
|
Nothing in Dan. 1:21 says anything about his death.
Dan 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the
reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Dan 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was
revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 7, 3:14 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 7, 6:14 pm, "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is Dan 1:21 which
says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the king. Yet in Dan
10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
|
No, it doesn't say anything about his death.
Dan 10:1 "In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was
revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar";
Dan 6:28 "So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the
reign of Cyrus the Persian." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dragonblaze
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 8, 3:32 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com>
wrote:
[snip the rest of the ignorant ranting]
| Quote: | Ike
P.S. There is no section of "prophets" in the Jewish canon to begin with.
|
Oi, ignoramus, what might Navi'im - and that is a section in the
Tanakh - mean?
Dragonblaze |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dragonblaze
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 8, 3:01 pm, "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is Dan 1:21
which says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Yet
in Dan 10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Daniel 1:21 NET Bible
Now Daniel lived on until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Daniel 10:1 NET Bible
In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a message was revealed to
Daniel (who was also called Belteshazzar)
I agree that most translations say "continued on", but the context does
not agree with your interpretation.
Why not? The context is about Daniel's role as an advisor to the king.
And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none
like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they
before the king.
And in all matters of wisdom [and] understanding, that the king
enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the
magicians [and] astrologers that [were] in all his realm.
And Daniel continued [even] unto the first year of king Cyrus.
Daniel 1:19-21
Your interpretation is not unreasonable, however I believe that you are
reading things into verse 21 which is not there. The problem is that in
Chapter 5, Daniel was definitely not one of Belshazzar's advisors. So
Daniel did not remain in that position. In fact, Belshazzar appears to not
even know who Daniel is until his wife tells him about Daniel, and that is
only on the last day of Belshazzar's rules.
Chapter 5 brings up two further problems. It is true that Belshazzar's
father went insane, but his father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. And
in interpreting the handwriting on the wall Daniel interpreted the first
"Mene" to mean Belshazzar's kingdom is brought to an end, and interprets the
"Teqel" to mean that the kingdom will be given over to the Medes and
Persians. These two prophecies appear to have been fulfilled in the last
two verses of the chapter where Belshazzar is killed and Darius the Mede
takes control of the kingdom.
But who was Darius the Mede? There is no Darius the Mede recorded in
history, and we know the names of all the Median kings. In fact, the Median
empire never ruled over Babylon. The beginning of chapter 6, indicates that
Darius is fully a King, and not just a satrap or local governor.
In fact, we come to another inconsistency.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
I find it amusing that in Dan 1:3-7 that Daniel and his friends are
selected to receive three years instructions in Babylonian literature
and language.In verses 1:18-20 we learn that after the appointed time
(three years) that Daniel and his friends pass with flying colors. It
says nothing about him advising the king.
It probably wasn't a full-time position.
Now, in Dan 2:1, in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the king
has some dreams. Nobody can interpret the dreams until Daniel does
so. As a result, Nebuchadrezzr grants Daniel authority over the entire
province of Babylon and also appoints Daniel's friends to high office
(Dan 2:46-49.). All of this. one year before Daniel and his friends
finished their three year training.
They were brought to Babylon because they were from the elite of
Hebrew society. This and Daniel's success with the dream was probably
enough for the king to decide to appoint them over the province.
Why would Nebuchadnezzar have to test the young men in the third year of his
reign, if they already held high positions by the second year of his reign?
|
There is another little problem associated with Daniel.
Daniel 2:48 : "Then the king promoted Daniel, gave him many great
gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief
prefect over all the wise men of Babylon."
Now we do have a full list of the governors of Babylon, and guess what
- no Daniel mentioned there, not even under the mangled quasi-
Babylonian name Belteshazzar.
Dragonblaze |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
colp
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 8, 10:02 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
| Quote: | colp wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:46 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com
wrote:
"Glenn" <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:g77utn02nmd@enews1.newsguy.com...
The Omission of History From God's Word
Daniel's "Gap" (omission of human history) is visible in Chapter Nine,
between verses 26 and 27.
Horseshit.
Why doesn't that suprise me, coming from you?
In c. 167 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes "confirmed" the covenant with Menelaus
that he had made earlier with the traitorous priest Jason, but within a
year, Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and committed the abomination of
desolation, taking away the "sacrifices and oblations" by raiding the temple
treasury and ordering that all tributes be paid to him.
It wasn't the abomination of desolation relevant to the gospels, as
this event had yet to occur in their time.
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth
understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Mark 13:14
Amazing, isn't it, that Jesus spoke of Daniel's prophecy of the
Abomination as being in the disciples future... but some claim that He
was a liar, or a fool, and that the abomination was historical to His day!
Bottom line, plain and simple, Preterists state that Jesus was a liar.
|
It's interesting the Preterism originated in defence of the universal
church of Rome, with the apocalyptic language of Revelation tending
to identify the RCC as the whore of Babylon when not interpreted in a
historical context. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
wax
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote
| Quote: | colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is
Dan 1:21 which says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus
the king. Yet in Dan 10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third
year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
Nothing in Dan. 1:21 says anything about his death.
Dan 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the
reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Dan 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was
revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar
|
Hello Linda,
I haven't heard from you lately. I was afraid you didn't love me anymore.
--Wax
Song of Songs 8:6
Set me like a cylinder seal over your heart,
like a signet on your arm.
For love is as strong as death,
passion is as unrelenting as Sheol. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
colp
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 9, 2:01 am, "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is Dan 1:21
which says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Yet
in Dan 10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Daniel 1:21 NET Bible
Now Daniel lived on until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Daniel 10:1 NET Bible
In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a message was revealed to
Daniel (who was also called Belteshazzar)
I agree that most translations say "continued on", but the context does
not agree with your interpretation.
Why not? The context is about Daniel's role as an advisor to the king.
And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none
like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they
before the king.
And in all matters of wisdom [and] understanding, that the king
enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the
magicians [and] astrologers that [were] in all his realm.
And Daniel continued [even] unto the first year of king Cyrus.
Daniel 1:19-21
Your interpretation is not unreasonable, however I believe that you are
reading things into verse 21 which is not there. The problem is that in
Chapter 5, Daniel was definitely not one of Belshazzar's advisors.
|
That depends on whether someone is an advisor because of his title or
because of the fact that he actually advises.
In chapter 5 Daniel advised Belshazzar.
| Quote: | So
Daniel did not remain in that position.
|
The first chapter doesn't require that he held a full-time position.
| Quote: | In fact, Belshazzar appears to not
even know who Daniel is until his wife tells him about Daniel, and that is
only on the last day of Belshazzar's rules.
Chapter 5 brings up two further problems. It is true that Belshazzar's
father went insane, but his father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar.
|
Semitic custom has a change of name with a change in role (eg Abram to
Abrhaham). Possibly Nabonidus was the name of Nebuchadnezzar during
and after his insanity.
| Quote: | And
in interpreting the handwriting on the wall Daniel interpreted the first
"Mene" to mean Belshazzar's kingdom is brought to an end, and interprets the
"Teqel" to mean that the kingdom will be given over to the Medes and
Persians. These two prophecies appear to have been fulfilled in the last
two verses of the chapter where Belshazzar is killed and Darius the Mede
takes control of the kingdom.
|
According to chapter 5 the kingdom was divided between the Medes and
the Persians.
| Quote: |
But who was Darius the Mede? There is no Darius the Mede recorded in
history, and we know the names of all the Median kings. In fact, the Median
empire never ruled over Babylon.
|
If the kingdom was divided then this wouldn't be a problem for
historical accuracy.
| Quote: | The beginning of chapter 6, indicates that
Darius is fully a King, and not just a satrap or local governor.
|
Possibly he was known by another name.
| Quote: |
In fact, we come to another inconsistency.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
I find it amusing that in Dan 1:3-7 that Daniel and his friends are
selected to receive three years instructions in Babylonian literature
and language.In verses 1:18-20 we learn that after the appointed time
(three years) that Daniel and his friends pass with flying colors. It
says nothing about him advising the king.
It probably wasn't a full-time position.
Now, in Dan 2:1, in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the king
has some dreams. Nobody can interpret the dreams until Daniel does
so. As a result, Nebuchadrezzr grants Daniel authority over the entire
province of Babylon and also appoints Daniel's friends to high office
(Dan 2:46-49.). All of this. one year before Daniel and his friends
finished their three year training.
They were brought to Babylon because they were from the elite of
Hebrew society. This and Daniel's success with the dream was probably
enough for the king to decide to appoint them over the province.
Why would Nebuchadnezzar have to test the young men in the third year of his
reign, if they already held high positions by the second year of his reign?
|
I don't know, perhaps because they were from a foreign culture?
Anyway, how does this affect any possible internal contradictions? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 8, 8:37 pm, "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote
colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is
Dan 1:21 which says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus
the king. Yet in Dan 10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third
year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
Nothing in Dan. 1:21 says anything about his death.
Dan 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the
reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Dan 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was
revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar
Hello Linda,
I haven't heard from you lately. I was afraid you didn't love me anymore.
|
Still having fun? You went too far in the other thread. I have been
mad at you.
| Quote: | --Wax
Song of Songs 8:6
Set me like a cylinder seal over your heart,
like a signet on your arm.
For love is as strong as death,
passion is as unrelenting as Sheol. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
wax
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"colp" <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote
| Quote: | "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is Dan
1:21
which says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Yet
in Dan 10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Daniel 1:21 NET Bible
Now Daniel lived on until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Daniel 10:1 NET Bible
In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a message was revealed to
Daniel (who was also called Belteshazzar)
I agree that most translations say "continued on", but the context does
not agree with your interpretation.
Why not? The context is about Daniel's role as an advisor to the king.
And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none
like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they
before the king.
And in all matters of wisdom [and] understanding, that the king
enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the
magicians [and] astrologers that [were] in all his realm.
And Daniel continued [even] unto the first year of king Cyrus.
Daniel 1:19-21
Your interpretation is not unreasonable, however I believe that you are
reading things into verse 21 which is not there. The problem is that in
Chapter 5, Daniel was definitely not one of Belshazzar's advisors.
That depends on whether someone is an advisor because of his title or
because of the fact that he actually advises.
In chapter 5 Daniel advised Belshazzar.
|
What title? No title is given.
| Quote: | So
Daniel did not remain in that position.
The first chapter doesn't require that he held a full-time position.
|
The translation you gave says, "And Daniel continued unto the first year of
king Cyrus."
It doesn't have to be a full time position, but it has to be a continuos
position, and it is clear from chapter 5 that Daniel had not had any
position before king Belshazzar. The kings wife had to tell him who Daniel
was.
| Quote: |
In fact, Belshazzar appears to not
even know who Daniel is until his wife tells him about Daniel, and that
is
only on the last day of Belshazzar's rules.
Chapter 5 brings up two further problems. It is true that Belshazzar's
father went insane, but his father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar.
Semitic custom has a change of name with a change in role (eg Abram to
Abrhaham). Possibly Nabonidus was the name of Nebuchadnezzar during
and after his insanity.
|
You are reaching for that one, but it doesn't help. In Dan 5: Belshazzar
asks David, "Are you that Daniel who is one of the captives of Judah, whom
my father the king brought from Judah?" It was Nebuchadnezzar who brought
the captives back, not Nabonidus. Nabonidus was the father of Belshazzar,
not Nebuchadnezzar.
Nor could Belshazzar have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar as his ancester.
Nabonidus was a Babylonian, and had come to the throne when he overthrew the
hated Chaldean dynasty to which Nebuchadnezzar belonged.
| Quote: | And in interpreting the handwriting on the wall Daniel interpreted the
first
"Mene" to mean Belshazzar's kingdom is brought to an end, and interprets
the "Teqel" to mean that the kingdom will be given over to the Medes
and Persians. These two prophecies appear to have been fulfilled in the
last two verses of the chapter where Belshazzar is killed and Darius the
Mede takes control of the kingdom.
According to chapter 5 the kingdom was divided between the Medes and
the Persians.
But who was Darius the Mede? There is no Darius the Mede recorded
in history, and we know the names of all the Median kings. In fact, the
Median empire never ruled over Babylon.
If the kingdom was divided then this wouldn't be a problem for
historical accuracy.
|
The following chapters do not indicate a divided kingdom. Both Darius the
Mede and Cyrus the Persian appear to rule the entire kingdom. The Medeian
empire no longer existed anyway, therefore you couldn't divide it up between
the Medes and Persians.
| Quote: | The beginning of chapter 6, indicates that
Darius is fully a King, and not just a satrap or local governor.
Possibly he was known by another name.
|
Nabonidus and Belshazzar died on the day, or within a few days, of the fall
of Babylon to the Persian empire under Cyrus. So there could not have been
a Darius the Mede under any name before.
| Quote: | In fact, we come to another inconsistency.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
I find it amusing that in Dan 1:3-7 that Daniel and his friends are
selected to receive three years instructions in Babylonian literature
and language.In verses 1:18-20 we learn that after the appointed time
(three years) that Daniel and his friends pass with flying colors. It
says nothing about him advising the king.
It probably wasn't a full-time position.
Now, in Dan 2:1, in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign,
the king has some dreams. Nobody can interpret the dreams until
Daniel does so. As a result, Nebuchadrezzr grants Daniel authority
over the entire province of Babylon and also appoints Daniel's
friends to high office (Dan 2:46-49.). All of this. one year before
Daniel and his friends finished their three year training.
They were brought to Babylon because they were from the elite of
Hebrew society. This and Daniel's success with the dream was probably
enough for the king to decide to appoint them over the province.
Why would Nebuchadnezzar have to test the young men in the third
year of his reign, if they already held high positions by the second year
of his reign?
I don't know, perhaps because they were from a foreign culture?
Anyway, how does this affect any possible internal contradictions?
|
You don't know, because the situation does not make sense. If Daniel had
been doing a good job in his office, there would be no reason to test his
knowledge of Babylonian culture and language. If Daniel had been doing a
poor job, then the king would have replaced him regardless of how well he
did in his classes.
--Wax
Job 38:4
Where were you
when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you possess understanding! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 10, 3:54 am, "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is Dan
1:21
which says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Yet
in Dan 10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Daniel 1:21 NET Bible
Now Daniel lived on until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Daniel 10:1 NET Bible
In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a message was revealed to
Daniel (who was also called Belteshazzar)
I agree that most translations say "continued on", but the context does
not agree with your interpretation.
Why not? The context is about Daniel's role as an advisor to the king..
And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none
like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they
before the king.
And in all matters of wisdom [and] understanding, that the king
enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the
magicians [and] astrologers that [were] in all his realm.
And Daniel continued [even] unto the first year of king Cyrus.
Daniel 1:19-21
Your interpretation is not unreasonable, however I believe that you are
reading things into verse 21 which is not there. The problem is that in
Chapter 5, Daniel was definitely not one of Belshazzar's advisors.
That depends on whether someone is an advisor because of his title or
because of the fact that he actually advises.
In chapter 5 Daniel advised Belshazzar.
What title? No title is given.
So
Daniel did not remain in that position.
The first chapter doesn't require that he held a full-time position.
The translation you gave says, "And Daniel continued unto the first year of
king Cyrus."
It doesn't have to be a full time position, but it has to be a continuos
position, and it is clear from chapter 5 that Daniel had not had any
position before king Belshazzar. The kings wife had to tell him who Daniel
was.
In fact, Belshazzar appears to not
even know who Daniel is until his wife tells him about Daniel, and that
is
only on the last day of Belshazzar's rules.
Chapter 5 brings up two further problems. It is true that Belshazzar's
father went insane, but his father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar.
Semitic custom has a change of name with a change in role (eg Abram to
Abrhaham). Possibly Nabonidus was the name of Nebuchadnezzar during
and after his insanity.
You are reaching for that one, but it doesn't help. In Dan 5: Belshazzar
asks David, "Are you that Daniel who is one of the captives of Judah, whom
my father the king brought from Judah?" It was Nebuchadnezzar who brought
the captives back, not Nabonidus. Nabonidus was the father of Belshazzar,
not Nebuchadnezzar.
Nor could Belshazzar have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar as his ancester.
Nabonidus was a Babylonian, and had come to the throne when he overthrew the
hated Chaldean dynasty to which Nebuchadnezzar belonged.
And in interpreting the handwriting on the wall Daniel interpreted the
first
"Mene" to mean Belshazzar's kingdom is brought to an end, and interprets
the "Teqel" to mean that the kingdom will be given over to the Medes
and Persians. These two prophecies appear to have been fulfilled in the
last two verses of the chapter where Belshazzar is killed and Darius the
Mede takes control of the kingdom.
According to chapter 5 the kingdom was divided between the Medes and
the Persians.
But who was Darius the Mede? There is no Darius the Mede recorded
in history, and we know the names of all the Median kings. In fact, the
Median empire never ruled over Babylon.
If the kingdom was divided then this wouldn't be a problem for
historical accuracy.
The following chapters do not indicate a divided kingdom. Both Darius the
Mede and Cyrus the Persian appear to rule the entire kingdom. The Medeian
empire no longer existed anyway, therefore you couldn't divide it up between
the Medes and Persians.
The beginning of chapter 6, indicates that
Darius is fully a King, and not just a satrap or local governor.
Possibly he was known by another name.
Nabonidus and Belshazzar died on the day, or within a few days, of the fall
of Babylon to the Persian empire under Cyrus. So there could not have been
a Darius the Mede under any name before.
In fact, we come to another inconsistency.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
I find it amusing that in Dan 1:3-7 that Daniel and his friends are
selected to receive three years instructions in Babylonian literature
and language.In verses 1:18-20 we learn that after the appointed time
(three years) that Daniel and his friends pass with flying colors. It
says nothing about him advising the king.
It probably wasn't a full-time position.
Now, in Dan 2:1, in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign,
the king has some dreams. Nobody can interpret the dreams until
Daniel does so. As a result, Nebuchadrezzr grants Daniel authority
over the entire province of Babylon and also appoints Daniel's
friends to high office (Dan 2:46-49.). All of this. one year before
Daniel and his friends finished their three year training.
They were brought to Babylon because they were from the elite of
Hebrew society. This and Daniel's success with the dream was probably
enough for the king to decide to appoint them over the province.
Why would Nebuchadnezzar have to test the young men in the third
year of his reign, if they already held high positions by the second year
of his reign?
I don't know, perhaps because they were from a foreign culture?
Anyway, how does this affect any possible internal contradictions?
You don't know, because the situation does not make sense. If Daniel had
been doing a good job in his office, there would be no reason to test his
knowledge of Babylonian culture and language. If Daniel had been doing a
poor job, then the king would have replaced him regardless of how well he
did in his classes.
--Wax
Job 38:4
Where were you
when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you possess understanding!
|
H1867
דּריוש×
dâreyâvêsh
BDB Definition:
Darius = “lordâ€
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Identity_of_.22Darius_the_Mede.22
"Identity of "Darius the Mede"
The personage whom Daniel describes as taking control of Babylon after
Belshazzar is deposed is named as Darius the Mede, who rules over
Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. Daniel reports that Darius was 'about 62
years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon.'
'Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus', while mentioned in the book of
Daniel, the works of Flavius Josephus, and Jewish Midrash material, is
not known from any primary historical sources.[citation needed]
As Darius the Mede is unknown to any other source[citation needed],
many historians view his presence in Daniel as simply a mistake of a
much later author, who has perhaps inadvertently placed the Persian
King Darius I at an earlier date than he actually reigned. Three key
pieces of information seem to support this. Firstly, Darius I, like
Cyrus, also conquered Babylon and personally commanded the Persian
army that took the city in 522 BC to put down a rebellion. Secondly,
Daniel's reference to Darius organising the empire by appointing
satraps and administrators fits Darius I perfectly: he is known to
history as the Persian king par excellence who professionalised the
empire's bureaucracy and organised it into satrapies and tax
districts. Thirdly, Darius I was an important figure in Jewish
history, remembered as a king associated with Cyrus who permitted the
returned exiles to rebuild the temple (see Ezra chs 1-6).
Historians criticize the notion of a separate Mede rule by pointing
out that the Persians at that point in history had control over the
Medes, and that the contemporary cuneiform documents, such as the
Cyrus Cylinder and the Babylonian Chronicle, leaves no room for any
Mede occupation of Babylon before the Persians under Cyrus conquered
it. It has been suggested[5] that the author's apparent confusion on
this issue could be due to his reliance on Jeremiah (see Daniel 9:2):
and Jeremiah prophesied (in Jeremiah 51:11), at the height of the
Median empire's power, that Babylon would fall to the Medes. An author
writing centuries later, and under the impression that Jeremiah was a
true prophet, might simply assume that a Mede must have taken Babylon.
Among writers maintaining an early date for the Book of Daniel, there
are several interpretations of the identity of Darius the Mede. On the
difficulty of ascertaining the correct view, H.H. Rowley in Darius the
Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel states: "[T]he
references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been
recognized as providing the most serious historical problems in the
book." ***** His view concludes that Darius is just another name for
Cyrus the Great, who captured Babylon on October 15th, 539 BCE. *****
Another view, promoted by John Whitcomb (though first proposed by
Babelon in 1883) in his 1959 book, Darius the Mede says that Darius is
another name for the historical figure of Gubaru (sometimes spelled as
Ugbaru). The third view (also that of Syncellus) sees Darius as
another name for Astyages, the last Mede king who was ultimately
deposed by Cyrus. Josephus makes Darius the son of Astyages, and uncle
of Cyrus. Several scholars in the past (including Calvin, Ussher and
John Gill) as well as in more recent times (eg. Keil and Delitzsch Vol.
6, p.546-548) have thus attempted to identify 'Darius the Mede' with a
certain Cyaxares II, who is mentioned as having the same relationships
by Xenophon[6]
"Darius the Mede" as Cyrus the Great: Unlike Gubaru or Astyages, Cyrus
the Great of Persia was the king who took over the Babylonian Empire.
Cyrus was also married to a Mede, and himself had Medean blood. An
analysis of variant early texts, particularly the Septuagint, reveals
that the names "Darius" (DRYWS in Hebrew) and "Cyrus" (KRWS) are
reversed in 11:1, and may have been miscopied elsewhere[citation
needed]. The appellation "Mede" (Heb. MADAI) may have been used as an
ethnic term to apply to Persians as well, who were of the same
race[7]. In addition, Dan. 6:28, "So Daniel prospered during the reign
of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian," could also be
translated, "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is,
the reign of Cyrus the Persian."...
There's more at that site. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Aug 10, 5:16 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 10, 3:54 am, "wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
"wax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There are also internal inconsistencies. The most obvious is Dan
1:21
which says that Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Yet
in Dan 10:1 Daniel receives a prophecy in the third year of Cyrus.
Daniel 1:21 does not say anything about when Daniel died. The verse
describes a continuation, which, in context, refers to Daniels advice
to the king.
Daniel 1:21 NET Bible
Now Daniel lived on until the first year of Cyrus the king.
Daniel 10:1 NET Bible
In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a message was revealed to
Daniel (who was also called Belteshazzar)
I agree that most translations say "continued on", but the context does
not agree with your interpretation.
Why not? The context is about Daniel's role as an advisor to the king.
And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none
like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they
before the king.
And in all matters of wisdom [and] understanding, that the king
enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the
magicians [and] astrologers that [were] in all his realm.
And Daniel continued [even] unto the first year of king Cyrus.
Daniel 1:19-21
Your interpretation is not unreasonable, however I believe that you are
reading things into verse 21 which is not there. The problem is that in
Chapter 5, Daniel was definitely not one of Belshazzar's advisors.
That depends on whether someone is an advisor because of his title or
because of the fact that he actually advises.
In chapter 5 Daniel advised Belshazzar.
What title? No title is given.
So
Daniel did not remain in that position.
The first chapter doesn't require that he held a full-time position.
The translation you gave says, "And Daniel continued unto the first year of
king Cyrus."
It doesn't have to be a full time position, but it has to be a continuos
position, and it is clear from chapter 5 that Daniel had not had any
position before king Belshazzar. The kings wife had to tell him who Daniel
was.
In fact, Belshazzar appears to not
even know who Daniel is until his wife tells him about Daniel, and that
is
only on the last day of Belshazzar's rules.
Chapter 5 brings up two further problems. It is true that Belshazzar's
father went insane, but his father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar..
Semitic custom has a change of name with a change in role (eg Abram to
Abrhaham). Possibly Nabonidus was the name of Nebuchadnezzar during
and after his insanity.
You are reaching for that one, but it doesn't help. In Dan 5: Belshazzar
asks David, "Are you that Daniel who is one of the captives of Judah, whom
my father the king brought from Judah?" It was Nebuchadnezzar who brought
the captives back, not Nabonidus. Nabonidus was the father of Belshazzar,
not Nebuchadnezzar.
Nor could Belshazzar have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar as his ancester.
Nabonidus was a Babylonian, and had come to the throne when he overthrew the
hated Chaldean dynasty to which Nebuchadnezzar belonged.
And in interpreting the handwriting on the wall Daniel interpreted the
first
"Mene" to mean Belshazzar's kingdom is brought to an end, and interprets
the "Teqel" to mean that the kingdom will be given over to the Medes
and Persians. These two prophecies appear to have been fulfilled in the
last two verses of the chapter where Belshazzar is killed and Darius the
Mede takes control of the kingdom.
According to chapter 5 the kingdom was divided between the Medes and
the Persians.
But who was Darius the Mede? There is no Darius the Mede recorded
in history, and we know the names of all the Median kings. In fact, the
Median empire never ruled over Babylon.
If the kingdom was divided then this wouldn't be a problem for
historical accuracy.
The following chapters do not indicate a divided kingdom. Both Darius the
Mede and Cyrus the Persian appear to rule the entire kingdom. The Medeian
empire no longer existed anyway, therefore you couldn't divide it up between
the Medes and Persians.
The beginning of chapter 6, indicates that
Darius is fully a King, and not just a satrap or local governor.
Possibly he was known by another name.
Nabonidus and Belshazzar died on the day, or within a few days, of the fall
of Babylon to the Persian empire under Cyrus. So there could not have been
a Darius the Mede under any name before.
In fact, we come to another inconsistency.
Have you got any other internal inconsistencies, wax?
I find it amusing that in Dan 1:3-7 that Daniel and his friends are
selected to receive three years instructions in Babylonian literature
and language.In verses 1:18-20 we learn that after the appointed time
(three years) that Daniel and his friends pass with flying colors. It
says nothing about him advising the king.
It probably wasn't a full-time position.
Now, in Dan 2:1, in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign,
the king has some dreams. Nobody can interpret the dreams until
Daniel does so. As a result, Nebuchadrezzr grants Daniel authority
over the entire province of Babylon and also appoints Daniel's
friends to high office (Dan 2:46-49.). All of this. one year before
Daniel and his friends finished their three year training.
They were brought to Babylon because they were from the elite of
Hebrew society. This and Daniel's success with the dream was probably
enough for the king to decide to appoint them over the province.
Why would Nebuchadnezzar have to test the young men in the third
year of his reign, if they already held high positions by the second year
of his reign?
I don't know, perhaps because they were from a foreign culture?
Anyway, how does this affect any possible internal contradictions?
You don't know, because the situation does not make sense. If Daniel had
been doing a good job in his office, there would be no reason to test his
knowledge of Babylonian culture and language. If Daniel had been doing a
poor job, then the king would have replaced him regardless of how well he
did in his classes.
--Wax
Job 38:4
Where were you
when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you possess understanding!
H1867
דּריוש×
dâreyâvêsh
BDB Definition:
Darius = “lordâ€
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Identity_of_.22Darius_the....
"Identity of "Darius the Mede"
The personage whom Daniel describes as taking control of Babylon after
Belshazzar is deposed is named as Darius the Mede, who rules over
Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. Daniel reports that Darius was 'about 62
years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon.'
'Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus', while mentioned in the book of
Daniel, the works of Flavius Josephus, and Jewish Midrash material, is
not known from any primary historical sources.[citation needed]
As Darius the Mede is unknown to any other source[citation needed],
many historians view his presence in Daniel as simply a mistake of a
much later author, who has perhaps inadvertently placed the Persian
King Darius I at an earlier date than he actually reigned. Three key
pieces of information seem to support this. Firstly, Darius I, like
Cyrus, also conquered Babylon and personally commanded the Persian
army that took the city in 522 BC to put down a rebellion. Secondly,
Daniel's reference to Darius organising the empire by appointing
satraps and administrators fits Darius I perfectly: he is known to
history as the Persian king par excellence who professionalised the
empire's bureaucracy and organised it into satrapies and tax
districts. Thirdly, Darius I was an important figure in Jewish
history, remembered as a king associated with Cyrus who permitted the
returned exiles to rebuild the temple (see Ezra chs 1-6).
Historians criticize the notion of a separate Mede rule by pointing
out that the Persians at that point in history had control over the
Medes, and that the contemporary cuneiform documents, such as the
Cyrus Cylinder and the Babylonian Chronicle, leaves no room for any
Mede occupation of Babylon before the Persians under Cyrus conquered
it. It has been suggested[5] that the author's apparent confusion on
this issue could be due to his reliance on Jeremiah (see Daniel 9:2):
and Jeremiah prophesied (in Jeremiah 51:11), at the height of the
Median empire's power, that Babylon would fall to the Medes. An author
writing centuries later, and under the impression that Jeremiah was a
true prophet, might simply assume that a Mede must have taken Babylon.
Among writers maintaining an early date for the Book of Daniel, there
are several interpretations of the identity of Darius the Mede. On the
difficulty of ascertaining the correct view, H.H. Rowley in Darius the
Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel states: "[T]he
references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been
recognized as providing the most serious historical problems in the
book." ***** His view concludes that Darius is just another name for
Cyrus the Great, who captured Babylon on October 15th, 539 BCE. ***** ...
read more »
|
Here is more from the same website - note the second paragraph:
"Darius the Mede" as Gubaru/Ugbaru: Gubaru is the historical general
known to have actually led the army that captured Babylon (see Pierre
Briant below), according to Nabonidus. It is possible that Cyrus would
have rewarded Gubaru with a regional governorship for capturing the
capital of the Babylonian Empire and virtually ending the war.
Furthermore, under the first translation of Dan. 6:28, Darius ruled
during the reign of Cyrus, and Dan. 5:31 states that Darius the Mede
"received the kingdom" of the Chaldeans. Complicating this view is the
question of whether or not Gubaru and Ugbaru are two different people,
or simply a clerical mistake of the same name.
**** Also, verse 1 of "Bel and the Dragon" (chapter 14 in Greek
Daniel) references Astyages the Mede, who was indeed the last king
before Cyrus; but nearly the same verse is added in the Greek LXX
after the end of chapter 6, only reading "Darius" in place of
"Astyages". ( LXX Dan. 14:1 and Dan 6:29) ****
"Darius the Mede" as king of the Medes: Talmudic and midrashic sources
describe Darius the Mede as the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus the
Great, to whom Cyrus owed fealty. After Darius's death, Cyrus took the
throne. According to Yossipon, the Ahasuerus in the book of Esther was
the son of Darius the Mede. The Midrash Tanchuma describes the fall of
Babylon as described in Daniel and adds to the narrative Darius taking
Vashti, the daughter of Belshazzar, as a wife for his son Ahasuerus.
[edit] Belshazzar
For many years Belshazzar (Akk. bêl-šar-usur), was an enigma for
historians. The book of Daniel states that he was “king†(Ar. מֶלֶך)
the night that Babylon fell (chap. 5) and says that his “father†(Ar.
×ַב) was Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 13, 1 . Prior to 1854,
archeologists and historians knew nothing of Belshazzar outside the
book of Daniel. Indeed, while the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch
(Baruch 1:11, 12) and the writings of Josephus (Antiquities 10.11.2-4
§231-247) do mention Belshazzar, the references to Belshazzar in these
works are ultimately dependent on the book of Daniel (Collins, p. 32).
Both Xenophon (Cyropaedia, 7.5.28-30[8]) and Herodotus (The Histories,
1.191) recount the fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great, yet neither of
these writers give the name of the king of Babylon. Additionally, both
Berossus’ and Ptolemy’s king lists have Nabonidus (Akk. Nabû-nÄ'id) as
the last king of Babylon with no mention of Belshazzar.
From that time new evidence from Babylon has verified the existence of
Belshazzar as well as his co-regency during the absence of his father,
Nabonidus, in Temâ. For example, In the Nabonidus Cylinder, Nabonidus
petitions the god Sin as follows: “And as for Belshazzar my firstborn
son, my own child, let the fear of your great divinity be in his
heart, and may he commit no sin; may he enjoy happiness in life". In
addition, The Verse Account of Nabonidus (British Museum tablet 38299)
states, “[Nabonidus] entrusted the army (?) to his oldest son, his
first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He
let everything go, entrusted the kingship (Akk. šarrûtu) to him, and,
himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of
Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west†(Col. II,
lines 18 - 29. 1. In line with the statement that Nabonidus
"entrusted the kingship" to Belshazzar in his absence, there is
evidence that Belshazzar's name was used with his father's in oath
formulas, that he was able to pass edicts, lease farmlands, and
receive the "royal privilege" to eat the food offered to the gods.
The available information concerning Belshazzar's regency goes silent
after Nabonidus' fourteenth year. According to the Nabonidus
Chronicle, Nabonidus was back from Temâ by his seventeenth year and
celebrated the New Year’s Festival (Akk. Akitu). Whether or not
Belshazzar continued his regency under his father's authority after
his return cannot be demonstrated from the available documents. Some
scholars have argued that the non-observance of the Akitu during
Nabonidus' absence demonstrates that Belshazzar was not the "king"
since it shows that he could not officiate over the festival. However,
The Verse Account of Nabonidus says, "Nabonidus said: 'I shall build a
temple for him (the Moon god Sin)...till I have achieved this, till I
have obtained what is my desire, I shall omit all festivals, I shall
order even the New Year's festival to cease!'" Thus, the halting of
the Akitu may have been done by the king's command rather an inability
on the part of Belshazzar. This stated, the fact that Belshazzar did
not disobey his father's command is evidence that Nabonidus remained
the official (and actual) king of Babylon.
There is no evidence that Belshazzar ever officially held the title of
"king" as he is never called such in the Nabonidus Cylinder.
Furthermore, the Aramaic term מלך (mlk, king) applied in Daniel could
be used to translate titles of various levels of high ranking
officials. (This can be seen in the case of a 9th century BC Akkadian/
Aramaic bilinguagal inscription found at Tel Fekheriyeh in 1979 which
reads "king" for the Akkadian "governor".) A contract tablet dating to
the third year of his regency (550 B.C.E) includes the designation
"son of the king." [9] This, of course, is not proof that he possessed
any status as the official king of Babylon. The bottom line is that
Nabonidus was still alive when Cyrus conquered Babylon, and had not
been replaced as the official king of Babylon by Belshazzar.
No known extrabiblical text indicates a blood relation between
Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Historians have objected to this aspect
of the record in Daniel. There were several rulers over Babylon
between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the rulership of Nabonidus and
Belshazzar. Many scholars have attributed the lack of mention of these
rulers as indicating the author mistakenly thought that the two
rulerships were consecutive. The Jewish Encyclopedia, holding to a
later date of the book (see 'Date'), supposed that "during the long
period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily
have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus,
would have been taken as the successor of the well-known
Nebuchadnezzar." Based on this reasoning, historians have considered
the reference to Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar simply an
error based on the above misconception.
However, there is another explanation. Belshazzar is never called an
independent king in the book of Daniel.[10] In fact, in Daniel 5:7,
16, 29 Belshazzar implies that he is the second ruler in the kingdom,
not the sole ruler; and yet, he has sufficient power to make someone
the third ruler in the kingdom. Secondly, we should note that co-
regencies were not that uncommon in the Ancient Near East.[11] Third,
we should also note that, Wilson, in the previous reference, showed
that the very word "king" was used in a variety of ways other than
that which we use today. | |
