What Are The Best Examples Of Prophecies From The Bible That Have Come True? (Abraham, cult)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That's why I have a lot of time for you. You don't just say 'you don't want to believe in the Bible' - well, you do, but you also give something to follow up. Strictly speaking, you should show your work rather than present conclusions based on supposed authority. However, it's something I'll look up myself.

(later)

Martin Noth-

I don't know how recent, since he died during an expedition to Israel. I read some of his ideas which seem to be based on taking the OT as valid history - a questionable claim.

I can't find anything re Noth to use on Daniel. So I can't evaluate your assertion that he 'recently' postulated an earlier dating. How early? On what basis? How can archaeology assist? I will keep looking but I suppose you wouldn't care to provide some evidence for your plonking assertions of evidence for an early (ought to be pre - Maccabean) date for Daniel?

Later.

There's a lot of discussion, some of it very flimsy, for example: Ok Antiochus up to the defeat, but what purpose do the later chapters serve? And how would the jews like the parallel of Antiochus coming back to rule them again? This is palpable nonsense. The later speculations are a happy ever after coda to the liberation of Judea. The Babylon episode is set forward as evidence that God can pull down kings using other kings. Thus the Ptolemeys will pull down Antiochus. The analogy need not be pushed too far.

As to an early date. I found this on Wiki.

"According to John Collins in his 1993 commentary, Daniel, Hermeneia Commentary, the Aramaic in Daniel is of a later form than that used in the Samaria correspondence, but slightly earlier than the form used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning that the Aramaic chapters 2-6 may have been written earlier in the Hellenistic period than the rest of the book, with the vision in chapter 7 being the only Aramaic portion dating to the time of Antiochus. The Hebrew portion is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning chapters 1 and 8-12 were in existence before the late 2nd century BC.[73][74]

Contrary to the above, the Expositor's Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1990) claims that the language of Daniel, in comparison with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Hellenistic period, "prove quite conclusively to any scholar that the second-century date and Palestinian provenance of the Book of Daniel cannot be upheld any longer without violence being done to the science of linguistics." It adds that the serious mistakes of the Septuagint to render many Persian and Accadian terms, as the offices mentioned in Dan. 3:3, proves ignorance of words of the old past, already forgotten in the Hellenistic period, indicating that the Book of Daniel was written in the late 6th century BCE."


If true that is a problem. It certainly argues access to terms common in Babylon and Persia, though it notably doesn't argue that the Aramaic itself looks of early date and hardly argues a non - Palestinian composition. Obviously we cannot rule out a 2nd c BC historian using earlier material (somewhat sloppily) just as Luke used his history but made mistakes. It seems a rather thin objection to the very strong evidence that the events of the 2nd c BC is what is being described in prophetic guise.

We should not be too hasty to forget to apply the 'control'. Babylonian 'terms' (that is idioms) can also appear in other languages including Aramaic and Hebrew. The link below suggests that it is not quite a question of terms that can only have been used in Babylonian Akkadian but more that the Septuagint would have used greek idioms.

The use of Persian idioms is more compelling but, then Aramaic was derived from the persian empire.

"there is now further evidence for the anachronistic use of Persian terminology within a Babylonian setting in the book of Daniel. This study also suggests that Old Persian influenced the book of Daniel and Imperial Aramaic in more ways than hitherto estimated,"

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Langua...m_in_bible.htm

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That's why I have a lot of time for you. You don't just say 'you don't want to believe in the Bible' - well, you do, but you also give something to follow up. Strictly speaking, you should show your work rather than present conclusions based on supposed authority. However, it's something I'll look up myself.

(later)

C34 An ad hom accusation of bias, hardly worthy of comment.



As demonstrated, it does, meticulously to the date 167 BC. It does not match Babylonian/Perian history.

This impudent putting of Campbell's preferred conclusions into scholars' mouths is the summit of chutzpha.

Its predictions fall down one after the other, even if we take them as written after the event.

I don't know how recent, since he died during an expedition to israel. I rad some of his idas which seem to be based on taking the OT as valid history - a questionable claim.

I can't find anything re Noth to use on Daniel. So I can't evaluate your assertion that he 'recently' postulated an earlier dating. How early? On what basis? How can archaeology assist? I will keep looking but I suppose you wouldn't care to provide some evidence for your plonking assertions of evidence for an early (ought to be pre - Maccabean) date for Daniel?

Yes I believe the link below will help show why I and others believe that the Book of Daniel was written much earlier.

"The combined effect of the above evidence points us very strongly away from the Maccabean thesis--"the arguments for the Maccabean dating of Daniel can hardly be said to be convincing. Daniel records details about 6th century Babylon that were subsequently lost shortly after it's fall. We have seen that the language of the book requires a very early date--with the best fit being during the times it describes in detail. As Baldwin put it: "When all the relevant factors are taken into account... a late sixth-or early fifth-century date of writing for the whole best suits the evidence."

The Date of the Book of Daniel

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

To whom it may concern - There were several discussions on this, the last one exhaustive. The result it that:

(1) the East gate which is blocked is not the present one which was built in or shortly after the Byzantine rule in Judea, and that on the foundations of the Herodian gate. A supposed earlier gate under the foundations is doubtful.

(2) even if the prophecy in fact relates to the present blocked gate (though it seems to refer to the Herodian gate), it is not the gate of Ezekiel's prophecy as it is in the outer compound wall east entrance (solomon's porch) and the ezekiel prophecy refers to the East - facing gate of the Temple sanctuary itself which was always kept shut unless a 'prince' passed through. The 'prophecy' relates to ritual procedure, not to the coming of a later Messiah, which brings us to:

(3) even if the prophecy was a true one, it must have already been fulfilled by Jesus entering the East gate - Solomon's porch or he is not the messiah.

That should definitively knock The east gate on the head in the way C34 uses it - to relate to events yet to come. It is utter impudence to trot this out again in the hope of fooling someone.

The gate found under the present East Gate is not doubtful at all. They have a picture of it. And it's stone works are massive. The prophecy relates to the gate we see today. And that is because the prophecy states it would be the Porch Gate that would be sealed up, not the orginal gate. And the prophecy does not relate to a ritual opening. And that is because the prophecy tells us, that (NO ONE) will be allowed to past through. And Jesus must of passed through the Old gate when He walked the earth. Yet the prophecy is not speaking of the Old Gate, it is speaking of the (NEW PORCH GATE), that was added later by non believers. And that Gate was built some hundreds of years ago, not two thousand years ago. And once the New Porch Gate was sealed, it would remain so until the Prince returns. And it appears to me, you create your own facts that only exist in your own mind. And in fact the most important parts of this prophecy appear to have gone right over your head.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The 'Big Picture' eh? Sorry. The Babylonian/Persian history in Daniel is too sloppy to be taken as writen by somone living at the time.

Maybe you don't understand it. You engaged in a lot of acrobatics for nothing

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

There were 4 rulers after Nebuchadrezzar II and the the last was Nabonidus, not Belshazzar, though he might have been governor of Babylon.

Dynasty XI of Babylon (Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean)
Nabu-apla-usur (Nabopolassar) 626 - 605 BCE
Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nebuchadrezzar) II 605 - 562 BCE
Amel-Marduk 562 - 560 BCE
Nergal-šar-usur (Nergal-sharezer) 560 - 556 BCE
Labaši-Marduk 556 BCE
Nabu-na'id (Nabonidus) 556 - 539 BCE
In 539 BCE, Babylon was captured by Cyrus the Great of Persia, and lost its independence.

Your king list is wrong. This is the correct one:


Dynasty XI of Babylon (Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean)
Nabu-apla-usur (Nabopolassar) 626 - 605 BCE
Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nebuchadrezzar) II 605 - 562 BCE
Amel-Marduk 562 - 560 BCE
Nergal-šar-usur (Nergal-sharezer) 560 - 556 BCE
Labaši-Marduk 556 BCE
Nabu-na'id (Nabonidus) 556 - 553 BCE

Belshazzar 553-539 BCE
In 539 BCE, Babylon was captured by Cyrus the Great of Persia, and lost its independence.

That’s the correct king list. If you have access to JSTOR you can find any number of peer-reviewed articles written by university archaeologists that clearly show Nabonidus named Belshazzar co-regent so that he could go off and devote himself to the Sin. Belshazzar really was a son of Nabonidus.


Now we have that settled, we can look at an error compounded by an error, compounded by an error, compounded by even more errors. When in doubt, always go to the source.

You have provided this red-herring:

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Darius the Mede
Daniel records that the Babylonian Empire fell to a certain king by the name of Darius, a Mede. (5:31, 9:1). Neither the Babylonian nor the Persian histories record such a person. Herodotus, who wrote his history about 440 BCE, records that Babylon fell to the Persian army, under the control of King Cyrus. Darius the Mede is never mentioned. In fact, the Median kingdom was conquered and assimilated by Cyrus as early as 550 BCE, when he defeated Astyages, king of Media.

None of that is true, because Daniel says no such thing whatsoever.

Daniel never, meaning at no time ever, says the Babylonian Empire was taken over by Darius. You got sucked into the same stupid trap that the idiot christians did.

Your red herring is based on this glaring error:

Daniel 5:30 And in that very night Belshazzar, the Babylonian king, was killed. 5:31 So Darius the Mede took control of the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old.

That error proves beyond any reasonable doubt that god does not exist. In the alternative, it proves that the people who write/translate christian bibles are neither filled with the holely spirit or guided by any god thing.

That’s from the King Joker Vision, one of the most poorly translated works in the history of humankind, originally made from the Textus Receptus text which contained 1,800 some odd disputed lines of text.

Because of the idiotic mistake made by christians, people have been falsely led to believe for the longest time that Darius the Mede took control of the kingdom from Belshazzar.

The Hebrew texts say no such thing. In the Hebrew texts, the stanza ends with Daniel 5:30 And in that very night Belshazzar, the Babylonian king, was killed.



That is the true and correct, as well as natural end, of Chapter 5.

The next stanza begins with:

So Darius the Mede took control of the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old, and if the christians who wrote the King Jerk Vision weren’t such morons they would have properly numbered it Daniel 6:1 (the Hebrew texts contain no such numberings system – that was a creation of the brilliant (snicker) writers of the King Joker Vision who no doubt were guided by god (snicker)).



So, anyone who says that Daniel says that Darius took the kingdom from Belshazzar is putting words that don’t exist in Daniel’s mouth, because Daniel says no such thing.

I’ll just say this: Anyone who cannot summarize each chapter of Daniel in 3-5 words or less doesn’t understand Daniel and ought not be commenting on it.

So Daniel doesn’t mention the names of the interim rulers between Belshazzar and Darius. Who cares? It is immaterial and irrelevant. Daniel is not the court historian, nor is he an historian nor is Daniel obligated to provide that information and Daniel is not about the history of any king or kingdom.

So Belshazzar dies, then Cyrus dies a few years later, there’s the idiot Cambyses, then Smerdis (or False Smerdis or Smerdis the Usurper or Psuedo-Smeridis if you prefer), and the comes Darius the Mede.

Why does Daniel omit them? They aren’t integral to the story. Again, anyone who cannot summarize each chapter of Daniel in 3-5 words needs Hooked on Phonics. As far as Daniel is concerned, Darius the Mede is the true dynastic successor. Darius the Mede, Darius Hystaspis and Darius Ahasuerus are one in the same person.

This is another red-herring and fancy acrobatics all for naught:

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

There is good evidence that the person that Daniel imagined to be Darius the Mede was in fact Darius I Hystaspes, the king of Persia from 521 to 485 BCE. The author of Daniel, writing in the second century BCE, confused this king with his own creation, Darius the Mede.
In Daniel 9:1, Darius is said to be the son of Ahasuerus, commonly acknowledged to be a variant spelling of Artaxerxes (Esther 1:1). The problem, of course, is that Artaxerxes was a persian. Artaxerxes was the father of a Persian king named Darius, but this was Darius II, who reigned from 425 to 405 BCE. Had Daniel been alive in the first year of this Darius, he would have been at least 160 years old, assuming that he was infant when he was carried to Babylon.
Darius Hystaspes was the father of a king called Xerxes, and this may be the person that Daniel confusedly imagined to be the father of Darius the Mede.
A further point of evidence that Darius the Mede was in fact Darius Hystaspes comes from Daniel 6:1. Here, Darius is said to have set up 120 "princes" (better translated as Satraps) over the kingdom. In fact, as Herodotus points out, it was Darius Hystaspes who instituted the satrapy system.

"This he [Darius Hystaspes] set up in Persia; and afterwards he proceeded to establish twenty governments of the kind which the Persians call satrapies, assigning to each its governor, and fixing the tribute which was to be paid him by the several nations." (Histories, Book III)

Recognizing the problem, several Bible scholars have tried to find solutions. The most popular states that Darius the Mede was Gubaru (or Gobyras), governor of Babylon during the reign of Cyrus. The problem with this approach (quite aside from the fact that there is no historical reason to make such a connection) is that Darius is often addressed as "king" (Daniel 6:6, note the royal appelation "live forever"), and was said to have enacted laws throughout the whole kingdom (Daniel 6:8-9). Neither can be said to be true of a mere governor. Further, Gobyras was a Babylonian, not a Mede.

That is all jibber-jabber nonsense. Darius the Mede, Darius Ahasuerus and Darius Hystapis are the same person.

Cyrus was born in Media. His mother was a Median Princess, a daughter of Astyages. Cyrus was raised and schooled at the court in Media before going to Persia around age 12-13. Even though Cyrus is often referred to as Cyrus the Persian, he is ethnically a Median.

Herodotus refers to Cyrus as “Cyrus the Persian.” Unfortunately for you, because you haven’t read Herodotus, you aren’t aware that Herodotus calls him “Cyrus King of the Medes” in Book I Page 205.

Shall we dismiss Herodotus? Obviously, according to you, the works of Herodotus were actually written by a Greek in the Byzantine Empire around 1248 CE.

The fact that Daniel refers to Darius as “the Mede” and as “Hysptais” does not diminish Daniel, nor is it proof Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BCE.

Ahasuerus is an hereditary name, very much like Pharaoh or Caesar or any other title bestowed upon a king or emperor. Again, the fact that Daniel uses it does not diminish Daniel, nor is it proof Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BCE.


The confusion wasn’t caused by Daniel, the confusion was caused by the christian morons who incorrectly translated the texts. Rather than admit their error, they engaged in chicanery creating all sorts of mythical rulers to justify their false beliefs that were based on an error. Then you and others compound the error.


So Daniel is correct.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The term Chaldeans is also rather Anachronistic. The word Chaldeans originally referred to a Babylonian tribe that overthrew the Assyrians in the seventh century BCE, and established the neo-Babylonian empire. At the time of the Exile and later, the word was synonymous with the Babylonians (5:30, 9:1). In time, however, the word Chaldeans also came to refer to the educated, priestly class in the Babylonian society, and it is this later usage that Daniel employs (see 2:2, 3:8, 4:7, 5:7).

That proves nothing other than scribes made changes to place/people names which was a common occurrence. Sometimes it was purely accidental, as in the case between the Khushu in western Zagros and Cush in Ethiopia, sometimes it was intentional (there are too many examples to list).

If someone were to go through an historical document and replace the names "Olglala" and "Lakota" with Sioux, does that destroy the authenticity of the text? You're saying it does.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

'Cyrus defeated Astyages, and seized control of the Median empire. Having gained control of Media, Cyrus set his sights on Babylon, and eventually took the capital city in 536 BCE. Cyrus then allowed the Jewish captives to return to their homeland'

Cyrus, not Darius

You're putting words that don't exist in the mouth of Daniel. Daniel says no such thing ever.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

.. and he was a Persian, not a mede.

Again, who cares?

Sean Connery the Brit, Sean Connery the Scot. Does it freaking matter?

Tom Jones the Welshman, Tom Jones the Brit. Same freaking thing, who cares?

You're going to split hairs over Kaiser Wilhelm the German and Kaiser Wilhelm the Prussian. It's the same person.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The writer of Daniel seemed to have the idea that Media conquered Babylon and was then succeeded by Persia.
It was the other way around: Media first, then Babylon. Forgivable mistake, perhaps, but that, the wrong kings and historical misses are evidence that the writer was compiling his book of Daniel at a date remote from those times.

That isn't true, and I've already proven. The christians FUBAR'd it, not the Hebrews. The Hebrew text is correctly and properly divided, it was the christians who mucked it up, and then you're taking their error and compounding it.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The truth of the matter is that there were nine Persian kings from Cyrus to Alexander. They are:
Cyrus (549 - 529 BCE)
Cambyses (529 - 522 BCE)
Darius I (521 - 485 BCE)
Xerxes (485 - 465 BCE)
Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)
Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)

You butchered that too. Try reading the texts instead of just guessing. Your list is grotesquely disingenuous.

In the first place, Cyrus has already died and Cambyses is dead and you didn't even mention Smerdis the Usurper (who is dead), so your source isn't very knowledgeable. In any event, Daniel is writing during the 1st Year of the Reign of Darius I Hystapis. Daniel is about 82 years or so, maybe 83-84.

The king list should be this to start out:

Darius I (521 - 485 BCE)
Xerxes (485 - 465 BCE)
Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)
Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)

However, the word in the text is "more" so it speaks of kings after Darius, so this is closer than the nonsense you have:

Xerxes (485 - 465 BCE)
Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)
Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)

And then, you haven't read Daniel so you don't understand it. Unfortunately, that puts you on the same level as Campbell00, since neither of you has read Daniel, or understands it, so you couldn't possibly summarize each chapter in 3-5 words.

This is simple enough for a chimpanzee to understand. It is the first year of the reign of Darius, and Daniel is having visions. One of those visions occurs in Daniel 9. The command is given to rebuild the Temple, and that command was issued by Xerxes.

That makes these the kings referred to in Daniel 11:

Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)
Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)
Daniel 11:2 Now I will tell you the truth. “Three more kings will arise for Persia."


These are the kings after the king in Daniel 9 gives the command:


Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)

Those are the "Three more kings..."

Then a fourth king will be unusually rich, more so than all who preceded
him.

Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)

Daniel 11:3 Then a powerful king will arise, exercising great authority and doing as he pleases.

Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)

Daniel 11:4 Shortly after his rise to power, his kingdom will be broken up...

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The leaning which was compiled may have dated from 500 - odd BCE but that is no evidence that Daniel dated from that time. The internal evidence is that it dates from the after the Alexandrine empire. In fact you argue that here.

Whether clean or unclean, Aramaic is a language derived from Persian and used in Judea after the return from exile. Being written in Aramaic and Hebrew hardly helps to date it to 400 BCE rather than 160. Note also that the 'writing on the wall' is in Aramaic. Hardly appropriate in the Babylonian court.

Now I expect that there are plenty of aramaic scholars who are prepared to swear blind that the Aramaic is datable to Persian times. I have to say that I find more persuasive the slips about the early history but the accuracy of the 'prophecy' as applied to the Seleucid empire up until the Maccabean revolt.

You need to study languages.

Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire, specifically from 538-333 BCE.

Darius the Mede said so.

In the sixth century B.C.E. King Darius, king of the then-illiterate Persians, subjected the peoples from the Nile to the Indus. Old Persian, the language of the ruling Persian class, did not spread beyond the Zagros mountain because the rapidity of his empire’s expansion outstripped the speed of its diffusion and intelligibility among the provinces of his vast empire. Furthermore, Old Persian script, newly created during the time of King Darius, was used only for special declarations, edicts, and proclamations of the king. Therefore, King Darius was forced to employ the contemporaneous languages of the ancient Near East for the record of his empire. For effective diplomatic communication among the provinces of the empire, Aramaic, a non-Iranian language, as a lingua franca, was chosen. It was a natural choice and a practical one: Aramaic was already widely spoken in the Levant, Egypt, and Western Iran and its alphabetic
script was much easier to learn and write than the complicated Elamite or Akkadian cuneiform.

The Damascus Dialect was already established as the standard Aramaic and the lingua franca of the day.

Hebrew is a dialect of Ugarit which is a dialect of Aramaic. That's why the Hebrews could understand Aramaic.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Yes I believe the link below will help show why I and others believe that the Book of Daniel was written much earlier.

"The combined effect of the above evidence points us very strongly away from the Maccabean thesis--"the arguments for the Maccabean dating of Daniel can hardly be said to be convincing. Daniel records details about 6th century Babylon that were subsequently lost shortly after it's fall. We have seen that the language of the book requires a very early date--with the best fit being during the times it describes in detail. As Baldwin put it: "When all the relevant factors are taken into account... a late sixth-or early fifth-century date of writing for the whole best suits the evidence."

The Date of the Book of Daniel

The link yougave goies into much detail and cites a lot of sources but the reasoning is partial and really evades the issues.

The argument is made that only someone on the spot could have known that there was a Belshazzar and he was indeed, regarded as a king.
But someone on the spot would have known that the father of Belshazzar was Nabonidus the king, Not Nebuchadnezzar, several kings before. He would also have known that Belshazar was only co - ruler (to say that amounted to a King is to overlook Daniel's representation of Belshazzar as the one and only king son of Nebuchanezzar, and no co -regent).

As I say, Daniel did what Luke did later - he dug out his shistory for his backdated prophecy. Who wouldn't if he was concocting a story set in the past? So it's hardly surprising if he reads that women were allowed at Babylonial feast. The amazing guesses about plastered walls and gilded statues hardly stand up as evidence of an eye-witness. But the details let him down.

The apologists make great play of Babylonian terms - which turn out to idioms not unkown in other languages too, but dismiss the Greek loan words for musical instruments, suposing that the babylonians had greek slaves. But Babylon had a musical tradition going back centuries. Seriously, they had to bottow that names of greek musical insruments? No. Daniel's history sources did not deal with cithera or symphonia so he used the terms common in the Hellenistic world.

"If the book was written under the Hellenizer Antiochus why is there so few Greek words in the text? To state it another way: if the book was written during a time of such intensive and extensive Greek influence then why are there *only* 3 Greek words in the entire text.. It should be noted that these three Greek words are all *musical instruments*! These words are found in 3: 5, 7, 10, and 15. [For more detail on these musical instruments see the article by T. C. Mitchell and R. Joyce, "The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar's Orchestra,"

An obvious answer is that Daniel has perfectly good Aramaic words to use - except for musical instruments.

The arguments are defitiely partial. The failure of Daniel to realize the true regal relationships is explained as the 'jewish' point of view and held up as evidence of veracity. It is wilfully I might say, overlooked that Daniel as a later governor ought to have ben well aware of what was what. In fact it may better represent the 'Jewish' view - of centuries later.

"I note here "3c) Xenophon records that the king of Babylon was killed the night that the city fell and yet we know that Nabonidus was captured and later deported. So who was Xenophon referring to? Xenophon also describes this king as "a riotous, indulgent, cruel, and godless young man" (hint: this is NOT a good description of Nabodinus!)"

This overlooks that glaring explanation that Xenophon's information was simply faulty and that may well explain why Daniel's information is faulty too.

The arguments against Daniel being impossible to concoct since for example "After all, why compose a set of tales set in Babylon in which the hero functions like a Chaldean wise man? How does that meet the needs of the Maccabean age?" This is wilfully obtuse. Quite apart from obvious explanations springing to mind (What else would you have in Daniel being the mover, shaker and prime mover in the court of Babylon?) It is overlooking the purpose of the document and trying to find meanings relevant to the revolt when all Daniel was doing was putting his retrospective prophecy into a plausible scenario.

"Again, if the book was written during the Maccabean era to meet the current needs then why does so little of the book reflect the events that are recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees? Why is there no call to arms? Why the silence concerning the revolt, its leaders, and heroes? This is especially surprising since the uprising began in 168 B.C.!"

The obvious answer is that, if the maccabean revolt was over and won, then Daniel would not be needed. The last bit of accurate history which then becomes inaccurate in having Antiochus fall at the hands of the Ptolemeys, dates Daniel to 167! So it's hardly surprising that it does not record the events of i68. This is so obvious that it makes our commentator look decidedly suspect for overlooking it.

Now, I'm familiar with your habit of diverting attention to a link rather than presenting an argument of your own, but this one goes into a lot of detail.

It's not feasible for me to track down every ruddy book and check the references. What is clear is that much of the evidence for a later dating is ignored if it can't be watered down and the arguments for an early date do not really stand up. Nor do the arguments against a Hellenistic date come to much more than rather blinkered special pleading.

[pelletmill]

Thanks for you share. I thought it is very useful for us.


__________________________________________________ ________________
"The Secrets To Discovering How To Make Wood Pellets And Purchase [URL=http://www.pelletmill.net]Pellet Mill[/URL]"
Learn how to avoid low quality [URL=http://www.woodpelletline]Pellet Mills[/URL]
Learn [URL=http://www.pelletmill.net/pellet-press.html/"]Pellet Press[/URL] can use what materies to make wood pellet

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to congratulate you at least on your corrosive sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Maybe you don't understand it. You engaged in a lot of acrobatics for nothing



Your king list is wrong. This is the correct one:


Dynasty XI of Babylon (Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean)
Nabu-apla-usur (Nabopolassar) 626 - 605 BCE
Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nebuchadrezzar) II 605 - 562 BCE
Amel-Marduk 562 - 560 BCE
Nergal-šar-usur (Nergal-sharezer) 560 - 556 BCE
Labaši-Marduk 556 BCE
Nabu-na'id (Nabonidus) 556 - 553 BCE

Belshazzar 553-539 BCE
In 539 BCE, Babylon was captured by Cyrus the Great of Persia, and lost its independence.

That’s the correct king list. If you have access to JSTOR you can find any number of peer-reviewed articles written by university archaeologists that clearly show Nabonidus named Belshazzar co-regent so that he could go off and devote himself to the Sin. Belshazzar really was a son of Nabonidus.

Belshazzar was NEVER king. He was a co - ruler for a short time and Nabonidus was ruler at the time of the fall of Babylon. Your king list is the same as mine apart from the unhistorical addition of Belshazzar as a king '553-9'. Nabonidus was still ruler in 539.

Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who after ruling only three years, went to the oasis of Tayma and devoted himself to the worship of the moon god, Sin. He made Belshazzar co-regent in 553 B.C., leaving him in charge of Babylon's defense.[1]
In the year 540 B.C. Nabonidus returned from Tayma, hoping to defend his kingdom from the Persians who were planning to advance on Babylon. In 538 B.C. Belshazzar was positioned in the city of Babylon to hold the capital, while Nabonidus, marched his troops north to meet Cyrus. On October 10, 539 B.C. Nabonidus surrendered and fled from Cyrus. Two days later, October 12, 539 B.C., the Persian armies overthrew the city of Babylon. (Wiki)

Now we have that settled, we can look at an error compounded by an error, compounded by an error, compounded by even more errors. When in doubt, always go to the source.

You have provided this red-herring:




None of that is true, because Daniel says no such thing whatsoever.

Daniel never, meaning at no time ever, says the Babylonian Empire was taken over by Darius. You got sucked into the same stupid trap that the idiot christians did.

Your red herring is based on this glaring error:

Daniel 5:30 And in that very night Belshazzar, the Babylonian king, was killed. 5:31 So Darius the Mede took control of the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old.

Well, in my language that sure looks like Daniel is saying just what you says he doesn't say.

That error proves beyond any reasonable doubt that god does not exist. In the alternative, it proves that the people who write/translate christian bibles are neither filled with the holely spirit or guided by any god thing.

That’s from the King Joker Vision, one of the most poorly translated works in the history of humankind, originally made from the Textus Receptus text which contained 1,800 some odd disputed lines of text.

Because of the idiotic mistake made by christians, people have been falsely led to believe for the longest time that Darius the Mede took control of the kingdom from Belshazzar.

The Hebrew texts say no such thing. In the Hebrew texts, the stanza ends with Daniel 5:30 And in that very night Belshazzar, the Babylonian king, was killed.



That is the true and correct, as well as natural end, of Chapter 5.

The next stanza begins with:

So Darius the Mede took control of the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old, and if the christians who wrote the King Jerk Vision weren’t such morons they would have properly numbered it Daniel 6:1 (the Hebrew texts contain no such numberings system – that was a creation of the brilliant (snicker) writers of the King Joker Vision who no doubt were guided by god (snicker)).



So, anyone who says that Daniel says that Darius took the kingdom from Belshazzar is putting words that don’t exist in Daniel’s mouth, because Daniel says no such thing.

I’ll just say this: Anyone who cannot summarize each chapter of Daniel in 3-5 words or less doesn’t understand Daniel and ought not be commenting on it.

So the 'King Joker' version reads:

30In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean King was slain. 31And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old. 31And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Chapter 6
1It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, who should be throughout the whole kingdom; 2and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one;

and your revised numbering system reads:

30In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean King was slain. 31And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Chapter 6 31And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
1It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, who should be throughout the whole kingdom; 2and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one

I fail to see what difference it makes. It is saying that Belshazzar was killed, and Darius made Daniel one of the satraps - clearly in Babylon which Darius had taken over. It is absurd to try to say that it means that Belshazzar was killed and Darius made Daniel a satrap...oh, by the way, Darius got the (Persian) kingdon at 62 years of age.."

So Daniel doesn’t mention the names of the interim rulers between Belshazzar and Darius. Who cares? It is immaterial and irrelevant. Daniel is not the court historian, nor is he an historian nor is Daniel obligated to provide that information and Daniel is not about the history of any king or kingdom.

You dismiss any unwelcome evidence as irrelevant. It is far from irrelevant if Daniel did not get the name of the conquerer right Cyrus, nor Darius. Not even the forgivable mistake of naming the next ruler since there was a nine year reign of Cambyses in between. Nine years missed out by you on the grounds of his Idiocy.

So Belshazzar dies, then Cyrus dies a few years later, there’s the idiot Cambyses, then Smerdis (or False Smerdis or Smerdis the Usurper or Psuedo-Smeridis if you prefer), and the comes Darius the Mede.

Why does Daniel omit them? They aren’t integral to the story. Again, anyone who cannot summarize each chapter of Daniel in 3-5 words needs Hooked on Phonics. As far as Daniel is concerned, Darius the Mede is the true dynastic successor. Darius the Mede, Darius Hystaspis and Darius Ahasuerus are one in the same person.

This is another red-herring and fancy acrobatics all for naught:



That is all jibber-jabber nonsense. Darius the Mede, Darius Ahasuerus and Darius Hystapis are the same person.

Cyrus was born in Media. His mother was a Median Princess, a daughter of Astyages. Cyrus was raised and schooled at the court in Media before going to Persia around age 12-13. Even though Cyrus is often referred to as Cyrus the Persian, he is ethnically a Median.

Herodotus refers to Cyrus as “Cyrus the Persian.” Unfortunately for you, because you haven’t read Herodotus, you aren’t aware that Herodotus calls him “Cyrus King of the Medes” in Book I Page 205.

Shall we dismiss Herodotus? Obviously, according to you, the works of Herodotus were actually written by a Greek in the Byzantine Empire around 1248 CE.

The fact that Daniel refers to Darius as “the Mede” and as “Hysptais” does not diminish Daniel, nor is it proof Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BCE.

Ahasuerus is an hereditary name, very much like Pharaoh or Caesar or any other title bestowed upon a king or emperor. Again, the fact that Daniel uses it does not diminish Daniel, nor is it proof Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BCE.


The confusion wasn’t caused by Daniel, the confusion was caused by the christian morons who incorrectly translated the texts. Rather than admit their error, they engaged in chicanery creating all sorts of mythical rulers to justify their false beliefs that were based on an error. Then you and others compound the error.


So Daniel is correct.

No. Daniel is wrong. Cyrus was the one who conquered Babylon, not Darius, and all your argument about Prussians and welshmen doesn't alter that. Belshazzar was not king, Nabonidus was and your creation of an entirely personal king - list found no -where else I have ever seen does not alter that.

That proves nothing other than scribes made changes to place/people names which was a common occurrence. Sometimes it was purely accidental, as in the case between the Khushu in western Zagros and Cush in Ethiopia, sometimes it was intentional (there are too many examples to list).

If someone were to go through an historical document and replace the names "Olglala" and "Lakota" with Sioux, does that destroy the authenticity of the text? You're saying it does.

I'm afraid I do not buy any of this. Cyrus conquered Babylon not Darius. your 'acrobatics' (good term) does not alter that. I note your comments about "Darius the Mede, Darius Ahasuerus and Darius Hystapis" but that does not make daniel right but how he (or his source) might have got it wrong.

I also note

You're putting words that don't exist in the mouth of Daniel. Daniel says no such thing ever.

Yes he does, despite your attempt to argue different chapter numbering

Again, who cares?

Sean Connery the Brit, Sean Connery the Scot. Does it freaking matter?

Tom Jones the Welshman, Tom Jones the Brit. Same freaking thing, who cares?

You're going to split hairs over Kaiser Wilhelm the German and Kaiser Wilhelm the Prussian. It's the same person.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Getting the history regarding the fall of Babylon wrong is hardly that. It's more you trying to make a molehill out of a mountain.

That isn't true, and I've already proven. The christians FUBAR'd it, not the Hebrews. The Hebrew text is correctly and properly divided, it was the christians who mucked it up, and then you're taking their error and compounding it.



You butchered that too. Try reading the texts instead of just guessing. Your list is grotesquely disingenuous.

In the first place, Cyrus has already died and Cambyses is dead and you didn't even mention Smerdis the Usurper (who is dead), so your source isn't very knowledgeable. In any event, Daniel is writing during the 1st Year of the Reign of Darius I Hystapis. Daniel is about 82 years or so, maybe 83-84.

The king list should be this to start out:

Darius I (521 - 485 BCE)
Xerxes (485 - 465 BCE)
Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)
Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)

However, the word in the text is "more" so it speaks of kings after Darius, so this is closer than the nonsense you have:

Xerxes (485 - 465 BCE)
Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)
Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)

And then, you haven't read Daniel so you don't understand it. Unfortunately, that puts you on the same level as Campbell00, since neither of you has read Daniel, or understands it, so you couldn't possibly summarize each chapter in 3-5 words.

This is simple enough for a chimpanzee to understand. It is the first year of the reign of Darius, and Daniel is having visions. One of those visions occurs in Daniel 9. The command is given to rebuild the Temple, and that command was issued by Xerxes.

That makes these the kings referred to in Daniel 11:

Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)
Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)
Daniel 11:2 Now I will tell you the truth. “Three more kings will arise for Persia."


These are the kings after the king in Daniel 9 gives the command:


Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BCE)
Darius II (425 - 405 BCE)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BCE)

Those are the "Three more kings..."

Then a fourth king will be unusually rich, more so than all who preceded
him.

Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BCE)

Daniel 11:3 Then a powerful king will arise, exercising great authority and doing as he pleases.

Darius III (338 - 330 BCE)

Daniel 11:4 Shortly after his rise to power, his kingdom will be broken up...

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Cyrus, Cambyses and Darius. So Darius is wrong. So Smerdis is omitted. His usurpation was a few months only and even that is historically arguable. He is understandably omitted from the persian king - lists. I fail to see what the tinkering about with king lists after those three is supposed to prove.

I ake your point that Persian and Mede were pretty synonymous. I am inclined to agree that saying that Darius the Mede never existed is overdrawn. That doesn't alter the historical fact that Cyrus, not Darius, Mede or persian, took over Babylon which is what Daniel (incorrectly) says, no matter how you number the chapters.

You need to study languages.

Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire, specifically from 538-333 BCE.

Darius the Mede said so.



The Damascus Dialect was already established as the standard Aramaic and the lingua franca of the day.

Hebrew is a dialect of Ugarit which is a dialect of Aramaic. That's why the Hebrews could understand Aramaic.

Yes, Aramaic (Old aramaic) was spoken before the Persians, but I gathered that Biblical text were written in Hebrew and the writing of aramaic scripture was a result of the exile. I may have to reconsider.

However, the salient facts remain. Daniel's history regarding Babylon and Persia was faulty and it was accurate though written as prophecy rather than history about Seleucid history. That should surely be enough to indicate a 2nd c BC date.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

The gate found under the present East Gate is not doubtful at all. They have a picture of it. And it's stone works are massive. The prophecy relates to the gate we see today. And that is because the prophecy states it would be the Porch Gate that would be sealed up, not the orginal gate. And the prophecy does not relate to a ritual opening. And that is because the prophecy tells us, that (NO ONE) will be allowed to past through. And Jesus must of passed through the Old gate when He walked the earth. Yet the prophecy is not speaking of the Old Gate, it is speaking of the (NEW PORCH GATE), that was added later by non believers. And that Gate was built some hundreds of years ago, not two thousand years ago. And once the New Porch Gate was sealed, it would remain so until the Prince returns. And it appears to me, you create your own facts that only exist in your own mind. And in fact the most important parts of this prophecy appear to have gone right over your head.

I must say that you are ingenious in the way you fiddle the prophecy to fit the facts. In order to get over the problem that the Old porch gate has already been walked through (By Jesus and thousands of other Hebrews) you claim the prophecy relates to the post Jewish war present gate.

So the prophecy relates to the arch found under the platform (which, for all we know is Hasmonean work or Herodian structual support for his platform) but it actually related to the present much later gate which you claim is the porch gate as though the gate of the 1st temple and the Herodian temple were not equally 'porch' gates. Of course you have to argue that the Nehemian (and Herodian) gates were not 'porch' gates because the 'blocking' cannot refer to them. So you make the present walled up gate the 'porch gate' which is really wasn't. The present one isn't of course. It was built when the temple was long gone and wasn't a porch for anything.

As I argued, the correct translation shows that 'porch gate' refers to the sanctuary (temple building) gate anyway.

So ingenious. But here that gate of Justinian (a believer) or perhaps Byzantine believers working for the Ottomans was blocked later on but only after thousands of people had already gone through it. But the prophecy sure has a gate in an existing (if imaginary) temple being shut and no one but a Prince allowed through. Your revised prophecy still does not fit the facts or the prophecy.

"And it appears to me, you create your own facts that only exist in your own mind. And in fact the most important parts of this prophecy appear to have gone right over your head"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I must say that you are ingenious in the way you fiddle the prophecy to fit the facts. In order to get over the problem that the Old porch gate has already been walked through (By Jesus and thousands of other Hebrews) you claim the prophecy relates to the post Jewish war present gate.

So the prophecy relates to the arch found under the platform (which, for all we know is Hasmonean work or Herodian structual support for his platform) but it actually related to the present much later gate which you claim is the porch gate as though the gate of the 1st temple and the Herodian temple were not equally 'porch' gates. Of course you have to argue that the Nehemian (and Herodian) gates were not 'porch' gates because the 'blocking' cannot refer to them. So you make the present walled up gate the 'porch gate' which is really wasn't. The present one isn't of course. It was built when the temple was long gone and wasn't a porch for anything.

As I argued, the correct translation shows that 'porch gate' refers to the sanctuary (temple building) gate anyway.

So ingenious. But here that gate of Justinian (a believer) or perhaps Byzantine believers working for the Ottomans was blocked later on but only after thousands of people had already gone through it. But the prophecy sure has a gate in an existing (if imaginary) temple being shut and no one but a Prince allowed through. Your revised prophecy still does not fit the facts or the prophecy.

"And it appears to me, you create your own facts that only exist in your own mind. And in fact the most important parts of this prophecy appear to have gone right over your head"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I did not have to fiddle with anything. I just read the prophecy. Ezekiel 44:1-3 The Prince to come will enter by the way of the (VESTIBULE OF THE GATE). The prophecy tells you, the vestibule is somthing other than the actual Gate. The vestibule was built by non belivers, and sealed by non believers. And the Vestibule uses the orginal gate today as it's foundation. And the Gate we see today, is the vestibule of the ancient Gate and remains sealed as the prophecy stated it would. The Jews are aware of the Prophecy, and so are the Christians. Only non believers try to dismiss it's reality. And the Muslims are aware of the prophecy as well. And in fact they sealed the Gate trying to stop the Prince from coming. However, in their efforts to do this they fulfilled the part of the prophecy that stated the Gate would be sealed up. LOL

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

I did not have to fiddle with anything. I just read the prophecy. Ezekiel 44:1-3 The Prince to come will enter by the way of the (VESTIBULE OF THE GATE). The prophecy tells you, the vestibule is somthing other than the actual Gate. The vestibule was built by non belivers, and sealed by non believers. And the Vestibule uses the orginal gate today as it's foundation. And the Gate we see today, is the vestibule of the ancient Gate and remains sealed as the prophecy stated it would. The Jews are aware of the Prophecy, and so are the Christians. Only non believers try to dismiss it's reality. And the Muslims are aware of the prophecy as well. And in fact they sealed the Gate trying to stop the Prince from coming. However, in their efforts to do this they fulfilled the part of the prophecy that stated the Gate would be sealed up. LOL

Lol indeed. "The Prince to come will enter by the way of the (VESTIBULE OF THE GATE)." and all the rest is your fiddling. Read the relevant passage and it's clear that what is being talked about is the outer porch of the temple itself, not the east gate of the circuit wall. Even the present blocked gate was entered by many men contrary to the terms of your reading of the prophecy.

Ps. I almost missed it. Ezekiel 44 1-3Eze 44: Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east and it [was] shut. Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
[It is] for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of [that] gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

You almost had me. I was so busy checking your brackets and finding to my surprise that you hadn't altered it that I missed this. Your 'prince to come' is your own invention. If I was a believer I would not DARE to rewrite the bible to suit myself.

It is obviously referring to the ante chamber of the temple sanctuary which the 'prince' will enter to 'eat bread before the lord'. I cannot see how anyone is going to sit sit down to eat bread in the present east gate even if the masonry is removed.