Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-05-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Nonsense. The medes and the persians are both from modern day iran.

So? That proves nothing about which one ruled the other 2500 years ago.

Again, big deal. Empires are often short-lived. the USSR lasted less than 75 years. The Neo-Babylonian Empire - the empire of Nebuchadnezzar - only lasted 87 years.

Again: if you knew jack shit about the historical material, you wouldn't need to be spoonfed all the basic elements. But study is hard work and it would interfere with your preaching, wouldn't it?

No, your source says that the Medes were in control of a confederation. But your source is talking about a period in time several decades before Cyrus. By the time Cyrus came on the scene, the Medes were long past their prime and they were subservient to the Persians.

Moreover, your "source" is a cultural attache website. It's hardly a historical source. Someone without any historical training or ability to review the actual primary sources threw up a website. Then you -- being equally ignorant of history and archaeology -- found the website and decided that it was a "source". It is not.

From my paper on the topic - pay attention to the red text:

Quote:

Is “Media” an acceptable alternate way of referring to “Medes and Persians”? No. Media was always the junior partner in the military and political relationship; Persia was the clear senior. Describing a partnership by its junior member would be confusing and inaccurate. It was always Persia who ultimately held the reins of power – recall that Cyrus had conquered the Medes in 550 BCE and made them subject to Persia. The most accurate description of the invasion of Babylon would be “Invasion of the Persians”. The second most accurate would be to call it “invasion of the Persians and Medes”. The least accurate, and actually misleading, way to refer to it would be “invasion of the Medes”. Yet that is the description we see here in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

And for yet another reason, the term “Medes” would not be acceptable shorthand for “Medes and Persians”. By the time of Darius, the Medians’ special status as co-equals in the empire had already evaporated, and they were subjects like other conquered peoples. Like most such relationships, it existed only at the whim of the senior partner, and was never meant to last. The Median equality ended several years later, when Darius I usurped the throne. The Medes rose unsuccessfully in revolt (522-521 BCE), were crushed, and then lost such privileged status as they had enjoyed. 109

* “Medes”, The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford University Press, 1993. Page 507.

You seem to be arguing both sides of the argument. First you claim that the writer of Daniel was HIGHLY aware that Medes was a seperate empire from the Persians, Ie, the kingdoms that Daniel writes about is 1. Babylon 2. Medes 3. Persia 4. Greece (not rome)

Then your argument is that the writer of Daniel committed a "historical mistake" by identifying that a "Mede" conquered babylon when in fact it was Cyrus (a persian). All jews know that it was Cyrus who allowed the Jews to leave Babylon to return to Jerusalem. Sorry, the only "historical mistake" in the book of daniel is in your imagination.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-05-2008, 08:07 AM

The author of Daniel admits to using Jeremiah as a source: and Jeremiah (and Isaiah) falsely prophesied that the Medes would take Babylon. Hence:

1. Babylon
2. Media (never happened)
3. Persia
4. Greece.

He also probably did know that it was Cyrus who ended the Babylonian captivity: but (as with modern apologists) he was working with an incorrect but "holy" source, and trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

arnoldo · 02-05-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So you still think the entire book of daniel was written between 167-164 and then copies rapidly distributed so it ended up as part of the dead sea scrolls?

The earliest fragments of Daniel in the DSS date from several decades later. That's a pretty strange definition of "rapidly" you have there.

And yet I suspect you don't have a problem with the "rapid distribution" of Christian gospels and Pauline epistles?

The Christian gospels and Pauline epistles were rapidly distributed and accepted because the readers were witnesses to the events and authors in the material. In contrast Daniel was already accepted as authentic well before the 2nd century BC.

arnoldo · 02-05-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The author of Daniel admits to using Jeremiah as a source: and Jeremiah (and Isaiah) falsely prophesied that the Medes would take Babylon. Hence:

1. Babylon
2. Media (never happened)
3. Persia
4. Greece.

He also probably did know that it was Cyrus who ended the Babylonian captivity: but (as with modern apologists) he was working with an incorrect but "holy" source, and trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Wrong. Jeremiah 25:11 states Israel would be desolate 70 years after Nebby attacked it. Daniel 9:1 states that Daniel was aware of Jeremiah and that Cyrus allowed the babylonian exiles to return to Israel after 70 years.

Of course you have an explanation for this historical fact. The prophecy was written after the fact. in fact you seem to use the "heads I win, tails you lose" logic to win every argument. For example in the case of the zekey prophecy about nebby destroying tyre your argument is ,"zeke wrote the prophecy before the fact and it didn't come true, prophecy fails." In contrast to Daniel the argument is " it was all written after the fact, prophecy fails". Brilliant.

Amaleq13 · 02-05-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The Christian gospels and Pauline epistles were rapidly distributed...

This is unsubstantiated hyperbole (and a potential tangent) that is weakened given any authorship date earlier than that generally accepted by modern scholars (ie c.70ce - 100ce).

Quote:

...and accepted because the readers were witnesses to the events and authors in the material.

Why do you keep making the same demonstrably false claim? Christian tradition says otherwise and you know it.

Quote:

In contrast Daniel was already accepted as authentic well before the 2nd century BC.

You have yet to proffer any evidence for this seemingly faith-based assumption. Remember, before you repeat another demonstrably false claim, that we've already seen that inclusion in the DSS collection, alone, does not require or even imply that a given text had long-established acceptance.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-05-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The earliest fragments of Daniel in the DSS date from several decades later. That's a pretty strange definition of "rapidly" you have there.

And yet I suspect you don't have a problem with the "rapid distribution" of Christian gospels and Pauline epistles?

The Christian gospels and Pauline epistles were rapidly distributed and accepted because the readers were witnesses to the events and authors in the material. In contrast Daniel was already accepted as authentic well before the 2nd century BC.

No, it didn't exist before the 2nd century BC. You're making stuff up again. In particular, the claim regarding Alexander has already been debunked (Alex never visited Jerusalem, so he wasn't shown the Book of Daniel there: it's a fairytale).

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The author of Daniel admits to using Jeremiah as a source: and Jeremiah (and Isaiah) falsely prophesied that the Medes would take Babylon. Hence:

1. Babylon
2. Media (never happened)
3. Persia
4. Greece.

He also probably did know that it was Cyrus who ended the Babylonian captivity: but (as with modern apologists) he was working with an incorrect but "holy" source, and trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Wrong. Jeremiah 25:11 states Israel would be desolate 70 years after Nebby attacked it. Daniel 9:1 states that Daniel was aware of Jeremiah and that Cyrus allowed the babylonian exiles to return to Israel after 70 years.

Of course you have an explanation for this historical fact. The prophecy was written after the fact. in fact you seem to use the "heads I win, tails you lose" logic to win every argument. For example in the case of the zekey prophecy about nebby destroying tyre your argument is ,"zeke wrote the prophecy before the fact and it didn't come true, prophecy fails." In contrast to Daniel the argument is " it was all written after the fact, prophecy fails". Brilliant.

There you go again: going off-topic because you cannot deal with inconvenient facts.

It is an inconvenient fact that Jeremiah was a false prophet because he falsely predicted that the Medes would take and destroy Babylon. No amount of wittering about Jerusalem will change this inconvenient fact about Babylon.

And this was apparently why the author of Daniel came unstuck.

arnoldo · 02-05-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The Christian gospels and Pauline epistles were rapidly distributed and accepted because the readers were witnesses to the events and authors in the material. In contrast Daniel was already accepted as authentic well before the 2nd century BC.

No, it didn't exist before the 2nd century BC. You're making stuff up again. In particular, the claim regarding Alexander has already been debunked (Alex never visited Jerusalem, so he wasn't shown the Book of Daniel there: it's a fairytale).

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong. Jeremiah 25:11 states Israel would be desolate 70 years after Nebby attacked it. Daniel 9:1 states that Daniel was aware of Jeremiah and that Cyrus allowed the babylonian exiles to return to Israel after 70 years.

Of course you have an explanation for this historical fact. The prophecy was written after the fact. in fact you seem to use the "heads I win, tails you lose" logic to win every argument. For example in the case of the zekey prophecy about nebby destroying tyre your argument is ,"zeke wrote the prophecy before the fact and it didn't come true, prophecy fails." In contrast to Daniel the argument is " it was all written after the fact, prophecy fails". Brilliant.

There you go again: going off-topic because you cannot deal with inconvenient facts.

It is an inconvenient fact that Jeremiah was a false prophet because he falsely predicted that the Medes would take and destroy Babylon. No amount of wittering about Jerusalem will change this inconvenient fact about Babylon.

And this was apparently why the author of Daniel came unstuck.

Sorry, YOU brought up the subject of Jeremiah being a false prophet. How do you know the following verses are not prophetic,ie, and event that will happen in the future?

Quote:

"When the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt, declares YAHWEH, and will make it desolate forever." (Jeremiah Chapter 25 verse 12)

"A nation from the north will attack Babylon and lay waste her land. No one will live in it; both men and animals will flee away. In those days, at that time, declares YAHWEH, the people of Israel and the people of Judah together will go in tears to seek YAHWEH their God. They will ask the way to Zion and turn their faces toward it." (Jeremiah Chapter 50 verse 3)

The historical fact remains that Nebby destroyed Jerusalem and after 70 years Cyrus allowed the Jews to begin to return to their land.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-05-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The historical fact remains that Nebby destroyed Jerusalem and after 70 years Cyrus allowed the Jews to begin to return to their land.

But at the GRD Forum, you said "It doesn't matter if God can predict the future," and now you are saying that it does matter. Which you please make up your mind which is the case?

arnoldo · 02-05-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The author of Daniel admits to using Jeremiah as a source: and Jeremiah (and Isaiah) falsely prophesied that the Medes would take Babylon. Hence:

1. Babylon
2. Media (never happened)
3. Persia
4. Greece.

He also probably did know that it was Cyrus who ended the Babylonian captivity: but (as with modern apologists) he was working with an incorrect but "holy" source, and trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Ok, that is an interesting theory that the author of Daniel twisted the scriptures to try to prove that the Medes conquered Babylon in order to fulfill a Jeremiah prophecy. Unfortunately it was common knowledge the Cyrus the Persian defeated Babylon so your explanation makes no sense whatsoever.

arnoldo · 02-05-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The Christian gospels and Pauline epistles were rapidly distributed...

This is unsubstantiated hyperbole (and a potential tangent) that is weakened given any authorship date earlier than that generally accepted by modern scholars (ie c.70ce - 100ce).

Why do you keep making the same demonstrably false claim? Christian tradition says otherwise and you know it.

Quote:

In contrast Daniel was already accepted as authentic well before the 2nd century BC.

You have yet to proffer any evidence for this seemingly faith-based assumption. Remember, before you repeat another demonstrably false claim, that we've already seen that inclusion in the DSS collection, alone, does not require or even imply that a given text had long-established acceptance.

At the same time no evidence has been provided that the ENTIRE BOOK OF DANIEL was written between 167-164 BC and yet this is accepted as a given.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2008, 08:07 AM	#442
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	The author of Daniel admits to using Jeremiah as a source: and Jeremiah (and Isaiah) falsely prophesied that the Medes would take Babylon. Hence: 1. Babylon 2. Media (never happened) 3. Persia 4. Greece. He also probably did know that it was Cyrus who ended the Babylonian captivity: but (as with modern apologists) he was working with an incorrect but "holy" source, and trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.