Sheshonq

No, in fact you have not.

I've asked for it several times, as have a couple of other posters. Instead, you post sources that have nothing to do with your claim, or nothing to do with archaeology.

Which is irrelevant, since no one disputes his existence.
What is disputed is that he was ever king.

How much plainer can we possibly make it?

Sheshonq

And I see that makerowner has force-fed you the verses that plainly show you are wrong about this.

Must be sad when skeptics know the bible better than you do.

Sheshonq

The problem with Robert Turkel (Holding) is that his sources are a circular reference among christian authors. You can see that above, in how he tries to create a "Darius the Mede" where no original source text or archaeological evidence can support it. What does Turkel do, in order to prop up his argument? He cites multiple christian authors -- not historians, archaeologists, or primary sources. It's an old boy network, similar to what creationists do - they quote each other in an incestuous circularity, that they think somehow innoculates them from doing real research.

Turkel never understood how to properly do research before; I see that not much has changed.

spin

Darius who?

Stop fabricating. You are making up things that you have no evidence to support. That is falsity.

The word for "receive", QBL, actually means "take" (see Ezra 8:30), so you cannot hide behind the hope that a king gave "Darius the Mede" his kingship: he took it.

Obvious error. You are simply inventing yet again. The text is talking of two consecutive reigns, Darius then Cyrus. The word for reign, MLKWT is the same in each case and indicates "kingdom, kingship, reign". One is not subordinate to the other. They are simply consecutive. Would you be so foolhardy to say if I talked about the reign of Claudius and the reign of Nero that they reigned together? Hopefully not. It would be the same error as you commit with the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus as stated in Dan 6:28.

It's time that you admitted you've made a blunder.


spin

spin

Your lips are moving, but you haven't said anything yet. If you want to present a case for anything you want shot down, please do. If you don't, :wave:


spin

spin

Utter rubbish. You can call it a forgery if you like, but that is your mistake. The Dead Sea Scrolls do nothing that you claim they do. You are talking more rubbish. Please stop. You're just helping to give apologists a bad... no, worse... name.


spin

aChristian

You are wrong. According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs page 1110 the word means receive(Aramaic). It it also translated as received(Hebrew) in Ezra.

arnoldo

On the contrary, your postition is that Belshazzar never existed and yet historical records indicate he did. In reference to Daniel 6:28 which states that "Daniel propsered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian." who do you think Cyrus the Persian is?

aChristian

By the way, I haven't read through this whole post, but if you are trying to late date Daniel, you have to explain how it was translated as part of the Septuagint in 250 BC, long before 167 bc, if it didn't exist. You also have to deny Josephus' account about how the Jewish high priest Jaddua met Alexander the Great and showed him the prophecy about himself from the book of Daniel. As far as the historical questions, they have been answered already by conservative scholars. There are still questions we are learning more on, but the hard historical evidence supports the book of Daniel as a 6th century bc book by the traditional author.

makerowner

You know his position better than he does? How do you know? Did God tell you?
Do you even read other people's posts? Cyrus in Daniel is obviously Cyrus the Great. There's no problem with that part; the problem comes when you try to put in a Darius the Mede who never existed.