mens_sana

If it does not follow a chronological order, then you should be able to explain why the author very carefully dates certain sections by regnal years, as follows: third Jehoiakim, the siege of Jerusalem (1:1); second Nebuchadnezzar, the dream of the great image (2:1); first Belshazzar, the vision of the four beasts (7:1); third Belshazzar, the vision of the ram and the he-goat (8:1); first Darius the Mede, the vision concerning the seventy weeks (9:1); third Cyrus, the vision concerning the “king of the north” (10:1). Thus the succession of regnal authority in Babylon is detailed as Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, Cyrus. It is stated that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s father and that Darius the Mede received the kingdom from Belshazzar (5:2, 31). 6:29 LXX states that Darius died and that Cyrus took “his kingdom.” Further, in third Cyrus, the angel can refer to first Darius as in the past (11:1). There can be no doubt that this is the chronological succession of kings the author accepted.

Sheshonq

Yep. And Daniel gets it wrong.
Your source, repeating Daniel, also gets it wrong.
Darius was the FATHER of Xerxes, not the son.

arnoldo

The geneology of the bible is a rather complex subject. The following verse Daniel 9:1(YOUNG) clearly states that Darius the mede recieved the Kingdom or was made a King. This would back up the claim that in Daniel 5:31 that it is accurate to state that Darius recieved the kingdom of Babylon from Cyrus the Persian.

Also notice that Daniel refers to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the number of years of the desolation of Jerusalem.

Sheshonq

1. Not really; it is only fundies who make it complex, when they try to explain away the contradictions.

Yes. The verse is wrong.

Sorry; it doesn't back up anything. Using the bible to prove the bible is circular reasoning.

Except that:

1. there is no person "Darius the Mede" in history;

2. verses 5:30 and 5:31 clearly present a picture to the reader of Darius receiving the kingdom as a result (and right after) the fall of Babylon - which did not happen;

3. we know who Cyrus II entrusted to govern Babylon - and that person's name was *not* Darius;

Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

makerowner

You've really got to stop basing your arguments on the semantics of English translations. The word for 'who hath been made king ' here is the same one used in Ex. 15:18 "Jehovah reigneth -- to the age, and for ever!'" Did someone give the kingdom to YHWH too? (Using Young's translation throughout.)

spin

No.

(And to save further guesses, I've already dealt with the issue, but I get tired of repeating myself.)

As I have pointed out Daniel was written in two historically separated sections, chapters 1-6 and 7-12. Now if you look at the kings mentioned in each section you have

Nebuchadnezzar,
Belshazzar,
Darius,
Cyrus

in the first and

Belshazzar,
Darius,
Cyrus

in the second. Both sections show the same chronological order (with the same factual mistakes). Darius the Mede is the same king as Darius the son of Ahasuerus from the seed of the Medes.

The discussion about the difference between the Hebrew and Greek for Esther's Persian king doesn't seem to be relevant here. (The Greek of Daniel has Asoueros, ie Ahasuerus.) What is at stake is simple the fact that there is this phantom Darius in the chronology at all.

I have already indicated from the primary sources that Ugbaru took charge of Babylon for Cyrus, who soon entered Jerusalem and took up residence there.

Darius the Mede apparently exists to deal with prophecies in Jeremiah and Isaiah which say that the Medes would conquer Babylon. Daniel places the power of the Medes after the Babylonians with the first horn of the ram in chapter 8. Well, Isaiah and Jeremiah said that the Medes would take Babylon, didn't they? (This is why the second beast in Dan 7 is the Medes.) By coalescing the Medes and the Persians, the writers of Daniel could accommodate the prophecies with the historical reality. Hence the invention of "the Medes and the Persians" in Daniel.


spin

arnoldo

Here is Ex 15:17-19(Young)

It's say "Jehovah reigneth -to the age and forever" I didn't catch the meaning that someone gave the kingdom to Jehovah :huh:

Jehovah="the Existing One"
reign = malak (to be King)
to the age = owlam (everlasting)
and for ever= 'ad (for ever)

arnoldo

So I guess no one is buying the following:

1. Ahasuerus (the father of Darius the Mede) = Cyaxares
2. Darius the Mede= Astyages
3. Cyrus= grandfather of Astyages (Darius the Mede)

which is stated in this article.

arnoldo

Can you list your primary sources? I'm finding some sources which claim that Ugbaru only ruled babylon for 1 month and then was replaced with Gubaru. Apparently these two persons are commonly confused with each other as well as with a person called Gobrays!

Gubaru was born in 601 B.C. to Ahasuerus, a Mede, and was appointed by Cyrus as governor over Babylon

makerowner

Which is exactly my point. I didn't think I had to spell it out for you, but apparently I do. We both agree that the Exodus passage has no implication of someone giving the kingdom to YHWH, right? Well it's the same word as 'who hath been made king' from Dan. 9:1, so your argument that someone had to have made him king doesn't work.