Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-06-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The errors of Daniel stand. Belshazzar was never a king. He was merely the viceroy for Nabonidus, no matter how much subterfuge you throw up.
spin

As usual you spin the half truths, yes Nabonidus was king of babylonia however he was not in the the city of babylon when it was taken over. Who was in charge of the city? Belshazzar.

From the source:Cyrus takes Babylon: the Nabonidus chronicle
Nabonidus chronicle

Quote:

In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there.

From the source: The Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur
Nabonidus Cylinder

Quote:

As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar,[4] the eldest son -my offspring- instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit ant cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude.

spin · 02-06-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The errors of Daniel stand. Belshazzar was never a king. He was merely the viceroy for Nabonidus, no matter how much subterfuge you throw up.
spin

As usual you spin the half truths, yes Nabonidus was king of babylonia however he was not in the the city of babylon when it was taken over.

It seems that my previous post hasn't sunken into your sorry skull.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Who was in charge of the city? Belshazzar.

In your imagination. In short:

The better question was, who would Nabonidus trust to be in charge of the forces at Opis while Nabonidus was organizing in Sippar? Obviously, Belshazzar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

From the source: The Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur
Nabonidus Cylinder

Quote:

As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar,[4] the eldest son -my offspring- instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit ant cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude.

You have a penchant for non sequiturs.

But wait, let's look at this text, dated 540 BCE. It clearly states that Nabonidus was king of Babylon. Yup, here it is again. Daniel was wrong. Belshazzar was never king.

Read the sources, not what you want them to say.

spin

Sheshonq · 02-06-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

As usual you spin the half truths, yes Nabonidus was king of babylonia however he was not in the the city of babylon when it was taken over. Who was in charge of the city? Belshazzar.

1. Babylon and Babylonia had only one king - the same king.

2. Belshazzar was not in charge of the city. Nabonidus had returned from travels abroad. When he did so, the all-important New Year festival could be celebrated for the first time in many years, thus indicating that the king (Nabonidus) had returned to the city.

Quote:

From the source:

As usual, your source quotation does not support the broken claim you are making.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-07-2008, 07:03 AM

Message to arnoldo: Please reply to my most recent post in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236335 at the GRD Forum. In addition, please make a post in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235279 at the GRD Forum. The latter thread is my favorite thread. You made a few posts in that thread, got into trouble, and conveniently took the next bus out of town.

arnoldo · 02-07-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Apparently the book of daniel also has persian idioms.

The cite is from: Dismemberment in Dan 2:5 and 3:29 as an Old Persian Idiom, "To be Made into Parts" John Makujina
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1999), pp. 309-312

Unfortunately Makujina merely shows the possibility of an old idiom in the text, which fits within Garbini's framework of a 2nd c. BCE attempt to reproduce Persian chancelry Aramaic.

spin

Apart from the Persian Idiom the Aramaic is from the era of the persian empire not the 2nd BC.

Source Cite: The Imperial Aramaic Language

Quote:

The most widespread language during the period of the New Assyrian empire, and the chancellery language of the Persian Empire. This language appears in the Old Testament of the Bible in five places: Ezra 4:8-6:18, Ezra 7:12-26, Daniel 2:4-7:28, Jer. 10:11 and Gen. 31:47. 7-4th centuries BC.

The Imperial Aramaic Language

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

Everyone agrees that Daniel purports to be older than the 2nd century BC (this is necessary to make Daniel's "prophecies" appear "prophetic"). Therefore it's inevitable that the author would attempt to use "old-style language". This signifies nothing: it's equivalent to using Elizabethan English when faking a Shakespeare play.

Sheshonq · 02-07-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Apart from the Persian Idiom the Aramaic is from the era of the persian empire not the 2nd BC.

Wrong. The Imperial Aramaic language persisted well into the 2nd century, so it isn't surprising to find it in Daniel. It's a total fallacy to claim that it was only spoken in the 5th and 4th centuries.

Solitary Man · 02-07-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Everyone agrees that Daniel purports to be older than the 2nd century BC (this is necessary to make Daniel's "prophecies" appear "prophetic").

Do they really? Everyone?

makerowner · 02-07-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Everyone agrees that Daniel purports to be older than the 2nd century BC (this is necessary to make Daniel's "prophecies" appear "prophetic").

Do they really? Everyone?

Well the text implies it rather strongly. It includes a letter supposedly written by Nebuchadrezzar that would have been older than the 2nd century BC if it were genuine.

ynquirer · 02-07-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Everyone agrees that Daniel purports to be older than the 2nd century BC (this is necessary to make Daniel's "prophecies" appear "prophetic").

Do they really? Everyone?

Well the text implies it rather strongly. It includes a letter supposedly written by Nebuchadrezzar that would have been older than the 2nd century BC if it were genuine.

Therefore, Daniel is a pseudo-prophetic book, isn't it? Not that “the abuse of the book by christians intent on turning it into prophecy” - spin dixit, post #3 - but that the writers themselves purported to have the book look like prophetic. Is that your view?

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

02-07-2008, 07:03 AM	#504
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: Please reply to my most recent post in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236335 at the GRD Forum. In addition, please make a post in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235279 at the GRD Forum. The latter thread is my favorite thread. You made a few posts in that thread, got into trouble, and conveniently took the next bus out of town.

02-07-2008, 08:02 AM	#506
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Everyone agrees that Daniel purports to be older than the 2nd century BC (this is necessary to make Daniel's "prophecies" appear "prophetic"). Therefore it's inevitable that the author would attempt to use "old-style language". This signifies nothing: it's equivalent to using Elizabethan English when faking a Shakespeare play.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.