Sheshonq

Which suffers from the same problem that your own argument suffers from: it tries to rationalize mistakes in Daniel, and fails to do so. :rolling:

Who cares? The Greek legends mention many real places. That doesn't mean that stories about the Greek gods are true. Please tell me your logic isn't that shitty?

mens_sana

You didn't deal with the tablets, Arnoldo. You need to deal with those tablets — if you are going to do an honest job on Daniel.

ynquirer

It’s not “between” Nabonidus and Cyrus that Darius must be looked up. Daniel doesn’t follow a chronological order.

arnoldo

Ok, was it written around 3BC? The other point you might want to consider is that Daniel 9:1 states the following; "In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes ( a Mede by descent) who was made ruler over the Babylonian Kingdom" In Hebrew the word Xerxes is Ahasuerus. Scholars are divided where the correct translation of Ahasuerus is Xerxes. It appears to be an interpolation of the LXX.

The Religious Policy of Xerxes and the "Book of Esther"
Robert J. Littman
See footnote #2.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: My most recent post in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236960 at this forum adequately refutes all of your arguments about Bible prophecy.

Sheshonq

Is that how you explain the bad history? By un-hooking it from any obligation to follow chronological flow? "It's historical - except when it's wrong, in which case it doesn't need to be historical?"

A little reminder of the problem I identified earlier:

Now back to your claim that Daniel isn't chronological: would historians tolerate that kind of special pleading and favoritism when evaluating *any* other ancient document? Would they try to claim that a document that purports to tell history is not, in fact, chronological? Even though all internal cues clearly indicate that the author(s) intended to present the book of Daniel as a chronological recounting of the invasion of Babylon?

Would objective historians go to such herculean machinations to rescue a source from being declared wrong? Would such strained gymnastics be countenanced when evaluating, say, Herodotus? Of course not. When confronted with such a problem as I identified above, historians would just conclude, "Well, Herodotus got many things correct, but on other points he was

* wrong;
* repeating hearsay;
* failed to confirm what he was repeating; or
* a victim of the general lack of science and acceptance of the supernatural that was commonplace in his era.

Yet you refuse to draw the same conclusions about Daniel that would be drawn when faced with the task of evaluating any other ancient document that contained a similar mistake.

You already know these answers - you simply don't like them. And your refusal to accept the obvious conclusion that Daniel is wrong demonstrates your bias and your lack of qualifications to objectively evaluate such questions.

Sheshonq

1. Not a Mede by descent.
2. Darius was the FATHER of Xerxes, not the son.


No it is not. In Hebrew it is Achashverosh.

No, they are not "divided" on it.

You shouldn't use words like "interpolation" without knowing the context. In this context, the author is explaining why the Greek version (LXX) misidentified KHSHAYARSHA as Artaxerxes.

And again you can't read your own sources. The footnote basically explains why the Artaxerxes rendering is most probably wrong - leaving the Xerxes rendering as the linguistically most defensible and historically preferred version.

ynquirer

I'm sorry, Daniel is not a book of history. I see that you'd like it to be so, but it isn't.

The problem is not whether or not Daniel is a book of history, but whether his alleged mistakes as regard historical facts makes one scrap a 6th cent. dating. Its being or not a book of history is immaterial from this point of view.

arnoldo

Ok, was it written around 3BC? The other point you might want to consider is that Daniel 9:1 states the following; "In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes ( a Mede by descent) who was made ruler over the Babylonian Kingdom" In Hebrew the word Xerxes is Ahasuerus. Scholars are divided where the correct translation of Ahasuerus is Xerxes. It appears to be an interpolation of the LXX.

Robert J. Littman

Sorry to repost however the link didn't seem to be working and I couldn't edit. Here is the link

Robert J. Littman

Here is another source on the subject

In Daniel 9:1, Ahasuerus is said to be the father of Darius the Mede

Sheshonq

You seem to be be confusing me with....yourself?

I have no belief that Daniel is history. On the contrary; I'm merely responding to people who have tried to tell me repeatedly that it is reliable history. I'm fully aware that it's bunk, even though the author(s) of the book tried to portray it as history and even though uninformed bible literalists seem to think it is.

Oh -- and I'm also responding to people who -- as you have done -- try to have it both ways: claiming that Daniel is reliable, except when it isn't.

Alleged mistakes? You mean the ones you failed to explain?

"Claiming that Daniel is reliable - except when it isn't." You want the book to be reliably dated to the 6th century, but it is precisely the historical mistakes that point to the conclusion that it is 2nd century.

My statement still stands: when faced with such mistakes in any other ancient document, would objective historians go to the trouble that you (and others) have undertaken, to preserve a 5th century dating?

Of course not. The fact that you still cling to the 5th century dating in spite of the problems with it only shows that you care more for your religious bias than you do for actual pursuit of knowledge.