Sheshonq

Uh, yes - he did fail to understand that point. Which is why he painted the historically incorrect picture of "Medes and Persians", when the histoircal reality was "Persians."

Which is all irrelevant. At the time of the conquest of Babylon, there was no joint "Medes and Persians", contrary to what the author(s) of Daniel claim.

Not only that, but you are again unable to explain why your explanation of the imagery in Dan 8 is better than spin's explanation. Every time your failure to answer that challenge has been brought to your attention, you've consistently run away like a scared pig at a barbecue.

And then you wait a week or so, re-surface, and make the same tired claims again. Did you really think that we had forgotten that you chickened out the last nineteen times you were challenged to prove your position?
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing::rolling::rolling:
ROFLMAO

arnoldo

Nice argument from semantics you have there however any alleged Jewish writer of Daniel from the 2nd century B.C. was certainly aware the Cyrus liberated the Jews from Babylon and allowed them to rebuild their temple. Are you saying that this alleged 2nd century writer of the book of daniel was unaware of what Ezra 1 plainly states that Cyrus was the liberator of the Jewish people? The more likely scenario is that your understanding of the text is questionable.

Sheshonq

It isn't semantics. It's historical reality. Medes are not Persians, and the invasion of Babylon was a Persian event - no "Medes and Persians". The author(s) of Daniel got it wrong.

By the way, Jeremiah and Isaiah both get it wrong, too - for example, Jeremiah 51:28-31 predicted the Medes would overthrow Babylon.

Which doesn't refute or explain why the author(s) of Daniel referred to "Medes and Persians", when the historical reality was "Persians."

I'm saying that:

1. it doesn't matter what Ezra says, since Ezra isn't Daniel;

2. The author(s) of Daniel getting one item correct doesn't prevent those author(s) from getting something else wrong. After all, if Daniel allegedly served at the court of Babylon and then at the court of the conquering Persians, he shouldn't get *anything* wrong. Yet he does.

Nope. "Medes and Persians" is pretty clear. Unless you have some some alternate understanding of "Medes and Persians" that mysteriously doesn't mean "Medes and Persians"?

The more likely scenario is that this is yet another historical mistake, and you're simply unable to admit it to yourself because your whole belief in scriptural infallibility would come tumbling down.

ROFLMAO

Sheshonq

Oh, and by the way, arnoldo - you and sugarhitman both have failed to address the fact that the prophecies said Babylon would be destroyed by the Persians. Yet instead of destruction, Cyrus treated the city with kid gloves, and no such destruction ever occurred.

Bet ya thought we forgot about that little detail, didn't you?
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing::rolling::rolling:

arnoldo

Just out of curiosity did Jeremiah and Isaiah both "get it wrong" because it was written before the fact and erroneously "predicted" that the Medes would overthrow Babylon or was the alleged erroneous text written after the fact?

arnoldo

No, mystery babylon continues to exist according to judeo/christian theology.

Sheshonq

Their mistake was caused by the fact that they wrote in a time when Media was a major kingdom, and no one foresaw the rise of the scattered Persian tribes - and also the conquest of Media by Persia.

Sheshonq

Which is irrelevant, because the Babylon that the Persians were supposedly going to destroy was the city of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates.