spin

Cyrus incorporated the Medes into his empire. This is what Herodotus said:

At the end of this time the grief of Croesus was interrupted by intelligence from abroad. He learnt that Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, had destroyed the empire of Astyages, the son of Cyaxares; and that the Persians were becoming daily more powerful.

You better tell Herodotus he was wrong here. He doesn't know about your Medo/Persian empire.

As I said the four are dealing with the same information in different manners. You are trying to force images across visions. That's a blunder.

Another simple blunder. The Medes were the head of a confederation of tribes. Cyrus built up another such confederation around the Persians. Both groups were Iranian. So? The Persians defeated the Medes and absorbed them. As their inscriptions show, the Persians were the rulers; the Medes paid tribute.

You're merely repeating yourself without justification.

They are certainly treated differently. And you still refuse to deal with the ten horns/kings.



No admission. You simply can't read. I've always said that the Romans were present in Dan 11:30. (See here for the first time I mention the Romans in Dan 11.)

Another empty repetition.

If you cannot read what you are responding to, why bother to answer with stupid mistakes??? Your response has nothing to do with my comment.



It's not the Babylonian sources that are ridiculous, it is your apologetic websites that are clueless to the validity of the sources and are only interested in perpetrating lies.

This solves your dilemma. You take someone with a different name who was there and you rename him to be the person you want him to be.



You don't feel any guilt for peddling such.

Yup. The earliest palaeographical dating is to the late 2nd c. BCE. Plenty of time. I don't know why you want to waste your efforts on the Dead Sea Scrolls that are of absolutely no help to you here. It's just yet another of your non sequiturs.


spin

spin

Earliest date for this tomb of Daniel is circa 1160 CE. I got a lovely piece of property at the bottom of Puget Sound, I'm sure you'd be interested in...




spin

Sheshonq

What the hell do you think a goat on a coin proves, arnoldo?

I can produce Greek coins with a dolphin, eagle, Athena, cup, archer, fish, etc. on them. By your busted reasoning, that means that pretty much *anything* qualifies as a "symbol of Greece" - anything, as long as it allows you to pretend that the prophecy isn't a failure.

Aphrodite and a pegasus, from Corinth:



Athena and the owl, from Athens:


Horseman, and a boy riding a dolphin:


Macedonia, Phillip II and a horseman:


A whole page full of Medusa coins.

Do you begin to realize just how *stupid* your claim was yet? Do you understand how ridiculously easy it is to refute the homemade nonsense you make it up out of thin air?

arnoldo

Well it looks like the following interpretation is wrong according to the politically correct interpretation.

Daniel also aparently messed up when he gave the following interpretation in Daniel 2:36-2-44 where he basically said the following " You Nebby are the golden head, after you another kindom will rise inferior to yours (The PC interpreation is that this is the Medes). Next a third kingdom will rule over the whole earth (nope, this is not Greece, the PC interpreation is that it is Persia). Finally there will be forth kingdom, strong as iron...and the people will be a mixture (despite Rome obviously being a mixture of many difference people the PC interpretation is that this is Greece).

Also Daniel messed up when he said "Darius the Mede" took over babylon when it was actualy Cyrus who was Persian. Nevermind that Daniel 5:28 states the following "PERES: YOUR KINGDOM IS DVIDED TO THE MEDES AND PERSIANS" and Daniel 6:28 states "daniel prospered duirng the reign of darius and the reign of CYRUS THE PERSIAN."

Also it's not PC to state two entirely differently chapters, namely Daniel 7:24 and Daniel 8:9 are discussing different persons,no, the PC edition is that they have to be the same individual.

And somehow you have given an authentic date that the book of daniel was written between 167-164 BC. Just for clarification are you saying NONE of the book of Daniel could have been written earlier or later that 167-164 BC??:huh:

spin

That's not particularly strange. The christian interpretation had to start somewhere.


spin

spin

Just how often does one have to tell you the answer to that question?


spin

spin

When the only imagery in the two chapters regards the little horn and when the little horn is responsible for the persecution of the Jews and when the little horn is connected with trampling one needs to explain why they do not refer to the same thing.


spin

Sheshonq

So? That proves nothing about which one ruled the other 2500 years ago.

Again, big deal. Empires are often short-lived. the USSR lasted less than 75 years. The Neo-Babylonian Empire - the empire of Nebuchadnezzar - only lasted 87 years.

Again: if you knew jack shit about the historical material, you wouldn't need to be spoonfed all the basic elements. But study is hard work and it would interfere with your preaching, wouldn't it?

No, your source says that the Medes were in control of a confederation. But your source is talking about a period in time several decades before Cyrus. By the time Cyrus came on the scene, the Medes were long past their prime and they were subservient to the Persians.

Moreover, your "source" is a cultural attache website. It's hardly a historical source. Someone without any historical training or ability to review the actual primary sources threw up a website. Then you -- being equally ignorant of history and archaeology -- found the website and decided that it was a "source". It is not.

From my paper on the topic - pay attention to the red text:

Sheshonq

He asks the already-answered stuff whenever he is cornered and stalling for time.

Jack the Bodiless

The earliest fragments of Daniel in the DSS date from several decades later. That's a pretty strange definition of "rapidly" you have there.

And yet I suspect you don't have a problem with the "rapid distribution" of Christian gospels and Pauline epistles?