Chris Weimer

Ahem, if you look at your word and my word, I think you should be able to spot which one is correct. Regardless, I still don't see anything substantial in your posts about this topic... What were you trying to say again?

Lafcadio

Which is throughoutly applied in history. We claim greeks had no knowledge of gunpowder because we have no evidence they had that knowledge at all.

I may see them to take the informations about a famous ruler like Nebuchadnezzar from hellenistic culture. I also may see them as having a corpus of stories from that period (6th century - which may include one or more "skeletal" stories which were inclued in the latter book of Daniel). I don't see them as having a historiography.

I am not amazed, but I think that all the history details that we found out by archaeological discovered tablets and not in the ancient literature is very probable the hebrew Bible's mentions are inherited from a long story chain. I am not saying the actual forms of the Bible books were written so early, but the initial "bricks" of those stories may go back to those times. And these bricks I rather see them as short stories (Belshazzar's feast might be an example of such story), legendary or not.

This absence lasted about 10 years. Nabonidus was in the southern oasis of Theima. Belshazzar replaced him in Babylon as regent and son, but had full royal powers.
Imagine that during these years Nabonidus couldn't fulfill the yearly ceremonials in Marduk's temple and be there when Enuma Elish was recited. So it's likely that babylonian priesthood might've started disregard Nabonidus as king.
Therefore I am not sure when Nabonidus returned to Babylon how strong his royal authority was.

There's no proof of Belshazzar' deathplace as I know (please enlighten me if you have an accurate theory). The battle you talk about, must be the battle near Opis where the babylonian army confronted the persians of Cyrus the Great.

I am not trying to do that, just wonder how some assyro-babylonian historical details, apparently not known even to greeks are to be found in the hebrew literature? Is the hebrew neighbourhood just a coincidence? Their "folk memory" was a tabula rasa in the age of hellenism?

Chris Weimer

Well, you're arguing two different things here. Argument from silence is valid if one would expect otherwise, so its usually a tough situation. For your example, there are writings about "Greek Fire" and other types of weaponry, so it would be absurd that something so powerful as gunpowder wouldn't be mentioned, however for the ancient Hebrews, no one would have bothered to mention, in the type of apocalyptic literature which is Daniel, if they had previous sources they were drawing from since they it wasn't written as a history but as fiction.

Sure, anyone can say that. I mean, the Deluge story itself must predate its form now for at least two thousand-three thousand probably up to four thousand or five thousand years. Who knows when such a thing occured. Take the newly found Floriensis bones. Natives there had stories of little people in their traditions, but Floriensis had been extinct for thousands of years. Never deny the power of oral tradition.

Jim Larmore

Obviously there seems to be a few self proclaimed experts on Biblical prophecy here , thats ok . Its hard to do this and work at the same time but I will study some of toto's posts to see if its an obfuscation or a bloviation of the facts.

The truth is there for the truth seeker to see. What I posted concerning the messianic prophecy is solid so is the little horn symbology. History verifys this and history cannot be refuted.

spin

2nd rate history. Arguments from silence have their place, based on what one should expect, not simply on what you can't find.

They didn't lose their Nebuchadnezzar traditions. Why should they necessarily lose others? They didn't even lose a version of the Nabonidus tradition.

So you don't really mind the notion of Belshazzar surviving in Hebrew tradition, be it legendary or not.

Don't be silly with the meaningless expression, "full royal powers". If he were king he had full royal powers. He wasn't so he didn't. You have some wafty idea that Nabonidus had lost it and handed over control to his son, so that he could pursue his wayward interests which led later hagiographers to develop the notion of Nabonidus's madness, which the writer of Daniel transferred to Nebuchadnezzar. Instead, Nabonidus was working for his country's good to find alternative trade routes for those lost to the north.

Imagine that during these years Nabonidus couldn't fulfill the yearly ceremonials in Marduk's temple and be there when Enuma Elish was recited. So it's likely that babylonian priesthood might've started disregard Nabonidus as king.[/quote]
This was the sort of thing which aparently alienated him from the ordinary public. Through his mother he was devoted to Sin.


Yup, Opis.

You've already allowed tradition to maintain it.


spin

Jim Larmore

If you calculate the time according to the prophecy itself you come to 27 A.D. if you count the zero year, which is right on time for the start of Jesus ministry. However, like I said before, depending on which historian you take you may come up with a different year if you take the 15th year of Tiberius from Tacitus.
I don't think God made a mistake on the prophecy here. If there is a mistake then it would lie in the obfuscation attempts of critics and others who try to confuse the issues. The prophecy works out great just taking like it is.

The time of His birth was known too. The magi or wise men knew by studying the scriptures when to expect His birth. They were looking when the star appeared.

As far as the other issue, its wasn't unusual for a king or princes time to start counting when He was crowned or started His reign rather than His birth.

Chris Weimer

Try working two jobs and going to school full time. Bah, and you've yet to post anything substantial that history could "verify."

RGD

Jim, history may not be refutable, but you certainly are; history is only useful if you actually know something about it. You appear to be using factually incorrect history to make your point. For example: No, it didn't. I was conquered, in the same fashion that Babylon, Persia, and Greece were; some parts of it held together (the Byzantines), but most of the west was simply overrun by the barbarians.

More incorrectness. The Suevi, for example, settled in NW Spain around 409, and were officially recognized as a separate kingdom well before 476. The 'Anglo-Saxons' were not a single kingdom at any time in the first millenium. The Alamanni were not a unified kingdom either - and Germany was never part of the Roman Empire.

Your 'historical facts' are stercor - arguing with them is useless.

In addition, you do arbitrary things such as equate days to years in Daniel - without any warrant or rationale whatever.

Good Biblical exegesis requires a grasp of history and a good understanding of literature and logic - I don't see these in use here.

No wonder you like Salvador.

Jack the Bodiless

I see another problem:
The interval between 538 AD and 1798 AD is NOT 1260 years of 360 days in length.

Who says that we should be using years of 360 days in length when interpreting Daniel? Why, this person:

Jim Larmore

Maybe you should write or call the people who publish things like the encyclopedia Britannica or History of Western Europe and let them know how clumsy they are .

He was the only one who was crowned prince of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions and started the papal legacy we know of today. This Bishop of Rome came to power in 538 A.D. and is the one that tapestries and wall art is painted all over Rome for. Heck if you want to get technical about the apostle Peter was considered the first Pope, but I don't believe he ascribed to that distinction or would have ever wanted it.

Another issue is this pope started the enforcement of compliance to the holy church's dictates upon pain of death world wide as it was known back then. This era started what we know as the dark ages where literally millions of people were burned at the stake or killed in many tortuous ways for being a heretic.