spin

I've already posted what the Nabonidus Chronicle indicated. Here it is again:

Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed subgovernors in Babylon.

Not bad for someone who in real life must have been about 80 years of age, ie Daniel, seeing as he was in Babylon in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (~603 BCE).

Well, if it were Darius I Daniel would have been over 100 years old.

How many times do I have to tell you that Daniel is not prophecy, it was never intended as prophecy, and it is located in the Ketubim, not the Nebiim (prophets) in the Hebrew bible? It's mainly fundamentalist christians who call Daniel prophetic. Christian scholars usually place Daniel as written in the third and second c. BCE as a reaction to the impact of the Greeks.


spin

arnoldo

It appears that the question "Who is Darius the Mede" has been covered in depth in other threads. My argument of course is that Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel is never presented as a "king" merely he was given authority in babylon by Cyrus. And that Darius may in fact be " Gobryas" or if not another sub-governor. There is just not enough information. From my searches there is not a lot of info either on Gobryas either so there are no clear answers. Here is a link on some info.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/w...ies_chap07.htm

In any event I agree with you that not all of the book of Daniel is prophetic. Some is merely historical (or attempts to be historical from your POV) which describes the jewish exile in babylon after nebby destroyed jerusalem ( i think we agree this is historical fact). I think we also agree that Cyrus began the process of allowing the Jews to return back to jerusalem.

As far as prophecy is concerned clearly parts of the book are prophectic in nature. You can argue whether these so called prophecies were "written after the fact" or "failed prophecies". Of course my perception that these writing are accurate prophecies describing in part the Roman Empire. In fact these prophecies were so accurate that Porphyry (c.232/4-c.305) proposed that the Book of Daniel were written approximatley in the year 168-165 BC. The Dead Sea scrolls contan numerous copies of the book of daniel and the book of daniel was widely regarded as canon which gives strong evidence that the book of daniel was written much earlier. You are basically stating Porphyry’s heresy. Truly there is nothing new under the sun. The following link provides arguments against the Porphyry heresy.

http://www.davidccarson.com/Date%20of%20Daniel.htm

spin

You are not reading the text as it is written. This Darius received the kingdom, ie he became king. He then "set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps...", 6:1. A satrap was an administrator of a Persian province. In 6:6 the administrators clearly call Darius king. Therefore your claim that 'Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel is never presented as a "king"' is simply false. When are you going to give this one up?

Not a lot, but enough. The only reason for anyone to think that Ugbaru was Darius is because inerrantists have little choice but to propose this preposterous claim, for if these two were not the same, then the inerrantist glass house would come down crashing, so it's better to do this:



It might surprise you, but I have used internet before. In fact, I have a better source again. It's called "books".

Visions and prophecies are not the same thing. What happens in Daniel is very different from what happens in the prophetic literature.

Neither. They are history presented as vision.

If you refuse to continue the analysis of Dan 11, how would you know anything about their accuracy? Once you come to see that the stoppage of the daily sacrifice and the pollution of the temple was the act of Antiochus IV, then all the normal inerrantist claptrap must fail, for the same stoppage of sacrifice is found in two of the other visions and the accompanying persecution is found in the fourth vision.

Not prophecies. Porphyry was able to see the crypto-history.

Yes, you'll find I've indicated in this thread that there were eight copies of Daniel found at Qumran.

If it makes you feel good to call the recognition of history as heresy, then so be it.

I never claimed that it was new, but that it was correct. When will you do the work either to show it isn't or to accept that it is?

Here you go again with another of your putrid red herrings. I asked you to do the work to see if you could produce a better historical context that deals with so much of the evidence in Dan 11 or to accept the one that I've put forward. Finding some fool who will not even look at the evidence as you should be doing is of no help to you.

You got up to the diadochi in 11:4. Why did you stop? Is it because you didn't want to face the implications? Finish the process and prove me wrong.


spin

Sheshonq

When bible fundies like you say "there isn't enough information", what you mean is you haven't found any support for your half-baked claims, but if you say "there's not enough information" it makes it look like the door might be open to the possibility.

In reality, there's plenty of information. And it all says that Darius the Mede never existed, and he certainly wasn't Gobryas.

There are plenty of clear answers. They are just not the answers you were hoping to find.

Solitary Man

Fundy Christians aren't the only ones to mistake the genre for prophecy. But I will say that it's not quite kosher to claim that it's not prophecy merely because it's in the Books and not the Prophets. After all, Joshua isn't prophecy, and it's in the Prophets, and Genesis isn't law, but it's in the Law.

arnoldo

Your argument is flawed. Nowhere in the book of Daniel does it states that Darius the Mede conquered Babylon. While translations vary one states that, "And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old." Who gave him the kingdom? Cyrus, of course. You also argue that Daniel was not aware that Cyrus was a king. FALSE. Daniel 7:28 states "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of CYRUS THE PERSIAN."

You are also arguing that someone in the first century BC would have no idea who Cyrus was who liberated the Jews from Babylon and allowed them to return to Jerusalem. The very idea is absurd.

spin

Putting the text bold doesn't make your statement more credible.

OK, you persist in trying to give life to the non-existent Darius. Bravo. However, you ignore the text. 5:30f tells us

That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

The text implies that that night after Belshazzar died "Darius the Mede" received the kingdom. This person who received the kingdom was called king Darius in 6:6.

You know that Belshazzar was never king. You know that Ugbaru received the kingdom from the Babylonians. You know that he was never king. You know that Cyrus was king at the time of the fall of Babylon. You know that this king Darius could not have been Ugbaru. And you know that this statement in Daniel has no fact in it. Denial keeps you going.

Your reading is completely wrong. First it's 6:28. According to Daniel, Darius the Mede was king (see 6:6) and when his reign was finished, Cyrus became king. The text of 6:28 indicates the finish of one reign and the start of another.

"Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian."

The second century. And you wouldn't know what ordinary people would know in the second c. BCE. You cannot argue from such ignorance.

So Daniel says:

1. "Darius the Mede" received the kingdom after the death of "king" Belshazzar,
2. Darius was king,
3. Cyrus was king after Darius.

This is not history, but the writers weren't interested in the time of the exile, but in the time of the Seleucid persecution. The text is more accurate about Antiochus than it is about the Persians or the Babylonians.

That should indicate where the focus of the book of Daniel is. So, when are you going to continue the analysis of Dan 11?


spin

arnoldo

Wrong, I have already submitted archaeological evidence that states otherwise. However here is a historical source to provide confirmation that Belshazzar existed.

Johnny Skeptic

That is irrelevant since if a God exists, he is probably not the God of the Bible. I reasonably proved that in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235279 at the GRD Forum. If you wish to embarrass yourself, please make posts in that thread.

spin

Perhaps you should read what was said to you before make any more blunders. Read it again:

Belshazzar was never king.

This is a fact that your source confirms, calling Belshazzar the viceroy of Nabonidus.

I can understand your state of confusion. You are trying to defend something that was never intended to be history in the way you want it.

This seems to be a waste of a post. You neither admitted your error regarding Darius the Mede, nor did you provide any evidence to improve your position regarding this character. It seems to be another of your tactical changes of topic.


spin