Originally Posted by arnoldo

Check the history again. Nabonidus was not in the actual city of babylon when the city was taken over.

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Yes, he was.


Yes. That's one reason why Daniel contains mistakes and bad history.


No, there isn't.

In point of fact, it does not say that - which is precisely what you get for trying to quote from Britannica without paying for the full access membership. You only get the first paragraph of the article, which says:

the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, presumably made for the use of the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the lingua franca throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BC and that the rest of the...

The red area is where your argument breaks down. The *FULL* paragraph reads as follows:

Septuagint
abbreviation Lxx, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, presumably made for the use of the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the lingua franca throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BC and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BC.

Notice the blue text? :rolling:

And the next paragraph reads:

The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) wasderived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked in separate cells,translating the whole, and in the end all their versions were identical. In fact there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint's translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. A tradition that translators were sent to Alexandria by Eleazar, the chief priest at Jerusalem, at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), a patron of literature, first appeared in the Letter of Aristeas, an unreliable source.

So once again, you quote from a source that you neither understand nor appreciate - and the end result is that the source actually *contradicts* you, arnoldo.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Actually if the Book of Daniel was translated into Greek in the 2nd century BC wouldn't that indicate that the Book of Daniel was written much earlier?

Originally Posted by spin

There is no reason to believe Daniel was translated in the second century BCE, though, had it been so, there is no way to know how long before that translation it had been written. This is another of his ad hoc inventions unrelated to reality.

It should now be apparent that arnoldo has shown he will not deal with the historical context of Dan 11. He is going to fuck around here for the rest of his brief stay with specious arguments and lame improvisation, showing he's no different from the stray inerrantist clones we so frequently pick up.

Unless on the off-chance he returns to his senses and starts to deal with Dan 11, I've finished with his contributions to this thread. :wave:


spin

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I have already shown you from historical sources that Nabonidus was not in the city of Babylon when it fell to the armies of Cyrus. The source is Nabonidus chronicle:
[snip]

Originally Posted by spin

If we turn to ch.11 we find a series of conflicts between the kings of the north and the kings of the south immediately after the time of Alexander, the warrior king of 11:3 and the diadochi in 11:4. The king of the north is clearly Seleucid and the king of the south is Ptolemy and chapter 11 describes the Wikipedia reference-linkSyrian_Wars. A close examination of the text in conjunction with this history provides an identical match, showing

* the ascendancy of the southern Ptolemy kings in the third century,
* the problem of northern Antiochus II's wife, Berenice, 11:6ff,
* the ascendency of Antiochus III with his successful campaigns against the south, 11:14-19,
* the reign of Seleucus IV with the famous visit of his official Heliodorus to jerusalem (2 Macc 3), 11:20,
* the usurpation of the throne by Antiochus IV in 175 BCE, 11:21,
* the removal of Wikipedia reference-linkOnias_III, the prince of the covenant, in the same year, 11:22,
* Antiocus IV's agreement with the supporters of Jason, 11:23,
* a detailed account of Antiochus IV's first and second campaigns against the south including mention of the two Ptolemy kings, 11:24-29, culminating in
* the arrival of the Romans (the ships of the Kittim) to force him to leave, 11:30 (see also the Old Greek LXX which specifically mentions the Romans),
* Antiochus's attack on Jerusalem, 11:31, and
* his occupation of the temple and the fortress (Acra) with the stopping of sacrifice and the pollution of the temple, 11:32,
* and the complete suppression of the Jewish religion (see 2 Macc 6:1ff), 11:34-35,
* and so on, including the mention of his receiving help from a foreign god (Olympian Zeus, see 2 Macc 6:2).

The fulcrum is the stopping of temple sacrifices, 11:31, 9:27 and 8:11 -- this last is done by the little horn, who we also see is the culmination of the fourth beast in chapter 7, who attacked the Jews and attempted to change the seasons and the laws.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I have already shown you from historical sources that Nabonidus was not in the city of Babylon when it fell to the armies of Cyrus.

Originally Posted by spin

[
But look again. One "take" and to "accept". In fact "receive" is given under "take". While "take" is used with things as objects (indicated by "acc. rei."), "receive" is recommended with people ("acc. pers."). The object in our case is MLKWT), "kingdom".

]