Darklighter

Arnoldo, if you look closely at all the '70 year' refrences, you'll notice none of them tie directly to how long exile will last but rather how long Babylon would have domination over the nations. The two are mentioned together and relating to one another (In Daniel, for example), but this can merely indicate that the exil was to take place during that 70 year domination. I believe that that is the standard Rabbinical view of the prophecy anyway. I think the '70 year exile' was a later christian interpretation. It's been a while since I researced that, and my memory is fuzzy on it now, so perhaps spin, or someone more knoweledgeable than I, can back that up. But you can see what I mean about the prophecies for yourself. Interesting stuff.

Also, why is it hard to imagine a book gaining wide circulation within a few decades? Alot can happen in even just 2 decades. But that should not be viewed as "evidence" of its cannonicity, since the DSS contained many more copies of the Book of Enoch.

I will give you this point, however. Based on some sources earlier in the thread, it does seem that the evidence might allow Noabonidus to not have been in Babylon at the time Ugbaru entered. I might be reading this wrong however, and further clarification on this point might be necessary. It doesn't valididate an early date however, it just removes one of the many checkmarks already in the 'Wrong' column.

arnoldo

Another item which should be removed from the "wrong" column is the mistaken belief that whoever the writer of Daniel was didn't know that the Persians defeated the city of babylon not the medes. Daniel 5:28 states "Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and the Persians" Also there is the mistaken belief that Darius the Mede conquered the city of babylon. Daniel 5:30 states he RECEIVED the kingdom. From whom did he recieve the kingdom? From Cyrus the Persian who is mentioned in Daniel 6:29

Sheshonq

And as usual, your source does not prove either of your claims about:

1. Captives taken BEFORE the fall of Jerusalem;
2. 70 years of exile.

Result? PROPHECY FAILS! :rolling:

Sheshonq

But post #461 does not contain proof for the 70 years prophecy being fulfilled. That was your claim, remember? That's what you have to prove.

Hint: repeating your bible story over and over is not the same thing as proving that the bible story is TRUE.

Who cares? Rambling on about an unconnected event again - one that has nothing to do with your claim of 70 years in Babylon as a fulfilled prophecy?

That was the claim you need to prove, before asking others for proof.

I have more than enough claim to state this. As soon as you prove your claim that the 70 years prophecy was fulfilled, then I'll state my case.

Sheshonq

Unfortunately, that particular item is staying in the "wrong" column. Let's all watch as arnoldo implodes.......

Yeah, spin already went into details about this with renaussalt. "Receive" does not mean "take a gift from someone else". It means "come into possession of".

1. There is no evidence that "Darius the Mede" ever existed in the first place;

2. The Persians were not giving rulerships to Medes at this time - are you nuts? They had just subjugated them after an uprising.

3. Apparently you're just searching for "Cyrus" and pasting whatever you find. Dan 6:29 proports to show that Daniel prospered under two kings:

DAN 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

The problems with this are as follows:

1. There is no evidence that "Darius the Mede" ever existed in the first place;

2. Since this is chronological, this mythical Darius could not have received anything from Cyrus, since the author of Daniel in v6:29 above has Cyrus coming *after* Darius, not before. Your attempt at rescuing this prophecy runs aground on the very text you were trying to use to prove your point (or stall for time).

3. Historically speaking, however, this is all nonsense anyhow. We know from records and archaeology that Gubaru (Ugbaru) was one of Cyrus’ military generals. He was present at the conquest of Babylon, taking the city and preparing it for Cyrus’ entry. This same Gubaru (Ugbaru) died about a month after the conquest. Gobryas was an entirely different personage, installed as governor by Cyrus himself.

SO:
Darius didn't receive squat from Cyrus the Persian. Not merely because there's no evidence for Darius at all, but also because we know *who* Cyrus DID give the governship to: it was Gobryas who was installed as governor.

arnoldo

It's not that simple. That verse could also be interpreted in a synchronistic manner in which Daniel prospered under both the reign of Darius and Cyrus. Biblical synchronisms are frequently used throughout the Old Testament making setting dates extremely complex.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...OR-enlargePage

Sheshonq

Uh, no. It could not be interpreted that way.

Of course, if you disagree then

1. provide three examples where this is the case.
2. Also, you'll need to show that any "Darius the Mede" existed in the first place.
3. And you'll need to explain why the historical and archaeological evidence shows that Gobryas was given the governorship, not some make-believe person called "Darius the Mede."


Unfortunately, your link doesn't even talk about synchronisms; it's unclear why you even posted the link at all.

makerowner

It says "Biblical chronology is complex". That's his source to back up his argument. :rolling:

arnoldo

I guess you missed this part:

spin

The writers of Daniel were faced with a difficult literary problem. They knew the works of Isaiah and Jeremiah which told of a Median conquest of Babylon. They also clearly knew of the Median empire, for that's what the first horn of the ram was in Dan 8: the first horn represented the Medes and the one that came later represented the Persians. It's hard to deny that our writers didn't know of a Median empire separate and earlier than the Persian empire, though they knew that these were related peoples as they are horns of the one ram.

The problem comes when one has to deal with a Persian conquest of Babylon. This is where one writer of the Daniel tradition decided to present them as really part of the some greater single entity. This is localized to the end of chapter five through to 6:16, though the same writer probably finished chapter six. It was a fair solution to a literary conflict. However, it was not historical and the other Daniel writers showed no real interest in the notion. The closest there is comes in another reference to Darius of the seed of the Medes. There leaves just one relevant reference to Medes and Persians outside Dan 6: the Persian court romance Esther 1:19.

Beyond these and a few references to the Medes without mention of Persians, the bible knows only of Persia, for example 2 Chr 36:20:

And those that escaped from the sword he (Nebuchadrezzar) carried away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia.

Not of Persia and Media. 2 Chr 36:22, 23 both talk about Cyrus king of Persia, no mention of Media. Ezra talks of Cyrus as king of Persia and various other kings of Persia. With the exception of a reference to the province of Media, Ezr 6:2, Ezra has no interest in Media at all. The notion of a kingdom divided between the Medes and Persians is non-existent in either Ezra or 2 Chronicles. I've already shown that Darius I didn't know anything about it in either his Behistun inscription or another found at Persepolis.

We've seen that the writer of Dan 8 clearly knows that the Medes and the Persians were two separate entities from the same stock and that the Medes chronologically preceded the Persians, but that the Persians were greater.

3 I looked and saw a ram standing between me and the river; he had two horns; the horns were high, with one higher than the other, and the higher sprouted last.

20 And the ram that you saw had (two) horns, the kings of Media and Persia.
WYL )$R-R)YT B(L H:QRNYM MLKY MDY W:PRS

Interestingly this vision was also historically incorrect, for, while it occurs during the reign of Belshazzar, the Medes were not coming to be a great power, as the vision suggests. They had already been a great power, having conquered various nations, including, with the help of Chaldean Babylon, Assyria itself. By the time of the fall of Babylon the Medes had already succumbed to the Persians.


spin