Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-17-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The book of Daniel is attacked largely because of Greeks words and other additions which are found in the LXX. Which is a Greek version of the OT translated from Hebrew.

As usual sugarhitman you are clueless about the subject. But to save us both the effort, just go to one of the hack apologetic sites and read what you're supposed to know about and how to respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The Jews disregard the LXX because it is a corrupt text. The original Daniel did not have Greek words and a song. So what they are really attacking is the LXX. The LXX is not the Original. And if Daniel says there was a Darius the Mede, then there was.

I'm sure you won't believe what just any book tells you, so all you need do is explain why you arbitrarily believe this book. And to save you time, you'll answer something arbitrary about a god who you assume exists, but few people here do, which puts the burden of proof on you to demonstrate your god in order to justify your arbitrary information about the god. And I'm sure you can appreciate the mess that you will be in, knowing that you can't demonstrate your god. But that won't stop you because you will refuse to acknowledge your philosophical predicament, a refusal which will only help to demonstrate your irrationality. But, hell, we don't need to go through those steps to reach that conclusion. It is evident from your last statement.

spin

makerowner · 02-17-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Daniel says nothing whatever about the Roman Empire.

Daniel 11:30

Quote:

At the appointed time he turneth back, and hath come against the south, and it is not as the former, and as the latter. 30 And ships of Chittim have come in against him, and he hath been pained, and hath turned back, and hath been insolent toward the holy covenant, and hath wrought, and turned back, and he understandeth concerning those forsaking the holy covenant.

So you've come around? If the Kittim are the Romans (and they are) then neither the king of the north nor the king of the south can be, right?

ynquirer · 02-17-2008, 12:33 PM

Another interesting clue in Da 8:2 is detailed geographical location:

And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was at the river U'lai.

How is it that a name like ‘Ulai’ was dropped in there?

‘Ulai’ is a very interesting name. Except for Daniel‘s mention it occurs only in cuneiform texts, like this. A major occurrence is in a frieze made of three stone slabs in Assurbanipal’s palace in Nineveh (begun before 646 BC). The frieze depicts the battle of Ulai against the Elamites - in or about 652 BC - and its aftermath. The frieze looks like this and I can give academic references at request.

Historians have since long known that the battle of Ulai was fought somewhere in Elam, but it is Daniel that gives a precise location for it. Not being Ulai a Persian name but Elamite, the river was renamed. There are three rivers near modern Susa, and they are called Karkheh (this is supposed to be the ancient Choaspes), Dez, and Shravur. As expected, not all historians agree with Daniel’s placing Ulai in the map. Yet, the point is not this but what the name tells us about the dating of Daniel.

Greek writers, on their turn, renamed both river and region. Exception to be made for Josephus, who draws from biblical sources and uses the name ‘Elam’ just once (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6.4) no Greek writer ever made use of the word. They called the region ‘Susiana’ and the river ‘Choaspes’; this is the case of Herodorus, Pausanias and Strabo.

Now, the question is, How is it that such an odd word came to be written down right in Daniel 8? What is the likelihood that a second-century Hellenized Jew, living in Jerusalem - since he was worried about the abomination that caused desolation in the Temple, wasn’t he? - would have made use of a word ‘Ulai’ of which there is no precedent elsewhere in the Tanakh and whose general use was probably discontinued well before the fall of the Persian Empire and certainly after 330 BC?

arnoldo · 02-17-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Christians have a lot of problems understanding Daniel. They even think the text is a prophetic text, but the Jews place it amongst the other writings. Christians should give the Hebrew bible back to the Jews and stop making such a mess with it.
spin

Utter and complete rubbish/ half truths. The Jews saw a prophet as someone warning the nations with a "Thus sayeth the Lord" type message like Zekey warning the Jews to submit to Nebby. The Jews ignored Zekey's warning, rebeled against Nebby, thus Nebby destroyed Jerusalem (Of course this prophecy was written "after the fact." :huh

Daniel is considered a "writing" because his visions were for the future and not an immediate message to his contemporaries.

mens_sana · 02-17-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

It seems that the biblical reference to Chittim (Jer. 2:10), a name preserved in the city of Citium (modern Lacarna[on the island of Cyprus]), should be attributed to this period. — Avraham Negev, The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 3rd ed.

Quote:

Kittim or Chittim (both: k�*tʹ�*m). 1 Biblical term for Cyprus; often extended to include lands W of Syria. The name originally designated the Phoenician port of Citium in Cyprus. 2 Term appearing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, used of the Romans. The Kittim are referred to as warriors from the west, who capture Jerusalem. — The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

Quote:

Daniel 11 — A prediction of the Persian empire being overthrown by the Grecian, and the Grecian divided into four parts, 1-4. A prophecy of leagues and conflicts between the kings of the south and of the north, 5-20. The exploits of one of the latter princes, 21-29, who, being checked in his progress by the ships of Chittim, shall turn his fury against the Holy Land, 30-35. An impious tyranny set up in the last days by the last king of the north, Antichrist, 36-39. Events that shall take place in the latter times involving the dominion, success, and destruction of powers hostile to the people of God, 40-45. — Jerome H. Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. Thomas Nelson, 1992, p.961.

It appears that the Kittim reference has changed, however at the time Daniel is supposed to have been written, Kittim would have meant Cyprus, not Rome.

arnoldo · 02-17-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

It seems that the biblical reference to Chittim (Jer. 2:10), a name preserved in the city of Citium (modern Lacarna[on the island of Cyprus]), should be attributed to this period. — Avraham Negev, The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 3rd ed.

Quote:

Daniel 11 — A prediction of the Persian empire being overthrown by the Grecian, and the Grecian divided into four parts, 1-4. A prophecy of leagues and conflicts between the kings of the south and of the north, 5-20. The exploits of one of the latter princes, 21-29, who, being checked in his progress by the ships of Chittim, shall turn his fury against the Holy Land, 30-35. An impious tyranny set up in the last days by the last king of the north, Antichrist, 36-39. Events that shall take place in the latter times involving the dominion, success, and destruction of powers hostile to the people of God, 40-45. — Jerome H. Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. Thomas Nelson, 1992, p.961.

It appears that the Kittim reference has changed, however at the time Daniel is supposed to have been written, Kittim would have meant Cyprus, not Rome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The details are there many more than I have listed here briefly. 11:14-19 deal with Antiochus III's developing ascendancy over Egypt. 11:25-28 go into great detail about Antiochus IV's invasion of Egypt and his dealings with the two kings of Egypt. (Yeah, come on s'hitman, give me a realistic context for the two kings of the south in 11:27.) Antiochus was only stopped in his conquest by the Romans who showed up and told him to get out of Egypt -- the ships of Kittim in 11:30.

spin

So is Kittim supposed to mean Rome or Cyprus? :huh:

Johnny Skeptic · 02-17-2008, 02:15 PM

Message to arnoldo: You have not made any posts in my thread on prophecy at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=237212 at the BC&H Forum. Why is that?

spin · 02-17-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

It seems that the biblical reference to Chittim (Jer. 2:10), a name preserved in the city of Citium (modern Lacarna[on the island of Cyprus]), should be attributed to this period. — Avraham Negev, The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 3rd ed.

Quote:

Daniel 11 — A prediction of the Persian empire being overthrown by the Grecian, and the Grecian divided into four parts, 1-4. A prophecy of leagues and conflicts between the kings of the south and of the north, 5-20. The exploits of one of the latter princes, 21-29, who, being checked in his progress by the ships of Chittim, shall turn his fury against the Holy Land, 30-35. An impious tyranny set up in the last days by the last king of the north, Antichrist, 36-39. Events that shall take place in the latter times involving the dominion, success, and destruction of powers hostile to the people of God, 40-45. — Jerome H. Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. Thomas Nelson, 1992, p.961.

It appears that the Kittim reference has changed, however at the time Daniel is supposed to have been written, Kittim would have meant Cyprus, not Rome.

The Kittim are secondary in Dan 11:30. The Old Greek specifically says "Romans". In the crypto-history of Dan 11 the event happens in Antiochus IV's second campaign in Egypt (11:29 mentions this is his return); republican Rome had successfully finished its operations in Greece and dispatched Popillius Laenas to order Antiochus out of Egypt, an order which he complied with. Check out my annotated Dan 11 in this thread.

spin

arnoldo · 02-17-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Another interesting clue in Da 8:2 is detailed geographical location:

And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was at the river U'lai.

How is it that a name like ‘Ulai’ was dropped in there?

‘Ulai’ is a very interesting name. Except for Daniel‘s mention it occurs only in cuneiform texts, like this. A major occurrence is in a frieze made of three stone slabs in Assurbanipal’s palace in Nineveh (begun before 646 BC). The frieze depicts the battle of Ulai against the Elamites - in or about 652 BC - and its aftermath. The frieze looks like this and I can give academic references at request.

Historians have since long known that the battle of Ulai was fought somewhere in Elam, but it is Daniel that gives a precise location for it. Not being Ulai a Persian name but Elamite, the river was renamed. There are three rivers near modern Susa, and they are called Karkheh (this is supposed to be the ancient Choaspes), Dez, and Shravur. As expected, not all historians agree with Daniel’s placing Ulai in the map. Yet, the point is not this but what the name tells us about the dating of Daniel.

Greek writers, on their turn, renamed both river and region. Exception to be made for Josephus, who draws from biblical sources and uses the name ‘Elam’ just once (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6.4) no Greek writer ever made use of the word. They called the region ‘Susiana’ and the river ‘Choaspes’; this is the case of Herodorus, Pausanias and Strabo.

Now, the question is, How is it that such an odd word came to be written down right in Daniel 8? What is the likelihood that a second-century Hellenized Jew, living in Jerusalem - since he was worried about the abomination that caused desolation in the Temple, wasn’t he? - would have made use of a word ‘Ulai’ of which there is no precedent elsewhere in the Tanakh and whose general use was probably discontinued well before the fall of the Persian Empire and certainly after 330 BC?

Susa,Iran is where the tomb of Daniel is alleged to be located.

Sheshonq · 02-18-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

That talk on Nabonidus and Belshazzar is entertaining though wide of the target.

1. It's more entertaining watching you try to silently sneak claims into the discussion, hoping to get them accepted without proving them.

2. If you want to bemoan the focus on Nabonidus and Belshazzar, you should take that up with the fundies that confuse the role and functions of the two men.

Quote:

It misses a couple of verses of crucial significance to interpret Daniel:

8:1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshaz'zar…
2 … I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam;…

The capital of what kingdom - Belshazzar’s?

Two points:

1. The KJV renders it as:

DAN 8:2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.

Palace, not capital. Not that it matters, as my next point demonstrates.

2. Cambyses II moved the capital of the Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa. But Cambyses' act of moving the capital came long after Nabonidus or Belshazzar. Remember: Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Cambyses II comes after Cyrus.

Congratulations: you've just unearthed another historical mistake in Daniel: associating the alleged reign of Belshazzar's 3rd year with a capital at Susa, which wouldn't become the capital until

(a) the reign of two other rulers had occurred; and
(b) a decade of time had passed.

02-17-2008, 12:33 PM	#773
ynquirer Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 572	Another interesting clue in Da 8:2 is detailed geographical location: And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was at the river U'lai. How is it that a name like ‘Ulai’ was dropped in there? ‘Ulai’ is a very interesting name. Except for Daniel‘s mention it occurs only in cuneiform texts, like this. A major occurrence is in a frieze made of three stone slabs in Assurbanipal’s palace in Nineveh (begun before 646 BC). The frieze depicts the battle of Ulai against the Elamites - in or about 652 BC - and its aftermath. The frieze looks like this and I can give academic references at request. Historians have since long known that the battle of Ulai was fought somewhere in Elam, but it is Daniel that gives a precise location for it. Not being Ulai a Persian name but Elamite, the river was renamed. There are three rivers near modern Susa, and they are called Karkheh (this is supposed to be the ancient Choaspes), Dez, and Shravur. As expected, not all historians agree with Daniel’s placing Ulai in the map. Yet, the point is not this but what the name tells us about the dating of Daniel. Greek writers, on their turn, renamed both river and region. Exception to be made for Josephus, who draws from biblical sources and uses the name ‘Elam’ just once (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6.4) no Greek writer ever made use of the word. They called the region ‘Susiana’ and the river ‘Choaspes’; this is the case of Herodorus, Pausanias and Strabo. Now, the question is, How is it that such an odd word came to be written down right in Daniel 8? What is the likelihood that a second-century Hellenized Jew, living in Jerusalem - since he was worried about the abomination that caused desolation in the Temple, wasn’t he? - would have made use of a word ‘Ulai’ of which there is no precedent elsewhere in the Tanakh and whose general use was probably discontinued well before the fall of the Persian Empire and certainly after 330 BC?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2008, 02:15 PM	#777
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: You have not made any posts in my thread on prophecy at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=237212 at the BC&H Forum. Why is that?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.