Jack the Bodiless

I suppose we ought to mention that we are familiar with the actual derivation of the word "apologist", just in case this is taken as evidence of the "lack of understanding" of skeptics...

Derec

But, since we have no reference to a book of Daniel prior to the 2nd century we also have no evidence of it being part of any canon. Any Jewish Bible in those days would be a collection of scrolls, not a bound volume. Just how "closed" can such a collection really be?

hatsoff

Quite true.

Jayrok

mdd344,

I have a few questions for you:

So I'm straight, you are saying that the kingdom of God is the church and this kingdom came during Pentecost as recorded in Acts, correct?

The church (kingdom) will never be destroyed...

1. Is this kingdom the Roman Catholic Church, or Eastern Orthodox, or Baptist or one of the many other churches that claim to be the correct one?

Your paper cited Mark 9, when Jesus said “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” .

So the kingdom of God coming in power, once again, is the church which came at pentecost.

In Mark and Matthew Jesus is written to say his kingdom would come in power during that generation. This would go in line with your pentecost event.

2. What about Jesus' words about his kingdom coming in power, when he mentioned that all the nations of the world would see him coming with power and glory in the clouds (Matthew 24:30)?

He was talking about signs of the last days. Your paper tied Peter's speech before Pentecost with the prophet Joel (acts 2). In other words, Peter believed Pentecost was in the last days, just like you are claiming here.

So if they were in the last days before the kingdom of God was to come (Pentecost), what happened to the rest of the prophecy of Jesus when he said the trumpet would blow and God would gather his elect from the four winds. He said "this generation will not pass until all takes place". According to you, these are the same events... i.e. the last days before the kingdom of God comes in power.

So when did all nations witness Jesus coming in the clouds in power and glory? At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came on those in the room. People in Africa didn't see any of it. Was Jesus mistaken... or was he bending the truth in that the whole world wouldn't see it, just those in earshot of the room at Pentecost?

And speaking of the Holy Spirit coming to the disciples...

3. Was the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the first time it (HS) came upon the disciples? According to John 20:22, Jesus breathed on them and said "receive the holy spirit". This was well before Pentecost.

Did they not really receive the Holy Spirit from Jesus that day? or did it leave them for a few weeks then return in power at Pentecost?

The kingdom of God that Daniel spoke of was to never be destroyed. The church will never be destroyed, but did Daniel know it would be splintered and fractured over the centuries after constant redefining of its doctrine?

Last question for now...


4. If the church is God's kingdom and he is the king, why does he allow his kingdom to be such a vehicle of corruption in the eyes of those in witness of it around the world? Why does he allow his kingdom to continue to be a hotbed of sin and a sanctuary for sinners?

Is he proud of his kingdom and what it has become over the centuries?

Thanks,

Jay

mdd344

The following questions/statements were asked by Jack, and Spin, in response to my claim that Daniel was indeed what it claims to be. The fill in the blanks were provided as well. My responses to the questions follows each.

What a remarkable statement, “King Darius the Mede, no such person.” It is remarkable because the questioner claims to know beyond any doubt that such a person did not exist. What evidence exists that demonstrates such? Could it be the lack of any archeological confirmation?

Dr. Paul Maier, the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, states: “Ancient historians are very much like detectives, they have to use whatever evidence is available, and use it with all kinds of care in the process of trying to reconstruct what actually happened. He goes on to state, “…that’s called an argument from silence; that’s the weakest form of argumentation you can use. In the profession we say: ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Skeptics have, in the past, held certain parts of the Bible as historically inaccurate because there was no confirmation of them. The Hittite empire is such an example. For years it was believed by skeptics that the empire didn’t exist. Thus, the Bible was clearly in error. However, evidence of the Hittite empire was found, and the skeptics had to drop their objections (Fred Wright, Highlights of Archaeology in the Bible Lands, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1955), 94-95.).

There are many ideas of who King Darius the Mede may have been. The Greek historian Xenophon, writing in the fourth century B.C. discusses what occurred in Babylon:

“When they came to Media, Cyrus turned aside to visit Cyaxares” (his uncle). “When they had embraced each other, Cyrus first told Cyaxares that there was a private house, and palaces, set apart for him in Babylon; that when he came thither he might take up his abode in his own home.”

Josephus says that Cyaxares was Darius the Mede (Antiquities, 10:11:4).

Another theory on who King Darius the Mede may have been is Gubaru. The Babylonian record of the conquest of Babylon states:

“In the month of Tashritu, at the time when Cyrus battled the forces of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris River, the citizens of Akkad revolted against him, but Nabonidus scattered his opposition with a great slaughter. On the 14th day, Sippar was taken without a fight. Nabonidus then fled for his life. On the 16th day, Gubaru the leader of Gutium along with the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without any opposition. Later they arrested Nabonidus when he returned to Babylon. On the third day of the month of Arahshamnu, Cyrus marched into Babylon, and they laid down green branches in front of him. The city was no longer at war, peace being restored. Cyrus then sent his best wishes to the residents living there. His governor, Gubaru, then installed leaders to govern over all Babylon.”

Whitcomb and Albright both lean toward Darius the Mede being identified with Gubaru.

Yet another theory is set forth by D.J.Wiseman. He suggests that Cyrus the Persian king could very well be Darius the Mede (“Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” p.p. 9-18). Dr. Brian Colless of Massey University, New Zealand also agreed with this theory (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Vol. 56, 1992, p.p. 113-126).

One can line up the skeptics on one side, and those that oppose them on the other—and the field is split on this topic. What does that show? That while we may not know precisely who Darius the Mede was, the fact is that not knowing precisely who he was proves nothing! Skeptics would do well to recall that this similar thing happened with Belshazzar---UNTIL archaeological evidence was found that backed up the Bible (Gurney, ‘The Medes and Persians,’ ch. 5 p. 6). This objection to Daniel must be rejected simply because there is not enough evidence either way to draw any specific conclusion.

Consider this fact about Belshazzar and the skeptics:

“Nabonidus Chronicle. It verified the account of Daniel. Prior to the discovery of this artifact, no one knew about the existence of Beltshazzar. This means that Daniel existed before all the trusted historians like Berosus (356-326 BC) and Herodotus and Xenophon who failed to recognize this fact.
Critics used to doubt the existence of Belshazzar but were again proved false when archeological finds bore evidence to the truth of his historical existence. The KJV Bible Commentary states the following in this regard:
"In 1850, critics doubted even the historicity of Belshazzar, claiming he was a fictitious character made up by the pseudo-Daniel who they claim composed the book around 165 B.C. With the discovery of Belshazzar?s name on cuneiform tablets, his existence could no longer be questioned. Critics such as H. H. Rowley then sought to attack Daniel?s statement that he was king. The recognition of two large black cylinders in a Byzantine church in Haran in the year 1956 ended that skepticism as well. The Nabonidus Chronicle, as this is called, clearly mentions Belshazzar as a coregent with Nabonidus his father. Not only that, but Belshazzar ruled at Babylon, while Nabonidus was in Teman during the final years of the Babylonian Empire." (From ‘teachinghearts.com’ ; from research done by Nadine Gordimer: www.duke.edu/~jfk2/truth.html").

The fact that Belshazzar exists, and existed when the Bible said he did is highly significant. Notice what the cylinders revealed---Belshazzar was coregent with Nabonidus. What then does Daniel mean when he calls Belshazzar the son (“by his father”) Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:2)?
Jamison, Fawcett and Brown in their commentary state that Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. They state this because the Hebrew word for ‘father’ can be interpreted into English as meaning grandfather or ancestor. The NIV version of the Bible puts this exact remark in their footnotes at Daniel 5:2.

Edward J. Young (The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 119) has noted that the term ‘father’ in Semitic languages could be used in at least eight different ways. Archer (A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction, p. 383) agrees and states that the term was often applied to a predecessor in the same office, whether or not any blood relationship existed. Some scholars believe that Nabonidus may have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, thus his son by her would therefore be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, and the term ‘father’ could also mean ‘grandfather’ (Ibid., p.383). R.P. Dougherty also sets forth this option (Nabonidus and Belshazzar, p. 59ff., 194).
Once again we have come to the inevitable conclusion that there is not enough evidence either for, or against, to make any blanket statement of ‘proof’ regarding Daniel’s use of the word for ‘father.’ Raymond Dougherty, an eminent scholar in this field, has pointed out: "Of all the non Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned." (Nabonidus and Belshazzar. (Yale, 1929): 199).

So whatever is meant by the term ‘father,’ seeing as how it cannot be known either way, has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of the fifth chapter in which it appears (Dan. 5:2).

This is yet another remarkable statement, in that the evidence used hardly ranks as any certain proof. The source of this seems to come from the Dead Sea Scrolls’ fragment of “The Prayer of Nabonidus.” Archer states that many of the words and phrases of the prayer have to be supplied on a conjectural basis because they are missing in the original fragment in order to make it sound more like the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Archer, 1985, citing Harrison (1969) 1118-9) (Wikipedia also confirms this source).

There are substantial differences in the affliction of Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar affliction was of the mind, while Nabonidus’ was a “burning” of the skin. Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment was because of his presumptuous crediting of what he had done to himself (Dan. 4) while Nabonidus’ affliction was supposedly due to idolatry. Nabonidus claimed that an exorcist pardoned his sin, while Nebuchadnezzar returned to normal when he recognized who God truly was—he required no human agent. Nabonidus had his malady in Tema, and Nebuchadnezzar had his in Babylon.

The actual record of Nebuchadnezzar, found on tablets by archeologists, show the king to suggest a period of about 4 years where he accomplished nothing in his kingdom. This very well may be proof that the 3 ½ years of which Daniel writes concerning this ‘madness’ took place.

Again, another claim that something didn’t happen at all merely because of one Dead Sea Fragmented scroll and no corroborating history seems to explicitly point to the madness of Nebuchadnezzar occurring. That is again an argument based on ‘absence of evidence.’

This objection comes from Daniel 1:1. It is suggested that, “That Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, and carried away some of the sacred vessels in 'the third year of Jehoiakim' (Dan.1), though it cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved, is highly improbable: not only is the Book of Kings silent, but Jeremiah, in the following year (c.25) speaks of the Chaldeans in a matter which appears distinctly to imply that their arms had not yet been seen in Judah”(Driver).

Another argument from silence it seems. However, this argument fails when one takes into account the way the times of Kings were recorded at this time.

Archer states:

Daniel 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar's first invasion of Judah and siege of Jerusalem took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, whereas Jeremiah 46:2 dates the first year of Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. This objection was raised before modern scholarship understood the complexity of ancient Near-Eastern dating systems. We now know that in Judah the non-accession-year system was followed, whereby the calendar year in which a new king acceded to the throne was reckoned as the first year of his reign (which in the case of Jehoiakim would have been 608 B.C.). But in the northern kingdom (which, of course, came to an end in 722 B.C.) and in Babylon, the accession-year system prevailed. According to this reckoning, the year when the new king came to power would be called simply his accession year. The first year of his reign would not begin until the commencement of the next calendar year. Thus, by the Babylonian reckoning, Jehoiakim's first year was 607; therefore Nebuchadnezzar's invasion in 605 was Jehoiakim's third year. Who can fault Daniel, living in Babylon, for following the Babylonian reckoning? Therefore this argument turns out to be not only worthless but a confirmation that the author of Daniel wrote from a Babylonian perspective.”

Baldwin states:

“It is true that there is no mention of a siege of Jerusalem at this time in 2 Kings, though it does say that in the days of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years' (2 Kings 24:1), and Chronicles adds, 'Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to take him to Babylon' (2 Chron. 36:6). The presence of Nebuchadnezzar in Jerusalem is thus doubly attested prior to the siege of 597 B.C., which was in Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year, just after the death of Jehoiakim in his eleventh year (2 Kings 24:6-10). The publication of the Babylonian Chronicles in the British museum made available an independent source of precise information relating to the events of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession.”

Wiseman has more on this from the Babylonian chronicle as it concerns ‘Hamath’ and ‘Hatti,’ both regions which are discussed in the chronicle as being conquered by Babylonia and King Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar took the throne of his father unexpectedly, since when he was away at battle his father died. Nebuchadnezzar went to Jerusalem three times (606-597-586). He carried away people each time. Jerusaelem for all itents and purposes was destroyed in full by 586, though the extreme poor were left in the land.

I am skipping the #5 question because it will require an incredibly lengthy analysis of a great deal of Daniels detailed prophecy. It is my belief that if what is already presented herein is not sufficient to at least give doubt as to these claims of ‘errors,’ then nor will that one make any difference. Due to length, I’ll do one more questions, then I’ll give several reasons that demonstrate very strongly that Daniel was not written in or about 165 B.C.

This objection tries to suggest that the existence of three Greek words in Daniel prove that it was written much later (i.e. 165 or about B.C.) as opposed to the mid 500’s B.C.

Archer importantly notes that the three Greek words found in Daniel do not prove a late date (The Greeks did not take over the Palestine area until 330 B.C.). The three Greek words, he says, are names of musical instruments, which could easily have been known and used in Palestine and Babylon long before the Greeks conquered those regions (Archer, Survey of the Old Testament Introduction, p.p. 395-401.

One of the words may very well not be an actual instrument, but rather instead a word indicating “in unison” (Conklin, p. 12) (“sumponeyah”). This word certainly was used that way in the early 6th century B.C. (Hynmi Homerica, ad Mercurium 51). Rowley claimed that this word was first used in the second century B.C. The historian Polybius used it in his work and refers to it as being like a ‘bagpipe’ (204-122 B.C.)(Ibid.). But the context of Polybius’ work seems to indicate that the word is used to mean “concert.” Kitchen notes that it is only “the elementary fallacy of negative evidence” that allows Rowley to claim that this word is first known in the second century B.C” (Kitchen, p. 47, ibid). Boutlfower refers the reader to James Kennedy’s observation on this point: “Our knowledge of the everyday life of antiquity is extremely fragmentary and limited” (Boutflower, 254).
Consider another very important aspect of this argument, namely, that IF it were written in the mid 100’s B.C., a time when the Greek language had well overtaken the Aramaic, why does the Book of Daniel contain only THREE supposed Greek words?!

A Dr. E.B. Pusey, in his commentary on Daniel (1865) notes:

“The exclusion of them [the Greek words] all from this enumeration in Nebuchadnezzar’s festival fits in with the history [as recorded in Daniel], but would have been very unlikely in a book, written some centuries afterward in Palestine.”

Conklin states,

“It used to be claimed that the presence of these Greek words meant that the book was a late composition. For instance, the absence of Greek words was one of the details that led Driver to claim that ‘ the Greek words demand…a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332).’ (Driver, An Introduction to the Old Testament)…Unfortunately, for the critics, the presence of Greek words has long been demonstrated by “an avalanche of evidence” to have entered into the “Semitic milieu long before the sixth century B.C.’ [Vasholz, 316; Kitchen, Archer, McDowell].”(Ibid).
Archer states, “It is inconceivable that Greek terms would not have been adopted by the writer of the book” (Archer, p. 21). One reason for this, as Emery points out, that these Greek words “easily could have been substituted for obsolete words at any late copying of the book” (Emery, p. 21)(Ibid).

Yet another objection fails.


A Few of the Reasons why Daniel could not have been written in the mid 100’s B.C.

1. The Aramaic is 6th century B.C., not 2nd Century B.C. (Pusey, Barnes, Metzger, Delitzsche,etc.) This is confirmed by Arthur Ferch in the “Journal for the Study of the Old Testament” as he wrote after a detailed study of the Old Aramaic inscriptions from the ninth to the seventh centuries B.C. and found significant similarity to the Aramaic used in Daniel (Zdravko Stefanovic, “Correlations between Old Aramaic Inscriptions and the Aramaic Section of Daniel,” PH. D. Dissertation, Andrews University, 1987).
The famous Aramaic scholar E. Y. Kutscher has shown that the Aramaic of Daniel points to an Eastern origin (Kutscher, cited by Hasel, 1981; 1986, p.219, 132). A Western origin would be required if the Maccabean thesis were correct. This fact alone strongly suggests that a Maccabean source for the book is in error (Conklin, p. 13). On this basis, Kitchen notes that a number of scholars “would consider an Eastern (Mesopotamian) origin for the Aramaic part of Daniel (and Ezra) as probable.” (Kitchen, 1965: Baldwin, 1996; Boutflower).

Collins, in analyzing the Dead Sea Scrolls (Job Targum; along with Vasholz, Archer, Muraoka, Kaufman) notes that the Aramaic of the Qumran community was only in use between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. Therefore, since the Aramaic of Daniel is several centuries older than that of the Qumran community then Daniel had to have been written around 600-400 B.C. Vasholz concludes that “the evidence now available from Qumran indicates a pre-second century date for the Aramaic of Daniel.” (Conklin, p. 13).

There is a plethora of linguistic evidence corresponding to the above for all aspects of the languages of Daniel. The reader is encouraged to do some research and read it.

2. Daniel wrote of things that people of the second century did not know. Observe:

“As Raymond Dougherty, an eminent scholar in this field, has pointed out:
"Of all the non Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon. Cuneiform texts written under Persian influence in the sixth century B.C. have not preserved the name Belshazzar, but his role as a crown prince entrusted with royal power during Nabonidus's stay in Arabia is depicted convincingly. Two famous Greek historians of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. do not mention Belshazzar by name and hint only vaguely at the actual political situation which existed in the time of Nabonidus. Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century to the first century B.C. are absolutely silent concerning Belshazzar and the prominence he had during the last reign of the Neo-Babylonian empire. The total information found in all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century B.C. and prior to the writings of Josephus of the first century A.D. could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel." [Nabonidus and Belshazzar. (Yale, 1929): 199-200]

Thus after carefully examining the available evidence Dougherty points out that this means the 5th chapter could not have originated during the Maccabean age; the first point was noted by Rowley in his Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires. (Cardiff, 1935): 10; Millard's The Bible B.C.. (1982): 29; Harrison (1969): 1123 says that Dougherty came to the view that the idea that this chapter "originated in the Maccabean period was thoroughly discreditable."] (Conklin, p. 3).

Note another remarkable fact:

“4) Nebuchadnezzar as the great builder of Babylon. [Wiseman, 553; Boutflower (1923): 65-77; Gurney, 42; see also E. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Vol. 3, part 2, p. 25, 39 for sample inscriptions] The ancient historians Herodotus following the Persian tradition, Ctesias following the Assyrian tradition, Strabo, and Pliny all make frequent reference to Babylon; but, not to Nebuchadnezzar as its builder. The Greek historians ascribed the building of Babylon to Queen Semiramis (Her name from the cuneiform is Sammu-ramat. She was a queen mother in Assyria and had nothing to do with the building of Babylon.) This information in Daniel is greatly puzzling to critical scholars who do not believe that Daniel was written in the 6th century, rather than in their proposed 2nd century. As R.H. Pfeiffer, one of the more radical critics of Daniel, was compelled to admit: "We shall never know [especially when you don't want to, right?] how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30), as the excavations have proved ...." [Introduction to the Old Testament. (Harper, 1941): 758; cited by Waltke (1976): 328-9] This information wasn't found out until the excavations begun in 1899! [See also, R. Koldewey, Excavations at Babylon. 1915--these excavations lasted till 1917] As Gleason Archer has said: "Pfeiffer could not explain such knowledge, on the basis of the Maccabean date hypothesis. Neither can anyone else--on that basis." [(1985): 20; see also McDowell, 14 quoting Wilson who cites Lenormant: "The more I read and reread Daniel, the more I am struck with the truth of the tableaux of the Babylonian Court traced in the first six chapters . Whoever is *not* the slave of preconceived opinions must confess when comparing these with the cuneiform monuments that they are really ancient and written but a short distance from the Courts themselves." [Joseph D. Wilson, Did Daniel Write Daniel? (Cook, n.d.) page 89; emphasis mine]

McDowell reports that "Ira Price, a liberal critic, admits that Daniel 4:30 gives a true picture of Nebuchadnezzar's building activities." [ McDowell, 11; Ira M. Price, The Monuments and the Old Testament. (Judson, 1925): 302-3] McDowell also notes that Raven concludes that the book of Daniel must have been written in Babylon based on its accurate representation of Babylonian history. [ibid; John H. Raven, Old Testament Introduction. (Revell, 1910): 331]
We can also note, in reference to Nebuchadnezzar, that Daniel 4:17 describes God as giving kingdoms "to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." An inscription made by Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, describes himself as "in my littleness, the son of a nobody," "me, the insignificant, who among men was not visible," "I, the weak, the feeble," etc. [McDowell, 12-3] We can ask is it likely that a 2nd century Jew would have pictured the father of a conquering king in such an unlikely manner? "This is the [very] kind of knowledge --the lowly origin of Babylon's greatest king--which succeeding generations soon must have forgotten, and therefore it constitutes strong evidence for the historical accuracy of Daniel." [Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel. (1923): 91]

5) Herodotus doesn't even mention Nebuchadnezzar and at one time critics doubted his very existence based on that silence.” (Ibid).
One more, “Bruce Metzger notes that the "intimate acquaintance with Babylonian manners, customs, history, and religious life [are none that] but a contemporary would have known." [Metzger, 219] After giving several examples he then asks: "What elucidation does the critic offer as to how these minute touches in the narrative were included in the book if not by Daniel? The best answer some Bible critics could offer to this question is to note Metzger's age when he wrote this (see Taylor [5])! It is of further interest to note that none of these amateur critics could cite a source where Metzger explicitly retracted the above statement.” (Ibid).
Consider that “as Yamauchi observed: "Conservative scholars welcome the increasing mass of linguistic and archaeological data which helps support an early date or at least helps undermine arguments for a late date for Daniel" and "help to support an early date." [Yamauchi (1974): 13; (1980): 21] To date no archaeological evidence has been found that has proven Daniel to be wrong; to the contrary the evidence turned up to date has proven Daniel to be correct and the critics to be wrong.” (Ibid).

Conclusion:

The above represents merely a ‘drop in the bucket’ as far as evidence goes in answering any objections to the Book of Daniel, its predictive prophecy, and its 500’s B.C. origin.

It is a fact that not one piece of archeological evidence has ever proved the Bible to be wrong. The Smithsonian institute, hardly a friend to Christians, stated:

“In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament, ar as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work” (Smithsonian).


The work of the heretic Porphyry to discredit the Book of Daniel (304 A.D.)was defeated solidly by the time of Jerome. The book of Daniel remained unquestioned for thousands of years following, and it was not until the 17th century that the work begins to be questioned. There is one, and only one, reason why the book is resisted so strongly. IF the Book were accepted as genuine and authentic, the predictive prophecy within would constitute unavoidable proof of a divine being (i.e. God).

My hope is that no one is as Archer anticipated when he said:

“The committed antisupernaturalist, who can only explain the successful predictions of Daniel as prophecies after the fulfillment…is not likely to be swayed by any amount of objective evidence whatever” (Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from the Exile to Malachi,” Bibliotheca Sacra 127; Oct-Dec. 1970; p. 297).

mdd

mdd344

Yes.

Yes (Mat. 16:16-18).

The kingdom is the group of people, wherever they may be in the world, who follow the New Testament in the way God intended. That is, they teach what Christ said to teach. They live as Christ said to live. They do what Christ said to do. Please consider that this was not only what Christ taught while on earth but what He taught from Heaven through the Spirit once He ascended (Eph. 2:20f; and 2 Pet. 3:2; cf. 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Cor. 2:12-16). While I reject generalizing all people by names they wear (since it is possible that a person can find the truth and obey it on his own), generally speaking the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, and any other denomination (having its origin with men, not God as their own records will show), are not the kingdom (church) of the Lord.

The reason is not because of their name. It is because when you compare what they believe, teach, practice---it does not match (in significant doctrinal areas) what the Bible teaches. Once again, it is not the name alone that makes this true. No church name alone can allow one to tell what is believed. The church can be found today when one compares what he finds in the NT pattern and finds a group of people practicing the pattern left by the Apostles.

Yes and Yes.

The context of Matthew 24 reveals that the disciples and Christ were walking in and around the newly completed Temple. The stones of this temple were about 40' by 10' on average and weighed tons and tons. Jesus said to the disciples something they couldn't believe:

" verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Mat. 24:2).

The disciples are then prompted to ask two questions:

1.Tell us, when shall these things be?
2. and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

In the disciples minds, the day the stones would be destroyed (the incredibly large stones, unable to be moved by people, so they thought in a practical sense) was the day of the end of all things. Yet, they asked two questions in that regard and Jesus gives two DIFFERENT answers.

In verses 4-35 Jesus answers the first question, which was directly related to the stones of the Temple. He concludes all that is within that by saying:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Mat. 24:34-35).

That generation would not pass till everything Jesus spoke about (some in apocalyptic language) came to pass.

The things of which Jesus spoke did come to pass in A.D. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem. It was then that the Temple was destroyed by the Romans who wanted the gold from it. In that battle Josephus records that over a million Jews died, but no Christians died. The Christians knew what to look for because they listened to what was taught concerning it.

The second question Jesus answers and says:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat. 24:36).

He goes on to describe the uncertainty of that day by comparing it to Noah, and shows He speaks of the Judgment by saying:

"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come" (24:42, and also note ref. to the "Son of Man" in verse 44).

So if you leave Matthew 24 in context, the parts you observed do not apply to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) at all.

One more thing. The "last days" began at the start of the church. That is why Peter noted it (Acts 2:16f). The 'last days' (the Christian dispensation) will continue until the Lord returns for the final (2nd) time.



There is no question that the disciples were told to wait in Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on high (Mark 9:1; Acts 1-2:4). So whatever it is that John 20:22 means it does not mean that such occurred prior to that.

John 20:22 is parallel with Mat. 16:16-19. The word "receive," according to Greek scholars, could be translated "take." The action of Christ, whatever it entailed here, was a symbolic gesture of the authority that was to come. If you read 20:23 you'll note that it is very much like Mat. 16:18-19. It is essentially Christ preparing his disciples for what is to come. I do not know that anyone can say precisely what 'breathed on' was, whether it was literal or figurative. There simply isn't enough evidence either way that is revealed. What is revealed and very plainly is when the power came (Acts 2:1-4). One scholar noted that the word in 20:22 could not, by its structure, contain a time element. So it is thought by some that Jesus was referring to what would occur at Pentecost.

One more thing, and this is a bit deeper. It is not necessary that the disciples, or anyone (cf. Acts 2:38) received the Holy Spirit Himself to receive the Holy Spirit's gifts (power) (You might read Acts 8:10-18 in this regard).

I can't speak for what Daniel did or did not know. But even in the first century the Apostles prophesied such would occur; and it did occur, even in the first century (1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Thess. 2). It occurred when men left behind the Apostles teaching and begin to do their own thing.

The church is God's kingdom, and Christ is the King, the head of the church (Eph. 1:22f; 5:23f). And the Bible surely teaches that God is never 'happy' so to speak when His bride (the church) is being attacked. To attack the church of Christ is to attack Christ Himself, as Paul learned when he was still Saul (see Acts 8-9).

However, despite terrible injustices, the fact is there is always a remnant with whom God is pleased. This was the case in the Old Testament, and the New Testament, and forever. That remnant are the ones, who, despite bad situations, live by faith (Note Hebrews 11). So while God does not desire any person to do sinful things (1 Tim. 2:4) but instead that all would be saved, the fact is as God (being all loving and all just, Rom. 11:22) He cannot step in and 'force' anyone to do the right thing.

While the world may look at some who supposedly represent the church and decry it, the fact is God knows who are His. And it is those with whom He is pleased, and it is those who are standing firm in their day to day lives amid the attacks of Satan through his many devices.

I hope this answers your questions, and feel free to ask more. Thanks for asking.
mdd

Sauron

You misunderstand what "argument from silence" means. Once you go to the point of identifying where you think this person should be, or what time period he lived in, or what role or office he played in historical events, at that point the argument from silence does not apply. There either hast o be evidence for this person in the time period in question, in the kingdom in question - or you have to admit to a mistake.

It's like you saying, "Guess what? There's an elephant in my living room." Well, if there is, there ought to be elephant poop on the floor, some kind of food, lots of broken furniture, dirty stains on the carpet, the smell of elephant everywhere, etc. If I go over to your house and I can't find any of those things in your living room, that is NOT "argument from silence." Missing evidence, where there *ought* to be evidence, is a real problem for your claim. Once you've made a testable statement, there should be confirming evidence for it. If there is no such evidence, then you either have to explain the lack of evidence, or the claim can safely be called a lie.

The bible (and its advocates) are making an affirmative claim that this person existed. There is zero affirmative, confirmatory evidence to support them. There is ample precedent to believe that this is a simple historical mistake. Given those two choices....

Wrong again. And somewhat embarrassing for you, as it demonstrates that neither you nor your source are well-versed in ancient history. From a post I made to someone else on the same topic:



Moving along.....

Bad move quoting from an apologetic source without first checking to see if they are being honest. Josephus says no such thing.

Morever, we know that Josephus got many things wrong in his recording of historical events. So using Josephus as some kind of reference can also backfire on you.

That theory is only espoused by people who are trying to rescue the bible from a mistake. Actual historians of ancient near eastern civilization do not make that argument. In point of fact, this particular claim seems to have first originated with John Whitcomb, who worked with Henry Morris on "The Genesis Flood." Whitcomb was known for accepting unscientific things; he popularized the creationist "moon dust" argument as well as the "helium escape" argument. Moreover, he was a Velikovskyian, until Henry Morris was forced to rein him in and point out what a foolish idea it was. So that's the man you're using as a source, mdd344.

Moreover, "Gubaru" is not "Darius", no matter how you re-arrange the letters.

But without any evidence to support that position. Whitcomb misquotes the Behistun inscription, and does not understand the material. Albright does likewise. If you really want to get into a discussion of the Behistun material and the mistakes that Whitcomb made, let me know.

And yet, without any supporting evidence. Rounding up quotations from bible apologists is not the same thing as evidence - I assume you are aware of that, right?

No, the field is not split. What you have is actual historians and archaeologists on one side, and biblical apologists on the other. That is not a split field.

Take this little test: try to find any non-bible apologist source that supports either of these claims. You can't do it.


That is another old chestnut that isn't true. What your KJV commentary has done is called "setting up a strawman". They create an inaccurate portrayal of their opponent's position, merely so they can knock it down. However, actual historians knew about Belshazzar from the Cyropaedia.

Historians were told - by people like yourself - to look for a king of Babylon by the name of Belshazzar. They never found one, because Belshazzar was never king. Naturally, historians said that there was no evidence for any king Belshazzar as described by Daniel. So in that respect, everything worked out as it should. After all, there can't be evidence of someone who never existed as a king. But to make the additional claim that historians doubted *any existence for Belshazzar whatsoever* is stretching the truth.

It means no such thing. In point of fact, the Nabonidus chronicle verifies the existence of Belshazzar, but does nothing to support the existence of Daniel. You - and your sources - are trying to take evidence for person A and assume it means evidence for person B.

As I said - actual historians knew of Belshazzar from the Cyropaedia, which Xenophon wrote.

It means he is making a mistake.

However, there is no hard evidence for that. They are assuming a lineage through Nitocris, who may or may not have been a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. Their entire argument rests upon being able to mangle the meaning of the word "son". But in order to do that, they first have to find a way to make Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar related somehow.

The problem, of course, is that Belshazzar - the person allegedly calling Nebuchadnezzar his father - did not speak a Semitic language. Babylon used Ancient Chaldean, which is a branch of Urartian, not Semitic. Britannica:

Urartian language
also called Chaldean, or Vannic, ancient language spoken in northeastern Anatolia and used as the official language of Urartu in the 9th–6th century BC. Non-Indo-European in origin, it is thought to be descended from the same parent language as the older, Hurrian language. Surviving texts of the language are written in a variant of the cuneiform script called Neo-Assyrian. Two bilingual inscriptions in Assyrian and Urartian led to the deciphering of Urartian. In 1933 the German Orientalist Johannes Friedrich published the first reliable description of the language in his Urartian grammar.

So the entire argument about multiple meanings for "father" in Semitic languages falls flat on its face, right out of the starting gate. Furthermore, you'd be hard pressed to find an actual scholar of Biblical Hebrew to accept this position on the word 'father' being so magically flexible as to include "previous office holders".

I'm afraid it does have a bearing on it, and you aren't going to find any actual scholars supporting the view that the word "son" be used in this context (of an alleged grandson).

Toto

I located this quote on the teachinghearts website, including the misspelling. But the webpage for "Nadine Gordimer" does not exist, and I suspect there has been some confusion there.

Jack the Bodiless

mdd344:

Unfortunately you are merely demonstrating the point made earlier, about "bad excuses".

Darius the Mede: he was supposed to be a KING, and he was supposed to precede Cyrus. But we know that it was Cyrus who conquered Babylon. This is analogous to proposing that a man unknown to history was the first President of the United States before George Washingon succeeded him.

And are you really trying to claim that this particular excuse is endorsed by "Dr. Paul Maier, the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University", who nowhere mentions Darius the Mede in the quote you attribute to him? This appears to be an example of the form of dishonesty known as "quote-mining", a favorite activity of creationists (there is a more blatant example later in your post).
Consider this fact about Belshazzar and the apologists:

Nabondius Chronicle. It certainly did NOT verify the account of Daniel. Belshazzar was the son of Nabondius, he was NOT the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Do you see the desperation of the switch being attempted here? And look at your sources: Christian apologists, an article written in 1929...

5. The Persian Kings: it is prophesied that there will be four Persian kings between Cyrus and Alexander. There were nine: but only four of those were mentioned in the OT (Daniel's source).
Lest we forget, #5 is the fact that Daniel omitted five Persian kings from history! I can certainly see why you'd want to skip that one.
Incorrect. It does not "prove" anything of the sort.

It is merely one indication of late authorship: for which you have provided a "bad excuse" (i.e. no proof of the contrary). Alone, this is not compelling either way: but it is part of a larger picture which indicates the probable date of authorship as post-Alexandrian.
This is what has been entirely lacking thus far...
Daniel is apocalyptic literature, intended to appear old, and written in an archaic style (rather as if I were to write a "prophecy" in King James English). Also, parts of Daniel are considered to be earlier than the rest. But otherwise I'll leave commentary on the Aramaic to those more qualified (though I note the name-dropping of people who actually do not share the inerranist position on Daniel).
...In 1929...

You really need to take a step back and see the silliness of this claim. You are suggesting that an author writing four centuries later, using who-knows-what sources, couldn't possibly know details that were known in 1929 AD. You have absolutely NO basis for such a claim. You weren't aware that documents could be lost over the centuries? You've never heard of (for instance) the burning of the Library of Alexandria?

You make exactly the same flawed argument for several paragraphs, I see. And you're even apparently resorting to Josh McDowell as an authority: a non-scholarly apologist who is mainly notable for misrepresenting his own sources and utterly failing to consult scholars who disgree with his desired conclusion.
We are actually still waiting for the faint "plink" of a drop hitting the bottom of an empty bucket.
This is the more blatant example of quote-mining that I referred to earlier. The Biblical Flood cannot be verified because it did not happen (the Smithsonian know this). This is only one of many parts of the Bible that are NOT accurate historical documents (the Smithsonian know this). On the other hand... parts of the Bible are indeed accurate (and everyone knows this).

I don't want to dwell on this in the wrong forum (this should be an "Evolution/Creation" topic), but one of the many reasons we know the Flood didn't happen is because of those very Egyptian histories, which were written when Egypt was supposedly underwater, but nobody seemed to notice and life carried on as usual.

The Smithsonian, of course, know this.

The Evil One

Small observation on "Darius the Mede". Book of Daniel asserts that DArius the Mede became king of Babylon. History shows that the king of Babylon was Cyrus the Persian. The response to this is as follows:

1) Cyrus was Darius the Mede.
2) Cyrus' uncle was Darius the Mede.
3) The governor installed by Cyrus was Darius the Mede.

Quite apart from the contradictory nature of these responses, what is lacking is the slightest trace of any evidence that any of these people (a) was ever known as "Darius" or (b) was, or was ever referred to, as a "Mede".

Imagine I found a book which claimed to have been written in the English court in the early 1600s, and claimed that the King of England after Elizabeth I was Gerald the Welshman. mdd's response would be that history knows of a king who came after Elizabeth called James, who was a Scotsman, so clearly this is who Gerald the Welshman was, and so the book in question is clearly an accurate reflection of the English court of the time.

Quite apart from the raw ludicrousness of this approach, it should be noted that there is absolutely no evidence that could not be "explained" in this way -- obviously, someone was king after the Persians took Babylon, and mdd's position appears to be that whoever it was, that is the person that BDaniel calls "Darius". This is completely unfalsifiable.