RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
From Weltall:
Here is the basic rule again: you got facts; you document sources. No sources; no faces.

Your words about Egypt are just that. You have done no research. You may or may not have heard something. You quote no sources.

Waiting for some real scholarship that will get you into at least the 6th grade.


RED DAVE

Sauron

Just bumping this for L47:

I'd still like to know how you determined that the images on the bas relief were Nehemiah the cupbearer, since:

1. they aren't identified as that anywhere on the reliefs or any other sources;

2. the bible is not a source, since using the bible to prove the bible is circular reasoning;

3. the image on the bas relief doesn't show a cupbearer anyhow.

3DJay

Okay, Lars, seeing how you don't respond to history and science, very well, and since you don't know your own bible, very well, I've decided to take a new approach...

Problem 1: Xerxes/Artaxerxes
Why does the Bible speak of them as two different people? Nehemiah is a servant to an Artaxerxes, while Mordecai is a servant to a Xerxes. The only reason you seem to want to mesh Xerxes with Artaxerxes, is due to some notion that Nehemiah is Mordecai. I think I can show that's false, with the rest of my problems...

Problem 2: Artaxerxes preceeds Darius and the finished temple.
Building stopped, from the reign of an Artaxerxes, until the reign of a Darius. That can only be Darius II, who came after Artaxerxes I. Meaning...
...the temple was finished in the 6th year of Darius II.

Ezra has a Cyrus, then mentions a Darius, then a Xerxes, then an Artaxerxes (because of Artaxerxes' decree, work comes to a standstill, until the second year of Darius), then a Darius, again (the temple was completed on the 3rd day of Adar, during Darius' 6th year)...then, "after these things" another Artaxerxes.

This is what the standard Persian King list looks like, without lesser reigns (less than 10 years)...

Cyrus II the Great, 550–529.
Darius I the Great, son of Hystaspes, 521–486.
Xerxes I, his son, 486–465.
Artaxerxes I Longimanus, his son, 464–424.
Darius II Nothus, his half-brother and rival, 423–404.
Artaxerxes II Memnon, his son, 404–358.

Exactly the same order.

Problem 3: Nehemiah and Artaxerxes I
Nehemiah starts with mention of a temple. The rest of Nehemiah speaks of the 12 years it takes to rebuild just Jerusalem's fortifications...nothing about rebuilding the temple...then ends...
...also mentioning an operational temple, "house of God".

The bible clearly states that the temple was finished, during the reign of a Darius (II), after the stoppage by an Artaxerxes (I). Nehemiah's Artaxerxes, clearly helps with the rebuilding process. Nehemiah mentions a temple, right off the start. Meaning, Nehemiah's Artaxerxes can only be Artaxerxes II, and somehow Jerusalem was damaged, prior to the 20th year of his reign, which is what Nehemiah went to repair.
The wall is broken down, its gates have been burned with fire, and it sounds like a recent occurance.

Problem 4: Sanballat
Apparently there was a real Sanballat, and he was mentioned much closer to the standard Artaxerxes II's rule, than Artaxerxes I's, near the end of Darius II's reign.

Petition to Authorize Elephantine Temple Reconstruction (407 BC): http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/templeauth.html

"We have also set forth the whole matter in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. Furthermore, Arsames (the Persian satrap) knew nothing of all that was perpetrated on us.

On the twentieth of Marheshwan, the seventeenth year of Darius the King."

Problem 5: Nehemiah/Mordecai
The two men apparently have different fathers.

King Ahashverosh: His Identity Finally Unmasked Ahashverosh = Xerxes, Artanshasta = Artaxerxes

They apparently serve different Kings. Especially since Nehemiah's Artaxerxes, can only be Artaxerxes II.


My conclusion: At minimum, Xerxes cannot be the Artaxerxes, you're claiming he is (Nehemiah's), because Nehemiah's Artaxerxes, is Artaxerxes II. But, that basically blows your Biblical grounds, that they are the same, so I don't know what you're left with.


Peace

Larsguy47

Esther is not included as true history. If you want to make comparisons, you must use the LXX version where she's married to Artaxerxes.

This is not a problem because there are more than one Darius and more than one Artaxerxes. The Artaxerxes ruling when the temple work was stopped by the imposter king Bardiya/Smerdis. The Artaxerxes that finished the palace was the son of Darius, Xerxes under the new name of Artaxerxes. There would be two more "Artaxerxes" after that. So you've invented a problem that isn't there.


Ezra has a Cyrus, then mentions a Darius, then a Xerxes, then an Artaxerxes (because of Artaxerxes' decree, work comes to a standstill, until the second year of Darius), then a Darius, again (the temple was completed on the 3rd day of Adar, during Darius' 6th year)...then, "after these things" another Artaxerxes.

Not so. The attack on Jerusalem was during the 20th of Artaxerxes I. Not Artaxerxes II. Further both Ezra and Nehemiah return from Babylon in the 1st of Cyrus. The bas-reliefs at Persepolis show which Artaxerxes Nehemiah the cupbearer is with, but also that he was cupbearer during the time of Xerxes and Darius! This is perfectly in line with the scriptures.

Bravo! It was. The new rebuilt walls were already "finished" before the temple work was stopped (Ezra 4:11). This was a new attack on the wall and gates. Who cares about burned down gates if there is no wall to hold them up. Now Christians in general think that nothing but the temple was rebuilt in the middle of an open city with no wall and Nehemiah threw up a double wall around the city in just 52 days! How's that for timing? In fact, all that was done was repair work to restore the decorative stones to the ouside of the walls. That's what involved the workers outside and involving the entire wall.


Yes. I've casually noted that and wondered if this was the same one who had survived down through all those years. But never looked further for commentary.

My first instinct is that this would be in the 17th of Darius I. But will have to check out further. Thanks.


If Esther is a cover story, then you'd only look for similarities in the names, not the exact names as that would give away the cryptic reference. So no need to match a cryptic reference in detail with the actual history. We'd only look for similarities, like Darius the Mede being partly "Ugbaru" and "Gubaru" might seem like similar names, or "Mordecai" being the Babylonian name for Nehemiah (i.e. Marduka).

Sorry, Nehemiah's Artaxerxes is Artaxerxes I and II. That is proven by the bas-reliefs at Persepolis which shows a Jewish eunuch cupbearer with Artaxerxes I, Xerxes and Darius. So forget about Art II, ain't gonna happen.

That's not an option because of Ezra 6:14,15 compared to Darius 11:2. And as noted, Nehemiah's Artaxerxes is Art I. Artaxerxes returns from Babylon in the 1st of Cyrus. To live down into the beginning of the reign of Darius II he'd have to approach 150 years old. He'd be even older reaching up to 170 years of age to live into the reign of Artaxerxes II. So sorry, I wouldn't accept that.

Thanks. But could you please comment on a comparison of Artaxerxes as the successor to Darius inhis 6th year in Ezra 6:14,15 and Daniel 11:2 that says the 4th king after Cyrus (i.e. Darius' successor) would fight against Greece? That invasion would clearly be Xerxes.

Peace and thanks!!

LG47

Larsguy47

1. They are identified by their clothing, the king they are with and their "badges of office." For instance, the Bible says that Nehemiah was the cupbearer to Artaxerxes. He shows his cupbearer with him in several reliefs. He should be a Jew and thus non-Persian and non-Mede. All the people represented are wearing their ethnic-specific garb. Further Nehemiah was a eunuch. That is consistent with the figure with Artaxerxes, plus he is holding a cuptowel which would identify him as the cupbearer. Thus we have reasonably good identification that that must be Nehemiah. You certainly can't say it isn't. But this same or similarly dressed person and high ranking person is with both Xerxes and Darius when they were co-rulers.

2. The Bible is the ABSOLUTE BEST HISTORICAL SOURCE we have available. If you don't accept that, I understand. But you could be wrong. There's not a single historical thing in the Bible that can be disproved. Because of revisionism, I've tried to find what "secular" things out there support the Bible and the Bible's timeline, like the close dating of Rehov by RC14 consistent with 871BCE fall by Shishak, etc. But, true, it's a big mess and the Bible does have to stand on it's own historical merit. But at some point, a decision must be made which source you believe. We're just considering all sides.

3. The image is a cupbearer as bourne out by what he is holding, a cuptowel. Now if you don't go along with that, then that's fine, it just remains unproven, but it can't be disproven.

Thanks.

LG47

-Jay-

That's absurd on its face. You don't even have to get past the second chapter of Genesis before the inconsistencies start piling up.

So could you, but you're incapable of admitting it.

No, you're only considering your side. Your personal and group convictions require you to dismiss anything a priori that cannot be forced to conform to those convictions. Your personal and group convictions require you to recast historical and scientific evidence, when it's forced upon you, to support your convictions. You've been indoctrinated into a worldview that isolates you from, well, reality. You're really missing a lot.

regards,

NinJay

3DJay

Why? Was the story written in Greek, first, or Hebrew?

There is no Artaxerxes ruling, at the time of Smerdis. And, Smerdis was never called Artaxerxes. You are inventing people that aren't there.
Cyrus down to Darius, then mentions a Xerxes, then an Artaxerxes, when the work stops, then a Darius, when the temple is finished, then "after that" another Artaxerxes.

If all that was done was repairing decorative stone, then why did you use it as a comparison to building Persepolis, from scratch?

And, if it was all done in 52 days, then why did they wait 12 years for the dedication?
Ummm, no. The Arsames, mentioned in the letter, is well documented and was appointed by Darius II.

Book of Esther

How did you arrive at the least popular, of the 3 identifications (1. Xerxes, 2. Artaxerxes II, 3. Artaxerxes I) of Ahasuerus?

Even some of the dignitaries have similarly dressed servants. The bas-reliefs prove nothing, that you claim they do. The kings all look the same, the soldiers all look the same, ... the Persian sculptors carved clones, all the freakin time.

Does the Bible ever have 2 different people, with the same name?

It doesn't say they were successors, it names them as 3 kings that made decrees. The only three decrees mentioned are Cyrus', then Artaxerxes', then Darius', which appeared, in that order. Then, came another Artaxerxes...
So? Ezra doesn't claim the 3 are successors, only that they were kings who made decrees. You read what wasn't stated.


Peace

Sauron

The person on the relief is not a cupbearer.

No, they are not.

1. You have clearly run out of room to run, because you changed your original argument from "he's holding a cup" to the new version, "he's holding a cuptowel."

2. Only problem is: you have presented zero evidence that attendants carried cuptowels.

3. The item is the bas relief is not a cuptowel anyhow.

No, it isn't. That is the claim you want to prove. Trying to invoke it in your argument is circular reasoning.

The skeptics are - but you are not. You're not interested in all sides. If you were, then you wouldn't be striving so mightily to twist history and dating techniques to preserve your favored interpretation.

It is not a cuptowel.