Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 01-30-2008, 09:28 AM

Brave arnoldo ran away.
He bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave arnoldo turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, arnoldo.

(Audio source.)

nspi

makerowner · 01-30-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Brave arnoldo ran away.
He bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave arnoldo turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, arnoldo.

(Audio source.)

nspi

:rolling:
:rolling::rolling:
:rolling::rolling::rolling:
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

Too good!
arnoldo, are you going to man up and admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, or are you just going to hide from this thread forever?

makerowner · 01-30-2008, 06:15 PM

Bump again. arnoldo's made fourteen posts since the last one on this thread, but he seems to be afraid to come here.

makerowner · 01-31-2008, 07:48 AM

I'm shocked to find that after 13 hours of my absence from this thread, there hasn't been a post! Even though I PMed arnoldo to remind him! Even though he's posted 8 times since the last post on here!

Sheshonq · 02-01-2008, 09:55 AM

Can't let this one die, bump!

arnoldo · 02-01-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I
[list][*]Daniel contains a number of historical inaccuracies regarding Baylonian history- the era during which it is alleged by traditionalists to have been written. These include such things as the erroneous belief that Nebuchadnezzar had a son named Belshazzar, that this Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon during the Jewish captivity, that Babylon under Belshazzar fell to Darius and that Darius was a Mede. Every single one of those points is wrong. There were four kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel thinks there was only one, and the one he names never existed. Nebuchadnezzar did not have a son named Belshazzar and no one by that name was ever king of Babylon. The guy who was king when Babylon fell was named Nabonidus and he was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. Interestingly, Naboninus had a son named Belshazzar but that son was never king and he died before his father did.
.

Archaeological evidence states otherwise.

That Belshazzar should have been called son of Nebuchadnezzar is readily accounted for on the supposition that he was his grandson, and there are many things to indicate that Nabonidus married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, while there is nothing known to the contrary. But if this theory is rejected, there is the natural supposition that in the loose use of terms of relationship common. among Oriental people "son" might be applied to one who was simply a successor. In the inscriptions on the monuments of Shalmaneser II, referred to below, Jehu, the extirpator of the house of Omri, is called the "son of Omri."
http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/vol...r16/wright.php

arnoldo · 02-01-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Daniel is also wrong about both the name and nationality of the person who conquered Babylon (and liberated the Jews from captivity....something which a contemporary Jew should not have gotten confused about). Babylon was not conquered by "Darius the Mede," but by Cyrus, who was Persian. There was no such person as Darius the Mede and (contrary to Daniel, who was evidently trying to backfill failed prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah) Babylon was never conquered by the Medes.

Cyrus had a grandson named Darius who eventually became king, but he, like his grandfather, was a Persian, not a Mede. Daniel also says that "Darius the Mede" was the son of Xerxes, but Xerxes was actually the son of Darius, not his father.

There is no reference whatsoever in Daniel 11 that "Darius the Mede" will conquer Babylon.

Quote:

"In the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to strengthen and fortify him. And now I will tell you the truth: Persia will have three more kings, and the fourth will be wealthier than them all; by the power he obtains from his wealth, he will stir everyone up against the kingdom of Greece. Then a warrior king will appear who will have an extensive dominion and do as he pleases. But after his appearance, his kingdom will be broken up and scattered to the four winds of heaven, but not for any of his posterity, nor with dominion like that which he had; for his kingdom will be uprooted and belong to others beside these."
(TANAKH, The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia & New York. The Jewish Publication Society. 1988. 5748 [year of the Creation])

Please note the reference to Alexander the Great in bold type.

makerowner · 02-01-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Daniel is also wrong about both the name and nationality of the person who conquered Babylon (and liberated the Jews from captivity....something which a contemporary Jew should not have gotten confused about). Babylon was not conquered by "Darius the Mede," but by Cyrus, who was Persian. There was no such person as Darius the Mede and (contrary to Daniel, who was evidently trying to backfill failed prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah) Babylon was never conquered by the Medes.

Cyrus had a grandson named Darius who eventually became king, but he, like his grandfather, was a Persian, not a Mede. Daniel also says that "Darius the Mede" was the son of Xerxes, but Xerxes was actually the son of Darius, not his father.

There is no reference whatsoever in Daniel 11 that "Darius the Mede" will conquer Babylon.

Not in ch. 11, but:
"That very night Belshaz'zar the Chalde'an king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old." (Dan. 5:30-1 RSV)

Quote:

"In the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to strengthen and fortify him. And now I will tell you the truth: Persia will have three more kings, and the fourth will be wealthier than them all; by the power he obtains from his wealth, he will stir everyone up against the kingdom of Greece. Then a warrior king will appear who will have an extensive dominion and do as he pleases. But after his appearance, his kingdom will be broken up and scattered to the four winds of heaven, but not for any of his posterity, nor with dominion like that which he had; for his kingdom will be uprooted and belong to others beside these."
(TANAKH, The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia & New York. The Jewish Publication Society. 1988. 5748 [year of the Creation])

Please note the reference to Alexander the Great in bold type.

What's your point?

Do you agree with spin's explanation of ch. 11? Yes or no answer please. If not, please explain why and provide sources to back up your explanation.

Sheshonq · 02-01-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I
[list][*]Daniel contains a number of historical inaccuracies regarding Baylonian history- the era during which it is alleged by traditionalists to have been written. These include such things as the erroneous belief that Nebuchadnezzar had a son named Belshazzar, that this Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon during the Jewish captivity, that Babylon under Belshazzar fell to Darius and that Darius was a Mede. Every single one of those points is wrong. There were four kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel thinks there was only one, and the one he names never existed. Nebuchadnezzar did not have a son named Belshazzar and no one by that name was ever king of Babylon. The guy who was king when Babylon fell was named Nabonidus and he was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. Interestingly, Naboninus had a son named Belshazzar but that son was never king and he died before his father did.
.

Archaeological evidence states otherwise.

As I said earlier - you wouldn't know archaeological evidence if it had three heads and bit you in the ass.

Quote:

That Belshazzar should have been called son of Nebuchadnezzar is readily accounted for on the supposition that he was his grandson, and there are many things to indicate that Nabonidus married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, while there is nothing known to the contrary.

In point of fact, there is *nothing* that says that such a marriage took place.

Quote:

But if this theory is rejected, there is the natural supposition that in the loose use of terms of relationship common.

In other words, if this hopeful guess about marrying Nebuchadnezzar's daughter doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then we'll just wave our hands and claim that the term "son" can be used to mean something besides son.

Not buying it.

spin · 02-01-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

That Belshazzar should have been called son of Nebuchadnezzar is readily accounted for on the supposition that he was his grandson, and there are many things to indicate that Nabonidus married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, while there is nothing known to the contrary. But if this theory is rejected, there is the natural supposition that in the loose use of terms of relationship common. among Oriental people "son" might be applied to one who was simply a successor. In the inscriptions on the monuments of Shalmaneser II, referred to below, Jehu, the extirpator of the house of Omri, is called the "son of Omri."

Yes, I know this is plastered all over fundamentalist sites, but you shouldn't quote others' errors. When Nabonidus was married, he was not an important person. He was what would have been called in Mesopotamian literature "a son of a nobody" and the best ancestry he could muster was his mother as a priestess of Sin, so marriage to a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar would have been unthinkable.

Belshazzar was never king, not even a pretend king for apologetic purposes, as he wasn't allowed to perform the new year ceremony for renewal and the people of Babylon had to wait until the return of Nabonidus. Now Belshazzar's wife in Dan 5:11b calls Nebuchadnezzar "your father" to him, not "our" or "my", so clearly she was not the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar however has no problem calling Nebuchadnezzar "my father". Even Daniel gets to call Nebuchadnezzar "your father" to him, while yet Nabonidus was alive, so the invocation of "father" and "son" with more generic meanings in the passage is a sorry fudge meant only to deflect the transparent reality.

The plain intention of the passage is to represent Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's biological son. As a fragment from Qumran is a forerunner to the Nebuchadnezzar madness story and that story is about Nabonidus, it should be clear that this Nabonidus is the source of Daniel's literary Nebuchadnezzar and naturally the son that was of Nabonidus is repackaged as that of Nebuchadnezzar.

It is only people who willfully want Daniel to be historical who have problems with the inaccuracy of the literature.

spin

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

01-30-2008, 09:28 AM	#281
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Brave arnoldo ran away. He bravely ran away, away. When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave arnoldo turned about And gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, arnoldo. (Audio source.) nspi

01-30-2008, 06:15 PM	#283
makerowner Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,962	Bump again. arnoldo's made fourteen posts since the last one on this thread, but he seems to be afraid to come here.

01-31-2008, 07:48 AM	#284
makerowner Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,962	I'm shocked to find that after 13 hours of my absence from this thread, there hasn't been a post! Even though I PMed arnoldo to remind him! Even though he's posted 8 times since the last post on here!

02-01-2008, 09:55 AM	#285
Sheshonq Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis Posts: 1,484	Can't let this one die, bump!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.