Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-02-2008, 05:45 PM

And now arnoldo, for about the twelfth time, are you going to finish the analysis of Dan 11 or not?

spin

aChristian · 02-02-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understood the part of the discussion that I read, arnoldo was arguing that someone gave Darius the kingdom (he received it) and spin said the word can only mean 'took'. I pointed out, and you supported it with all the translations that you gave, that the word can indeed mean received and that arnoldo's interpretation is allowable. Spin is wrong when he says it has to mean took and cannot mean recieved.

Let me correct you. Firstly, here's what I actually said:

The word for "receive", QBL, actually means "take" (see Ezra 8:30), so you cannot hide behind the hope that a king gave "Darius the Mede" his kingship: he took it.

You can hopefully see that the issue is not on the obtainer's side of the issue, but on but on a hypothetical giver's side. Now you can quibble with the meaning of "take" as much as you like, but the problem being looked at is whether someone gave "Darius the Mede" the kingdom. The problem with "receive" is that in English it implies someone giving, an implication not in the Hebrew and Aramaic.

The fact that the verse has been translated with either "received" or "took" indicates that there is no consideration of "giving".

Is the issue clearer? Besides that, you can translate QBL with any neutral form of "obtain" you like.

In Ezra 8:30, the priests received from the gold, silver, and articles from Ezra. Ezra gave and the priests received. The Aramaic word received implies a giver just like the English word received implies a giver. That is why they translate the Aramaic word as received. The fact that it has been translated either received or took does not imply that there is no consideration of giving. You are simply mistaken. As far as quibbling about the word, you seemed to think it was very important until I showed that the strong position that you took was wrong. When I showed you that it was possible to translate it as received, suddenly it was not important. Just admit that you are wrong. If you admit this, it might make it easier to admit to a lot of your sins. That could lead to a lot of good things.

xaxxat · 02-02-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

If you admit this, it might make it easier to admit to a lot of your sins. That could lead to a lot of good things.

arnoldo · 02-02-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Is your point of view that a part of the book of daniel (chapters 1-6) was written mid-fourth century BCE and the rest of the book of Daniel (7-12) was written after 164 BCE due to the so called " after the fact prophecies" of Antiochus Ephihanes?

This request for clarification has nothing to do with what you are ostensibly responding to. To see my view on what you ask read this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you accept that Belshazzar was never king? He was the regent for Nabonidus but never king, unable to perform kingly duties such as at the new year festivals.

Nabonidus was king of "babylonia" however Belshazzar was the "king" of the city of babylon.

Do you accept that Nabonidus was in Babylonia at the time of its fall as indicated in the Chronicle of Nabonidus?

No, Nabonidus was in the middle of a ten year campaign in Arabia and left his son Belshazzar as viceroy "king" over the the city of Babylon.

Quote:

The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there.
http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you accept that king "Darius the Mede" is not a historical figure?

You cannot prove he is not a historical figure either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you accept that Belshazzar is not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, being the son of Nabonidus, a commoner (and that any attempt to invent a mother who was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar would be futile, as lineage is through the male line)?

Belshazzar is the son of Nabonidus and he is mentioned in Daniel 5:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you accept that it's time you finished the analysis of Dan 11?

spin

The entire book of daniel was written well before the third century BCE as evidenced by the dead sea scrolls.

spin · 02-02-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let me correct you. Firstly, here's what I actually said:

The word for "receive", QBL, actually means "take" (see Ezra 8:30), so you cannot hide behind the hope that a king gave "Darius the Mede" his kingship: he took it.

You can hopefully see that the issue is not on the obtainer's side of the issue, but on but on a hypothetical giver's side. Now you can quibble with the meaning of "take" as much as you like, but the problem being looked at is whether someone gave "Darius the Mede" the kingdom. The problem with "receive" is that in English it implies someone giving, an implication not in the Hebrew and Aramaic.

The fact that the verse has been translated with either "received" or "took" indicates that there is no consideration of "giving".

Is the issue clearer? Besides that, you can translate QBL with any neutral form of "obtain" you like.

In Ezra 8:30, the priests received from the gold, silver, and articles from Ezra.

Again you miss out on the perspective. There is no interest in any giving in 8:30. What is of interest is what the priests and Levites did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Ezra gave and the priests received. The Aramaic word received implies a giver just like the English word received implies a giver.

If you understood the problem BDB had with the Aramaic, you'd know that the only Aramaic examples given in BDB for QBL, the few that there are, are from Daniel. That's why I turned to the Hebrew, which BDB say is an Aramaic loanword, and their first significance for the Hebrew is "take".

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

That is why they translate the Aramaic word as received. The fact that it has been translated either received or took does not imply that there is no consideration of giving. You are simply mistaken. As far as quibbling about the word, you seemed to think it was very important until I showed that the strong position that you took was wrong. When I showed you that it was possible to translate it as received, suddenly it was not important.

I can only assume that you want to be obtuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Just admit that you are wrong. If you admit this, it might make it easier to admit to a lot of your sins. That could lead to a lot of good things.

As you are not interested in the discussion, I shake the dust off my shoes to you.

spin

spin · 02-02-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This request for clarification has nothing to do with what you are ostensibly responding to. To see my view on what you ask read this.

Nabonidus was king of "babylonia" however Belshazzar was the "king" of the city of babylon.

I can see that you are prepared to falsify the evidence. Invent and cheat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you accept that Nabonidus was in Babylonia at the time of its fall as indicated in the Chronicle of Nabonidus?

No, Nabonidus was in the middle of a ten year campaign in Arabia and left his son Belshazzar as viceroy "king" over the the city of Babylon.

"Viceroy" does not mean "king". You're cheating again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you accept that king "Darius the Mede" is not a historical figure?

You cannot prove he is not a historical figure either.

By Ugbaru receiving the kingdom it proves that "Darius the Mede" who received the kingdom is not historical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you accept that Belshazzar is not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, being the son of Nabonidus, a commoner (and that any attempt to invent a mother who was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar would be futile, as lineage is through the male line)?

Belshazzar is the son of Nabonidus and he is mentioned in Daniel 5:31

So you agree that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you accept that it's time you finished the analysis of Dan 11?

The entire book of daniel was written well before the third century BCE as evidenced by the dead sea scrolls.

First you start off doing the analysis (see posts 273-5) and, when you see that you can't finish it without showing that this claim is a lie, you stop the analysis and avoid it like the plague. You refuse to deal with Dan 11 because you can't accept the consequences.

The Dead Sea Scrolls give you no evidence that Daniel was written much before the earliest manuscript, which is late second century BCE, based on the palaeography.

spin

aChristian · 02-02-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

In Ezra 8:30, the priests received from the gold, silver, and articles from Ezra.

Again you miss out on the perspective. There is no interest in any giving in 8:30. What is of interest is what the priests and Levites did.

If you understood the problem BDB had with the Aramaic, you'd know that the only Aramaic examples given in BDB for QBL, the few that there are, are from Daniel. That's why I turned to the Hebrew, which BDB say is an Aramaic loanword, and their first significance for the Hebrew is "take".

They list 'receive' first and then 'take' second. They then list three definitions, one take and two receives. The point again being that as many translations show, arnoldo's interpretation is permissible. It can mean receive. It doesn't have to mean take like you want it to and as you earlier said it could only mean.

spin · 02-03-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Again you miss out on the perspective. There is no interest in any giving in 8:30. What is of interest is what the priests and Levites did.

If you understood the problem BDB had with the Aramaic, you'd know that the only Aramaic examples given in BDB for QBL, the few that there are, are from Daniel. That's why I turned to the Hebrew, which BDB say is an Aramaic loanword, and their first significance for the Hebrew is "take".

They list 'receive' first and then 'take' second.

Umm, you're supposed to be looking at the numbered points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

They then list three definitions, one take and two receives.

Linguistics by democracy.

But look again. One "take" and to "accept". In fact "receive" is given under "take". While "take" is used with things as objects (indicated by "acc. rei."), "receive" is recommended with people ("acc. pers."). The object in our case is MLKWT), "kingdom".

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

The point again being that as many translations show, arnoldo's interpretation is permissible. It can mean receive.

It still hasn't dawned on you what the problem is when you couch your comments this way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

It doesn't have to mean take like you want it to and as you earlier said it could only mean.

As you hadn't noticed, I didn't push "take" as it is not what I was principly interested in. Although it is functional in each case, I indicated what I was interested in was elsewhere. Get back to us when you catch up.

spin

arnoldo · 02-03-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Nabonidus was king of "babylonia" however Belshazzar was the "king" of the city of babylon.

I can see that you are prepared to falsify the evidence. Invent and cheat.

Check the history again. Nabonidus was not in the actual city of babylon when the city was taken over. Daniel 5:29 confirms the simultaneous order of rulers in babylonia. You do realize there is a difference between the Kingom of Babylon and the City of Babylon, right?
1. Nabonidus
2. Belshazzar
3. Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The Dead Sea Scrolls give you no evidence that Daniel was written much before the earliest manuscript, which is late second century BCE, based on the palaeography.

spin

The Septuagint gives the date of Daniel to be well before the mid third century BC.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-535154/Septuagint

spin · 02-03-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I can see that you are prepared to falsify the evidence. Invent and cheat.

Check the history again. Nabonidus was not in the actual city of babylon when the city was taken over. Daniel 5:29 confirms the simultaneous order of rulers in babylonia. You do realize there is a difference between the Kingom of Babylon and the City of Babylon, right?
1. Nabonidus
2. Belshazzar
3. Daniel

You pursue the error that Belshazzar was anything at the time other than regent for Nabonidus, regent because Nabonidus was away from Babylon. For the last few years of his reign Nabonidus was back in Babylon.

Dan 1:1 calls Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. The administrative separation that you are creating between Babylon and Babylonia is just an invention. Daniel's Belshazzar is the king of Babylon following his father Nebuchadnezzar. King Belshazzar doesn't specify who the second in rank in his kingdom was. You have no evidence to say either, therefore you are inventing once again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The Dead Sea Scrolls give you no evidence that Daniel was written much before the earliest manuscript, which is late second century BCE, based on the palaeography.

The Septuagint gives the date of Daniel to be well before the mid third century BC.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-535154/Septuagint

In fact it is only the law that is talked about as having been translated by the seventy. This is from the Letter of (Pseudo-)Aristeas 10-11:

I am told that the laws of the Jews are worth transcribing and deserve a place in your library.

There is no reference to the other Jewish books. So you get another gong: sorry, try again.

spin

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

02-02-2008, 05:45 PM	#361
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	And now arnoldo, for about the twelfth time, are you going to finish the analysis of Dan 11 or not? spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.