arnoldo

Sorry Daniel 2:39 accurately describes the the Medo-Persian empire by the image of the chest of silver and TWO ARMS. As well as the imagery of the goat with two horns one inferior (the medes) to the other.
Daniel 8:9 already explains perfectly clear how Alexander the Great conquered the Medo-Persian Empire. The horn was broken, Alexander the Great died, and 4 little horn rose up (4 generals) from within these horns arose the little horn. The same process will happen in the Roman Empire. The Jews already went through worse with Nebby who destroyed Jerusalem. In contrast a small army of Jews were able to win against the Seleucids. Notice the 4 beast in Daniel 7.
1. Lion w/ eagles wings= babyon
2. Bear raised to one side (Persia is the stronger than Mede side ) with three ribs in mouth
( Egypt, Babylon, and Lydia).
3. Leopard with 4 wings = Greece
4. fourth beast w/ten horns = Rome

Wrong Daniel mention Rome in Daniel 17-20. Syrai and Egyp formed an alliance with Cleopatra married Ptolemy Ephiphanes. Antiochus then attacked Greece and was defeated in 189 BC by Roman Soldiers.
Wrong, archaelogical proof indicates Belshazzar was in the city of babylon when it was defeated as indicated in the book of daniel.
No, it's due to a commitment to historical accuracy. In any event you have not indicated that there are no errors in Daniel Chapter 11, right?

arnoldo

It doesn't go wrong from 11:40 according to this source

Sheshonq

Make up your mind. Is it horns? Arms? What's the symbology you are claiming? And what are your sources for claiming it?

Ah. So now we're back to goat. So once again, you need to explain the 10 horns. Unfortunately, you cannot - although spin's list of successors does that nicely.

Excuse me? This is a theological treatise from the year 1766. Would you like to try again? Or will you be using 300 year old sources for all your arguments?

The problem with this interpretation has already been listed. You have failed to address those problems. Repeating a broken interpretation is not convincing anyone.

Assuming you mean Ch 11 of Daniel -- since Dan only has 12 chapters in all -- you are wrong. Daniel made no mention of Rome. It's typical amorphous language that you want to twist and claim is Rome.

But hey - that is the interpretation you want to sell; but so far you've done nothing but claim it repeatedly.

So? The whereabouts of Belshazzar were never in question.

The claim that he was a *king* is what you needed to prove. And as usual, you're avoiding that question by trying to talk about a claim that nobody is making.
As I have mentioned several times, you wouldn't know a historical fact if it had three heads, walked up behind you, tapped you on the shoulder, and bit you hard in the ass.

You don't know enough history to even be *having* this conversation - so you make shit up to fill in the gaps, hoping nobody notices. Not a good thing to do in a forum full of people who have studied this for decades.

spin listed the mistakes in the chapter - why do you keep asking pointless questions that have already been answered?

Oh, that's right --- you're pinned against the wall, so you're trying to get the thread locked. That way you can tell yourself that the moderators shut the debate down --- instead of admitting that your arguments were shredded to bits.

arnoldo

Got it. Daniel is accurate until 11:40. After that it is not accurate. Note the Greek Coin with a goat symbol.

spin

Do you have a supermarket account for eggs? You just keep wiping them all over your face.
Your long term memory seems to fail you

On the subject of the Seleucid Greek empire being symbolized by an elephant for some unaccountable reason you said:

Ridiculous, anyone knows that the goat has been a symbol of greece and is even on their ancient coins.

Of course when I showed you that the Seleucid Greeks even used elephants on their coins, instead of shutting up for making such an egregious error, you trot off to find a coin to show that Greeks sometimes did use goats. Doh! You were responding to a statement about Seleucid Greeks. And you blundered. Keep it up. People are getting entertained to see how bad you are prepared to go.




spin

Toto

That coin is from this site. The God celebrated there is Hermes, father of Pan, who was half goat. Coins from Ainos, or Aenus, often feature Hermes and a goat. From here

makerowner

arnoldo since you seem to have ADD or something, I'm going to go through Daniel 11 verse by verse with you so we can figure out where you stand.
Let's skip verse one so you don't have to embarrass yourself about "Darius the Mede" again. Verse 2 is obvious, and I hope you're not going to dispute that this Persia and Greece. Now this is what spin had to say about v. 3:
Do you agree with his assessment? If not, please explain why and provide sources. Thank you.

spin

You are simply trying to confuse two different visions. You have been responded to. Then to the third you dragoon here: if the Medes were an arm and the Persians were another arm, who was the body? Doh!

You are not responding to what was asked of you. Explain the ten kings better than the historical context I supplied. Please read it again:

Alexander
Seleucus I
Antiochus I
Antiochus II
Seleucus II
Antiochus III
Seleucus III
* Seleucus IV
* Antiochus -
* Heliodorus

It is here that the little horn uproots three previous horns. Antiochus IV came to the throne after Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus IV and installed his son on the throne, then decided to rule himself. Antiochus IV removed them, so three kings fell so that he could become king.

The "Medo/Persian" empire has been shown to be baloney, even by Persian inscriptions. You continue to state it as fact:



That far you're correct. Why do you then leap forward a hundreds of years? From one of these horns comes the Seleucids and from another the Ptolemies. You've already identified Antiochus IV as the little horn.

Nebuchadrezzar didn't persecute the Jews. He did defeat them and transport their nobility to Babylon, but no persecution as seen in Daniel and in 167-164 BCE under Antiochus.

So you've found that apologetic website to cheat from. :notworthy:

It's still as wrong as the time you first found the silly idea.

I've shown you who the ten horns are and the little horn. You have failed to respond on the issue.

What is the exact reference?

Antiochus was not defeated. The Romans told him to get out and he did. Either your website is wrong or you are.

Neither of us know for sure where Belshazzar was at the time of the fall, but it's probable that he died at the head of the Babylonian forces at Opis, while Nabonidus was at Sippar. However, you are tilting at the wrong windmill, for it wasn't where Belshazzar was at the time, but the fact that he was never king.

Belshazzar the son of Nabonidus was never king, nor was he son of Nebuchadrezzar (and genealogy works on the paternal line despite your ridiculous sources).

Darius the Mede did not exist. You have failed to show otherwise. You have no opportunity between the time Ugbaru took Babylon and the entry of Cyrus for there to have been a Darius the Mede.

The name of the Babylonian king was best transliterated as Nebuchadrezzar and the Daniel text always spells it incorrectly.

Enough historical errors to show that Daniel was not written when the book is set.

You haven't been reading.


spin

arnoldo

Nonsense. The medes and the persians are both from modern day iran. The medes barely had a "kingdom" for over 75 years. Once Cyrus II defeated Media in 549 BC he combined the "two countries" into the Medo-Persian Empire. Here is a source:

Rubbish. Your discussing Daniel 11 and then apply it to Daniel 7:8.
Wrong. I just given you a site that the Medes were merely a confederation and that the Medes and Persians are basically the same tribe.
Antiochus IV is the little horn that arises from the Greek Empire in Daniel 8:9
There is a different "little horn" in Daniel 7:8.
I already responded your mixing different chapters and stating half truths. The ten horns section is in one chapter and the 4 horns in another for a reason.

Good. At least you admit that the Book of Daniel contains reference to the Roman Empire. The two legs of the statue as well as then ten toes also refer to the Roman Empire.
Wrong. I already provided babylonian records which indicate that Nabonidus was not in the city of babylon when it was defeated and that Nabonidus was later captured.
If you want to call babylonian sources ridiculous, go ahead.
You failed to show he didn't exist either. Ugbaru and Darius are likely the same person.
So you still think the entire book of daniel was written between 167-164 and then copies rapidly distributed so it ended up as part of the dead sea scrolls?

arnoldo

Where is the tomb of Daniel? Hint: There really is a tomb of daniel.