Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-14-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

It helps if the Prayer of Nabonidus contains an extra bibilical reference to Daniel who helped Nebby and Nabonidus who were both afflicted with a similar condition.

You're making things up again... that's normally called fibbing, but the good thing is, when you con yourself, it's really not a fib... and you're not reading what people have said to you.
spin

Wrong again, notice I state it helps IF it contains an extra biblical reference to Daniel. The text states that a Jew from the exile of Judah helped Nabonidus. It would not be out of the question that Daniel helped Nabonidus in his afflication. Here is the source for the text:

Prayer of Nabonidus

BTW, you shouldn't accuse someone of something they did not do, isn't that bearing false witness?

arnoldo · 02-14-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Have you read the Prayer of Nabondius? It clearly is an extra-biblical reference to Daniel

No, it is not.

Ok let me clarify, to me is a clear extra-biblical reference to Daniel. Please forgive me. :angel:

arnoldo · 02-14-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Ok, since you are the bible scholar did the writer of daniel rip off the Prayer of Nabondius? If so was the Prayer of Nabonidus written in the year 167BC and the Book of Daniel written in 164 BC? :huh: Oh wait, they were both written around the same time, right?

Think about it for a moment. (Are you? No. Oh, well, do try...)

Nebuchadnezzar was certainly much better known than Nabonidus. While the former was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile, the latter was an unknown king for the Jerusalemites, who was hardly seen in his own country. The Nabonidus prayer certainly has precedence over the story of Nebuchadrezzar. It's far easier to explain that they got rid of Nabonidus and reworked the story for Nebuchadrezzar than vice versa. Why add an also ran in the place of a star? It would make no sense. (This is a fairly basic approach to many problems: the more difficult of text forms is the more likely original.)

Obviously, the prayer was around before the writers of Daniel incorporated its basics. I have also said a number of times that the first part of Daniel was written quite a while before the second part.
spin

Well, that's a step in the right direction admitting that a part of Daniel was written before 167 BC. Praise the Lord

Sheshonq · 02-14-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

What you and other critics seem to be ignorant of is that Babylon was conquered twice in a short time, once by Cyrus and a second time by Darius the Great.

Incorrect. It was conquered by Cyrus II. Darius was a successor to Cyrus, in the same Persian empire. Darius I had to endure several revolts and short-lived insurrections instigated by spurious upstart “Nebuchadnezzars”. After quelling the revolts, Darius also favored Babylon with his attention. He finished the division of Babylon into 20 administrative satrapies, imposed a uniform system of law throughout, and created a carefully maintained road system. Darius also built up Babylon, which became the capital of the richest satrapy in the world.

But this was a Persian effort; the Medes had been subjugated

Quote:

Again Herodotus, our primary source on Darius’ rule,

Uh, no. Remember what I said earlier about you exaggerating or spinning your sources to inflate the strength of your claim? You are doing it again. Herodotus is not our primary source about Darius; Herodotus contains too many legendary pieces.
http://www.biographybase.com/biograp...of_Persia.html

Quote:

Sources for Darius' biography

The principal sources for the life of Darius are his own inscriptions, especially the great inscription of Behistun, in which he relates how he gained the crown and put down many rebellions. In modern times his veracity has often been doubted, but without any sufficient reason or suggestion of alternatives. The accounts given later by Herodotus and Ctesias of his accession are in many points evidently dependent on this official version, with many legendary stories interwoven, e.g. the tale that Darius and his allies left the question as to which of them should become king to the decision of their horses, and that Darius won the crown by a trick of his groom.

Quote:

Thus Babylon was conquered by ‘Darius the Mede’.

Uh, no. Darius was a Persian, not a Mede. Moreover, the account in Daniel doesn't mention any conquest associated with Darius; he is painted as taking the reins of Babylon immediately after the fall of the Chaldeans.

DAN 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
DAN 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

* No mention of Cyrus II, the actual conqueror of Babylon.
* No mention of Cambyses II.
* No mention of the almost two decades that intervened between (a) the fall of the Chaldeans and (b) the reign of Darius I (539 to 522)
* No conquest, no uprisings by spurious "Nebuchadnezzars", no revolt in Babylon against the Persians, no protracted military engagement to re-take Babylon - NOTHING

Dan 5:30 slides right into 5:31 and misses all these things.

Sheshonq · 02-14-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

No, it is not.

Ok let me clarify, to me is a clear extra-biblical reference to Daniel. Please forgive me. :angel:

Hard to see that since it doesn't even mention Daniel.

spin · 02-14-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Think about it for a moment. (Are you? No. Oh, well, do try...)

Nebuchadnezzar was certainly much better known than Nabonidus. While the former was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile, the latter was an unknown king for the Jerusalemites, who was hardly seen in his own country. The Nabonidus prayer certainly has precedence over the story of Nebuchadrezzar. It's far easier to explain that they got rid of Nabonidus and reworked the story for Nebuchadrezzar than vice versa. Why add an also ran in the place of a star? It would make no sense. (This is a fairly basic approach to many problems: the more difficult of text forms is the more likely original.)

Obviously, the prayer was around before the writers of Daniel incorporated its basics. I have also said a number of times that the first part of Daniel was written quite a while before the second part.

Well, that's a step in the right direction admitting that a part of Daniel was written before 167 BC.

This is another of those things you've been told before. Try here and here. Are you off your meds or something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Praise the Lord

If that'll get your memory back, praise the lord.

spin

mens_sana · 02-14-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

It helps if the Prayer of Nabonidus contains an extra bibilical reference to Daniel who helped Nebby and Nabonidus who were both afflicted with a similar condition.

I've read the Prayer of Nabonidus. Somehow I missed the reference to Daniel. Can you point it out?

arnoldo · 02-14-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

It helps if the Prayer of Nabonidus contains an extra bibilical reference to Daniel who helped Nebby and Nabonidus who were both afflicted with a similar condition.

I've read the Prayer of Nabonidus. Somehow I missed the reference to Daniel. Can you point it out?

Hello, it mentions a Jew from the exile of Judah who tells the ruler to glorify God. But your right it's not a reference but allusion to a person who fits the character of Daniel.

mens_sana · 02-14-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

I've read the Prayer of Nabonidus. Somehow I missed the reference to Daniel. Can you point it out?

Hello, it mentions a Jew from the exile of Judah who tells the ruler to glorify God. But your right it's not a reference but allusion to a person who fits the character of Daniel.

Well, I'm glad you've moved the goalposts to more "reasonable" position, i.e., from direct reference by name to an "allusion to a person who fits the character of Daniel."

Just to make sure . . . Are you proposing that the young Daniel and friends were taken to Babylon by Nebby, with Daniel surviving to become a figure in Nabonidus' court at Tema?

arnoldo · 02-14-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Agreed. I want to stay on topic on Daniel. I will stop responding to off topic comments. In reference to Daniel:
More documentation that Daniel is canon and prophecy is meant to edify believers from I Maccabees Chap. II 31-52

Yes, Daniel was written in two contexts. Dan 1-6 doesn't know anything about the persecution under Antiochus IV. That's why the statue doesn't feature the ascendency of the Seleucids and the marriage of Berenice (Ptolemid) to Antiochus II is the only clear historical reference in the dream. (Chronologically, this section is linear: first Nebuchadnezzar, then Belshazzar and finally "Darius the Mede".)

spin

Any theories when Dan. 1-6 was written?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.