Sheshonq

Hogwash.

Dammit, spin beat me to the punch again.

arnoldo

So basically your whole argument is that Cyrus himself conquered Babylon and then appointed himself to rule Babylon instead of letting Darius the Median govern Babylon?
Wouldn't it make sense that Cyrus would appoint someone to rule Babylon for him?

spin

Why, arnoldo, would you deliberately misrepresent me as follows?
What is this rubbish about Darius the Mede? This reference is unhistorical. It doesn't refer to a real historical person. Ugbaru was the Persian representative who took control of Babylon. Cyrus later entered with Ugbaru already in charge of the city.

He left Ugbaru in charge.

In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. 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. Till the end of the month, the shield carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time for a ceremony was not missed.
In the month of Arahsamna, the third day [29 October], Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him - the state of peace was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed subgovernors in Babylon. From Livius

spin

Sheshonq

1. Only someone deliberately trying to twist spin's post could possibly come up with that.
2. Darius the Mede never existed.

Cyrus may have appointed someone - but it's unlikely that he appointed an imaginary person who never existed.

Result: PROPHECY FAILS! :rolling: :rolling:

spin

Prophecy? What prophecy? ... Oh, I see: you just wanted to say that, the bit about prophecy failing... again.


spin

arnoldo

In any event you are clearly misreading Daniel. No where in the text does it state that Darius conquered Babylon. It says he recieved the Kingdom. Who did he recieve the kingdom from? Cyrus or course. You are also mistaken that the Jews were not aware of who Cyrus was either. Note Ezra who states how Cyrus fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah.
Again archaelogical evidence has proven this decree of Cyrus for the Jews in Babylon to return to Jerusalem to be 100% accurate. Historical facts.

Sheshonq

If anyone is misreading Daniel around here, it's you.

Nobody is claiming that, either. You are trying to refute a position that nobody here is taking. And the *reason* you're wasting your time on that strawman is because you know that you are cornered.

And that's ANOTHER claim that nobody here has made.

Feel free to create all the phony positions you want, and knock them down at your leisure. Just don't expect anyone here to dance with your army of strawmen.

Uh, you've presented no archaeological evidence for this.

As I said: 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.

Darklighter

Aside from the problem of Darius the Mede never existing, it is clear that Cyrus was first to enter Babylon, NOT this supposed Darius as claimed by Danny. At a minimum, Daniel missed an obvious step that someone in his supposed position would have certainly mentioned, so as to avoid confusing his readers.

And just in case it hasn't been spelled out clearly enough:

There is absolutely NO REASON OR EVIDENCE to link Darius the Mede with Gubaru.

This shows Daniel contains badly garbled history, not an eyewittness account.

spin

You are clearly misreading me. You are falsely representing things. No-one said that Darius conquered Babylon. No-one even said Babylon was conquered. In fact Babylon gave up to Ugbaru.

But this is beside the point. There was no "Darius the Mede".

Please indicate that you understand that this is one of the problems from the OP. There was no "Darius the Mede".

Now, you are attempting to screw up the story completely by equating Darius the Mede mentioned in Dan 5:31ff with Darius the Persian who gained the throne shortly after the death of Cambyses, son of Cyrus. Dan 5:30f tells you

That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

Note the causal connection here. Belshazzar was killed that very night and Darius the Mede received the kingdom. This Darius wasn't simply erroneously tagged "the Mede" and received the kingdom forty years later.

Darius the Mede simply did not exist.

Focus, arnoldo, focus. We are talking about Daniel. It's not hard. It's a shorter book than Jeremiah, fewer things to cloud the issues.

Now are you ever going to get on with your analysis of Dan 11 which was asked of you? A lot of work was done to present you with data to help you.


spin

arnoldo

Ok, from your POV if Darius the Mede didn't exist who did Cyrus appoint as governor of Babylon after the invaders entered the city by diverting the river Euphrates? From the book of Daniel apparently he had an "excellent spirit" and Daniel himself was appointed to rule Babylon in part. In fact in Daniel 7:28 it states "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of CYRUS the PERSIAN."

In any event you simply cannot call the entire book of Daniel a failed prophecy just on the basis of Daniel 5:31 which states " and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two." In the first place Daniel 5:31 is not even a prophecy.