Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spiritual Death is Not Biblical
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 234 of 281 (535531)
11-16-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Peg
11-16-2009 3:04 AM


Re: Daniel
I don't generally get into these kinds kinds of accuracy questions because often times there are subtle unknowns in the historical record that make things ambiguous but this is something that I have been interested in recently.
If you are trying to claim that Daniel had an early date because he was correct about late Babylonian history then you are going to have to hide in some obscurity. First of all, Belshazzar was never king so you have to hide behind the definition of "king" meaning something else like many apologetic interpreters do. His dad Nabonidus was king and was the last Babylonian king to rule before Persian conquest. The Bible calls Belshazzar the son of Nebudcanezzer which he was not. He was also not his grandson. In fact he was not a blood relative of Neb at all. You'll get around this by claiming that "son" means something other than a literal son like many others do who try to square Daniel with history. They claim "son" meant decendant to the throne which is hardly convincing. Any plain reading of Daniel makes it pretty clear that Daniel was meaning "child of" not "successor king to". (which he wasn't a king anyway....one explanation defeating the other)
Moreover, Daniel predicted that Babylon would be violently conquered when historical indications are that it surrendered to Cyrus without a battle (at least the city of Babylon did). But you can get fuzzy there too.
Last, just because Daniel wrote of Belshazzar does not mean that a 2nd centry BC Daniel could not have known about him. Your drawing upon a fallacy that the only way Daniel would have known about Belshazzar was if he actually lived in the 6th century BC. There is some evidence of lost writings that existed at the time of a 2nd century BC Daniel that could have mentioned the lineage of the Babylonian kings so its not like Daniel would have been in the dark. Either way, just mentioning Belshazzar does not put Daniel in the 6th century especially considering the other mistakes he makes.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Peg, posted 11-16-2009 3:04 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by ICANT, posted 11-16-2009 7:59 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 241 by Peg, posted 11-17-2009 1:58 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 245 of 281 (535682)
11-17-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Peg
11-17-2009 1:58 AM


Re: Daniel
So this description of how Nabonidus put Belshazzar at the helm disproves critics claims that Belshazzar was not a king of Babylon. He was a co-ruler with his father thus he was in a kingly position and this makes him the king of Babylon.
Exactly what I said you have to do to make this right, change the definition of "king".
Nabonidus was unrelated by blood to Nebuchadnezzar thats true. But the only way he could have legally taken the throne was if he married into the royal family. Herodotus reported in the 5th century that the mother of the younger Labynetos (Nabonidus) was the queen Nitocris who is commonly thought to have been the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. This makes Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar*s grandson by marriage and in patriachal societies, it was perfectly accurate to call him Nebuchadnezzars son.
Exactly as I predicted, you make this work by changing the definition of "son" and "father" as written by Daniel. IIRC the geneology from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus was even farther than that but that is somewhat irrelevant as Belshazzar is only the "son" and Nebuchadnezzar is only a "father" if you change those to mean something else. This is what I was talking about hiding behind fuzzy interpretations.
If you consider the slaughter of almost everyone in the city as a non violent take over, then i'm very surprised.
I'll concede this point if I am given a reference because I'll admit that I haven't looked to deeply into this point. But I have read some history that claims that Cyrus did not in fact sack Babylon city itself. I could be rememebering that wrong I'll admit but I'll also note that you are not refuting me with a reference either. My rebuttal does not hinge on this point so I'll easily conceed if shown wrong.
If Herodotus of the 5th century said that Nabonidus was the ruler and did not mention Belshazzar, how could a later writer have known about Belshazzar? If Herodotus had known of Belshazzars rulership, then surely he would have named him as such...if he didnt, why do you think a later writer would have known of Belshazzar?
Why not? Your making a negative claim. You are claiming that a 2nd century Daniel could NOT have known about Belshazzar. That is a very high burden of proof in a period with a lot of room to speculate. This isn't even the strongest evidence for an early Daniel yet it is the one that a lot of apologists hang on to because there is a sliver of historical support with the discovery of the tablets mentioning Belshazzar.
remember, Archeology has backed up Belshazzars position as a king so we know he definately was ruling Babylon along with his aged father.
Making him by definition NOT a king. That is why you change the definition.
This really adds weight to the bible as an historically accurate record of the past. It was more accurate then the famous and highly resprect Herodotus.
Well, there are a bunch of other things that Daniel got wrong that apologists like to dance around. I just wanted to address your Belshazzar claim. You conviently ignored my main point which is that you cannot prove that a 2nd century Daniel did not know about Belshazzar.
Overall, the argument for the origins of Daniel are very complex but if you take the weight of the evidence for an early dating and compare it to the weight of the evidence for a late dating, I believe that any objective observer would conclude that it was most certainly written late. If you want to discuss this in more detail perhaps we should take it to a different thread. I'll try to re-find my references to the Babylonian lineage that I mentioned in my previous post.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Jazzns, : mixing up early vs late when talkin' all historical and such
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Peg, posted 11-17-2009 1:58 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Peg, posted 11-18-2009 1:52 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 252 of 281 (535718)
11-17-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Peg
11-17-2009 1:58 AM


quick corrections
Daniel didn't predict the violent overthrow of Babylon, just that Belshazzar would be killed. Isaiah did though and he was wrong. Cyrus did battle the Babylonians but he took the city of Babylon without a fight. Both the Cyrus Cylinder and Chronicle of Nabonidus describe this. What Daniel got wrong was the who. Daniel says it was Darius when it was actually Cyrus. Darious came later, likely after Daniel's death, and was not a Mede. Daniel was probably trying to square with Isaiah who claimed that Babylon would fall to the Medes.
With respect to Balshazzar being known in the 2nd century, he is supposidly referenced in the Book of Baruch which is a Maccabean writing. This gets more interesting as you get deeper so I'll look forward to continuing if you want to in a new thread. I'll join you if you create it, taking that as a sign that you are intersted. If you want me to start it let me know.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Peg, posted 11-17-2009 1:58 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024