dad
Undefeated
Confirmation: you do not know what you are talking about.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence God exists Dan 9
- Thread starter dad
- Start date
dad
Undefeated
Not sure what you think this means. Obviously you are missing something. Since you won't use your own words and debate honestly we don't know what that may be.
dad
Undefeated
Proof the Ezekiel and Jesus and the book of Scripture were liars? Ha.
No more than it is borrowed from Tinkerbell.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
Opinion.
dad
Undefeated
Like I would ask you if I wanted the truth.
dad
Undefeated
Sure, Soda.
dad
Undefeated
Yes. He sure was. What, you thought he was lying?
Do you think there really was no Nebuchanezzar either?
Dan 2:
1 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
16 Then Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would shew the king the interpretation.
25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation. 26 The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof?
So, hey, not sure what soothsayer or wise man told you Daniel was in some other time, but you can take it to the bank that they are making stuff up.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
sooda
Veteran Member
1. Aramaic, in which parts of the book of Daniel were written, was a late Semitic language not used in literature of the sixth century B.C.
2. Existence of three Greek words in Daniel 3 indicates that the book was written in the Hellenistic period, after Alexander the Great had brought Greek culture and
language to the Oriental world.
3. Chronological contradictions between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 show that the writer of Daniel was so far removed from the historical events he described that he made mistakes.
4. Mention of Belshazzar as last king of Babylon proves that the story is legendary. All ancient sources present Nabonidus as Babylon's last king and never even mention Belshazzar.
5. Ancient historians never mention Darius the Mede as king of Babylon, as Daniel 6 does; thus the book of Daniel is not a trustworthy historical source.
dad
Undefeated
Hey, not too crazy about your god either.
dad
Undefeated
We know you have none from any source.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
"But such reasoning for a late date for the writing of Daniel is proven to be in error by a careful study of the Aramaic text in the book. Addressing the style of Aramaic in the book of Daniel, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary notes: “But with the publication and linguistic analysis of the Apocryphon (which is a sort of midrash for Genesis) [written in the third century B.C.], it has become apparent that Daniel is composed in a type of centuries-earlier Aramaic” (“Introduction to Daniel”).
Incidentally, we should note that a study of the Hebrew used in the book of Daniel yields a similar result. As The Expositor’s Bible Commentary adds: “From the standpoint of linguistic science, there is no possibility that the [Hebrew] text of Daniel could have been composed as late as the Maccabean uprising.”
Biblical Aramaic
"
There are only three Greek terms in Daniel, they are found in only one chapter of the entire book, and all three of them are musical instruments (Daniel 3: 5, 7, 10, 15).
Once this is acknowledged, two arguments are usually raised. The first is that the author of Daniel must have been living in the Greek era in order to even be aware of these terms. The second is that they are not found in Greek literature prior to the 2nd century BC, requiring the book of Daniel to have been written much earlier than it claims.
The three terms are transliterated as ‘qithros’ (Greek ‘kitharis’), ‘pesanterin’ (Greek ‘psalterion), and ‘sumponeyah’ (Greek ‘symphonia’). It should be noted that the words appear as transliteratons, not as words written in Greek. This is what we would expect from a text which was written prior to an era in which Greek became the common language, since it reveals that Greek is not the native language of the author.
..the word ‘sumphonia’ is found in Greek literature contemporary with Daniel: ‘In fact, we now know that Pythagoras used this term around 530 B.C.; i.e., about the time of Daniel.
overwhelming evidence has been found to prove that Greek loan words entered the Middle East at a very early date, certainly well before the Babylonian captivity of Israel: ‘Unfortunately, for the critics, the presence of Greek words has long been demonstrated by “an avalanche of evidence” to have entered into “the Semitic milieu long before the sixth century B.C.” [Vasholz, 316; Kitchen (1965): 44-48, Archer (1985): 21; McDowell, 98-102
Additionally, archaeologists have found much evidence of the early spread of Greek influence (see Harris, 1969, p. 149).’
‘The claim that the Greek musical terms in Daniel give credence to a late date cannot be defended successfully. Greek words now are authenticated in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the fifth century B.C."
The Book of Daniel (4/20)
Old wives tale.
"Jeremiah claims the “fourth year” whereas Daniel speaks of the “third year.” Is this a mistake? We can account for this discrepancy as follows: Daniel speaks of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar leaving Babylon to attack Jerusalem while Jeremiah marks the time Nebuchadnezzar actually invaded Jerusalem. That is, Nebuchadnezzar departed Babylon in Jehoiakim’s third year (Daniel’s perspective), and he fought against Jehoiakim in Jerusalem in Jehoiakim’s fourth year (Jeremiah perspective). What had Nebuchadnezzar been doing in the interim?
We turn to Jeremiah chapter 46 for the explanation: “[1] The word of the LORD which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Gentiles; [2] Against Egypt, against the army of Pharaohnecho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah.” Nebuchadnezzar (same as Nebuchadrezzar) attacked and defeated Pharaohnecho King of Egypt before moving on to conquer Jerusalem and vanquish Jehoiakim King of Judah.
The narrative now put forth in one succinct sentence: Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon in Jehoiakim’s third year, Nebuchadnezzar battled Pharaohnecho/Egypt at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s fourth year, and, later that year, Nebuchadnezzar fought with Jehoiakim. There is no contradiction or difficulty unless we are looking for mistakes."
Why do Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 conflict?
4.
" Nabonidus, who ruled the empire of Babylon from 555-538 B.C., mentions his firstborn son Belshazzar on an inscription found in the city of Ur in 1853. The inscription reads:
"May it be that I, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, never fail you. And may my firtstborn, Belshazzar, worship you with all his heart." BM91228
Another piece of evidence for Belshazzar's reign in the city of Babylon comes from an inscription where he is referred to as the son of Nabonidus and is given authority to rule.
"Putting the camp under the rule of his
oldest son, the firstborn. The army of the empire
he placed under his command. His hands
were now free; He entrusted the authority of
the royal throne to him." BM38299
Yet even another piece of evidence comes from a tablet dating back to the seventh year of the reign of Nabonidus, where he is mentioned in the same light as his father:
“In regards to the bright star which has appeared, I will undertake to interpret its meaning for the glory of my lord Nabonidus, Babylon’s king, and also for the crown prince, Belshazzar” YBC2192
What is interesting to note is that on this oath, the man swore by both Nabonidus and Belshazzar. While on oaths dating back to other times, generally only the king is mentioned. This seems to indicate that Belshazzar had a co-reigning authority that was second only to his father throughout all the Empire.
This backs up the Bible completely:
Belshazzar speaking to Daniel in chapter 5 verse 16 says: ..... "Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom." (Here Belshazzar indicates he was the second highest ruler in Babylon and not the first.)
We also know that at the time the Medes and Persians captured the Babylon, Nabonidus was not living in the city of Babylon, but was staying in a place called Teima in the northern part of Arabia. Leaving his son back home in charge of governing the city.
The text from an artifact known as the
Nabonidus chronicle states: Nabonidus, the king
stayed in Tema; the crown prince, his officials
and the troops were in Akkad. BM35382"
King Cyrus of Persia also refers to Belshazzar when he conquered Babylon in his writings:
"A coward was put in charge as the king of this country . . . With evil intents he did away with the regular offerings to the gods . . . and desecrated the worship of the king of his gods, Marduk." BM90920
Cyrus's statement that Belshazzar desecrated the worship of his god Marduk matches very closely to the story in the book of Daniel. Although it wasn't Marduk whose handwriting appeared on the wall, but the one true God of Israel.
According to the Bible, Belshazzar was holding a feast at the time the city of Babylon was run over by the Medes and Persians."
Belshazzar and Darius the Mede
"A major assumption of negative higher criticism has been that the Book of Daniel was authored by an unknown writer of the Maccabean age (c. 164 b.c.) who mistakenly thought that an independent Median kingdom ruled by Darius the Mede followed the fall of Babylon and preceded the rise of Persia under Cyrus. Darius the Mede, however, is not depicted in the book as a universal monarch. His subordinate position (under Cyrus) is clearly implied in the statement that he “was made king (Heb. passive, homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans” (9:1 KJV). Also, the fact that Belshazzar’s kingdom was “given to the Medes and Persians” (5:28) and that Darius found himself incapable of altering the “law of the Medes and Persians” (6:15) renders the critical view untenable."
Darius the Mede - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway
All claims you make are no better than gossip or slander.