What became of Nebuchadnezzar after becoming an animal?

[Brickjectivity]

Do you think the Book of Daniel is actual history?

I think it is an apocalypse, like Revelation. It has import meant to convey a timeless message rather than a prediction about a particular king of the north and south. There will always be a King of the North and a King of the South. They also have a basis in history of famous North-South kings struggling against each other beginning with the unification of upper and lower Egypt by the first Pharoah. His story is an epic in many countries, perhaps transformed and retold in a different way by those rulers who are jealous of Egypt's success.

There is a country called Babylon. There is an exiled group of Jews, and they are forced to live there and to eat unnatural food and to live with other rules than the reality they love. Christian writings may refer to them as those who were "Cast into darkness" from which some never returned, or "Bound with chains of darkness." The Jews in Babylon are compelled to live unnaturally -- against their Torah which they consider to be not simply a set of rules but more like a map. So they by living like Babylonians are leaving nature, leaving the universe that matters for one that doesn't. I don't think I can accurately portray what they think about it, but the idea is that many or all are no longer Jews. Simply eating ham and liking it may not seem like a huge deal to you and I, but to them it is devastating. They have lost the benefits of Israel when they are stuck in Babylon and have to keep its principles alive in new ways.

There are men like Daniel among the exiles -- perhaps many. There are evil men like the satraps who try to get him killed. Some, like Daniel, fight to live by the Torah as much as possible, to retain the hope that Israel represents. They resist assimilation, and they lament the failures of themselves and their country to follow its principles when they lived in Canaan before the Babylonians invaded. Christian writers (basically all I really know) interpret that the Jews were forced (in the first place) to go into Babylon because of their failure to keep the Torah. Then some were brought back, refined and newly aligned with the Torah again. Daniel is an important book for helping us to understand this. It contributes to the picture painted by Zechariah and Jeremiah. Its very personal, talking about how Daniel must resist the bad advice to eat various strange meats and resist the ways of the Babylonians. Its our picture of some Jews in exile.

Exile is part of the Jewish history even before Babylon. They start writing their Babylonian Talmud there, and we generally think about the exile to Babylon as 'The' main exile. It is not the first but is one of many. Its a big one, but before this there are many people kidnapped and made slaves who have lived in exile before. There have also been other invasions, so the idea of living away from Israel and yet being Jewish and upholding the same principles of freedom and love are already strong. Its just that with this Babylonian captivity there is a new understanding of a larger purpose for it. Daniel is a window into that.

 

[Clara Tea]

King Nebuchadnezzar had the dream where the wise men had to not only provide the interpretation of the dream, but they had to tell him the dream without any hints, explain to him what his dream was, and interpret the dream, or suffer the death penalty!

Anyway, nobody but Daniel was able to tell him his dream and interpret his dream. Eventually Nebuchadnezzar went insane, and he spent years crawling on all fours, living with the animals, living like a bull in the wilderness, eating grass. How did he turn out in the end after he got his marbles back after losing them?

A lot of scholars think Daniel actually never really existed, and that was simply a story that was told generation after generation verbally, then finally written down, and is not historically accurate. Do you believe the biblical account of Daniel is actually innerrant historical document (without anything inaccurate)?

Why does the world not have any people like Daniel, when there's more souls, far far more today than then, or ever, when the world needs somebody like him most, to Shepherd and guide the people, to influence world leaders, when so many souls are starving and in danger of being lost, why are all the people like Daniel , people that lived at a time where the world needed them far less?

If we had one person like Daniel in the world today, he would strongly influence whoever is the leader of the nation, and he would probably heavily influence leaders of many nations, and the whole world would be turning to him more than they turn to the Pope or anyone.

The world is very hungry for the truth. It's just, there's so many scandals in every religious denomination, people don't know where to turn for the truth, so they just despair and become lukewarm believers ( without much fervor zeal), or agnostics.

I'm very skeptic and suspicious of this fact that all these great prophets and sign and wonder workers, existed in ancient time, where science and medicine was not advanced enough to verify and certify the miracles, there were not cell phones to pick up on what was actually going on, we don't have videos of these people, recordings of them.

Now that we have all these inventions, I see no evidence that any such people exist on the entire planet, when there's more people than ever, and we need them more than ever. Doesn't that strike you as cause for suspicion and skepticism?

So, I've read the Bible from Genesis to revelation. But that was a long time ago.

The disease and disorder that Nebuchadnezzar experienced, actually has happened before in modern times, where a person begins to believe they are an ox, and acts like one.

Nebuchadnezzar was a prodigal son, if I've ever heard of one.

And in bestial form: the king becomes boanthropic (boanthropy being the delusion that one is an ox)View attachment 61296 View attachment 61297

My opinion:

If he was my friend, I would have bought him Purina bull food, not just let him graze for himself, and I'd make sure that it was specially formulated for older bulls. When all else fails, the church barbecue is good.

The world has leaders like Daniel. They were chosen by God to be His prophets in modern times, and many were my personal friends. They had been some of the best psychics in the world, prior to being chosen by God. Their prophecy was exactly the same as Revelation. God felt that many ignored "thou shalt not kill" and the warning that God put in Revelation not to attack Iraq, so He sent prophets. No one heeded the prophets of God. President George W. Bush openly defied God and attacked Iraq. This is leading us to the end times. This is why Revelation 15 says that there will be seven plagues. God requires that His prophets do not get worshipped. This usually means that they cannot reveal that they are on a holy mission for God. So, this is one reason that no one follows their advice.

War was created out of fear. Satan rules by fear, greed, and deception, often pretending to be "fightin' evil," and holy.

"people don't know where to turn for the truth".....so seek Satan by following the fear trail, the greed trail, the blood trail, and the lies. Look for wars and you will find Satan. Look for torture camps and you will definitely find Satan. Look for environmental damage, and you will find Satan trying to destroy God's greatest triump and lying about Global Warming.

A modern miracle came true within your lifetime, and you missed it. The miracle was that Revelation came true. Babylon was conquered, just as Revelation said it would be.

Revelation also made clear that the two Satanic demons who rose to power did so in the most powerful nation in the world (according to Revelation 17:18). That nation is called the Whore of Babylon because it was an occupying force that corrupted Babylon. Many women were raped or voluntarily had kids with US soldiers, only to find out that they were already married, and they found out that they could not track the fathers of their babies because the US had a policy not to track down US soldiers who fathered kids.

Revelation was quite detailed and very very accurate about the predictions. For example, the administration of one Satanic demon president of the United States that attacked Iraq was interrupted by a human president, then the other Satanic demon became president of the United States. This is sort of how the bible says it: The administration that was and is no more (that is, the George H. W. Bush administration followed by the Clinton administration), is again (that is, the George W. Bush administration took over where his father's administration ended and started the war in Iraq again).

Revelation said that a coalition of many nations would be assembled in mere hours (this was impossible before the advent of telephones and the internet, back when Revelation was first written). So, all these years, such things seemed like nonsense, until now, when the details actually all happened before our eyes. This is a true miracle, and you just don't recognize it.

Details of Revelation talk about tanks spewing fire (this didn't even exist back when Revelation was written). It all makes sense now.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think it is an apocalypse, like Revelation. It has import meant to convey a timeless message rather than a prediction about a particular king of the north and south. There will always be a King of the North and a King of the South. They also have a basis in history of famous North-South kings struggling against each other beginning with the unification of upper and lower Egypt by the first Pharoah. His story is an epic in many countries, perhaps transformed and retold in a different way by those rulers who are jealous of Egypt's success.

There is a country called Babylon. There is an exiled group of Jews, and they are forced to live there and to eat unnatural food and to live with other rules than the reality they love. Christian writings may refer to them as those who were "Cast into darkness" from which some never returned, or "Bound with chains of darkness." The Jews in Babylon are compelled to live unnaturally -- against their Torah which they consider to be not simply a set of rules but more like a map. So they by living like Babylonians are leaving nature, leaving the universe that matters for one that doesn't. I don't think I can accurately portray what they think about it, but the idea is that many or all are no longer Jews. Simply eating ham and liking it may not seem like a huge deal to you and I, but to them it is devastating. They have lost the benefits of Israel when they are stuck in Babylon and have to keep its principles alive in new ways.

There are men like Daniel among the exiles -- perhaps many. There are evil men like the satraps who try to get him killed. Some, like Daniel, fight to live by the Torah as much as possible, to retain the hope that Israel represents. They resist assimilation, and they lament the failures of themselves and their country to follow its principles when they lived in Canaan before the Babylonians invaded. Christian writers (basically all I really know) interpret that the Jews were forced (in the first place) to go into Babylon because of their failure to keep the Torah. Then some were brought back, refined and newly aligned with the Torah again. Daniel is an important book for helping us to understand this. It contributes to the picture painted by Zechariah and Jeremiah. Its very personal, talking about how Daniel must resist the bad advice to eat various strange meats and resist the ways of the Babylonians. Its our picture of some Jews in exile.

Exile is part of the Jewish history even before Babylon. They start writing their Babylonian Talmud there, and we generally think about the exile to Babylon as 'The' main exile. It is not the first but is one of many. Its a big one, but before this there are many people kidnapped and made slaves who have lived in exile before. There have also been other invasions, so the idea of living away from Israel and yet being Jewish and upholding the same principles of freedom and love are already strong. Its just that with this Babylonian captivity there is a new understanding of a larger purpose for it. Daniel is a window into that.

My opinion:

Ancient Babylon was destroyed by King Cyrus of Persia. Current Babylon was rebuilt and named Babylon, and I believe that it is the Babylon mentioned in Revelation, because all of the details of the war against Babylon fit the story. Furthermore, God sent modern prophets to tell us that Revelation was correct (it was God's last ditch effort to save us since we were about to defy him and kill....Remember, God said "thou shalt not kill).

Those cast into darkness are sinners, not Jews.

"Live by the Torah"....or, in the cae of Nebuchadnezzar, like like a toro (Spanish for bull).--joke

 

[Brickjectivity]

My opinion:

Ancient Babylon was destroyed by King Cyrus of Persia. Current Babylon was rebuilt and named Babylon, and I believe that it is the Babylon mentioned in Revelation, because all of the details of the war against Babylon fit the story. Furthermore, God sent modern prophets to tell us that Revelation was correct (it was God's last ditch effort to save us since we were about to defy him and kill....Remember, God said "thou shalt not kill).

Those cast into darkness are sinners, not Jews.

"Live by the Torah"....or, in the cae of Nebuchadnezzar, like like a toro (Spanish for bull).--joke

Clara Tea it is hard to remember what things you have posted, mainly because I cannot use the history tab on profiles. I think you have definite ideas about scriptures, but sometimes also play the antagonist playfully. I went through your 'Recent posts tab' and found some links.
Atheism: logical nexus between God and the soul
Christian denial of the threat of nuclear war
Darwin's Illusion
Christian denial of the threat of nuclear war

I have decided to counter the position you have taken, and it represents my real position. I've held this for a few years, now; and I don't see any reason to change it.

My credentials: I've become familiar with laws about marriage in Jewish main scripture (translated to English not original languages), have a touch of historical knowledge about Jewish marriages in ancient Rome and the concept of chained marriage. I know enough I think to have a decent opinion about the Christian scripture we are discussing. I can't think of any reason I'd be biased about it. I'm straight, have no gay relatives, no gay friends. I am single, though; so maybe someone will object on that basis that I ought to be married before commenting. I'm a sinner, and my lips are as evil as anyone's but I don't know any angels in the forum who can say they are better. I'm friends with people who have gotten married and divorced, and my parents never divorced. I've worked for an orthodox Jewish person. Seen a Jewish wedding and a Jewish funeral and Christian weddings and funerals. I have been a 700 club prayer counselor. I've seen several conversions to Christ. I've been in several kinds of Christian churches and seen the results of various policies on divorce. I've been baptized twice seeking a better understanding of Christian scripture. I have the gift of understanding mysteries. I have worked with gay people, talked with gay people, met gay people who grew up in church, met gay people who have devoted themselves to being single, met those who have not, met all kinds of people and worked with all kinds. I have talked with the heads of large businesses, small businesses, personally known TV church ministry, been to mass, sought knowledge, stumbled upon knowledge, been corrected, been wrong, been right then wrong again then right again. If anyone has the credentials to take an unbiased opinion I think its me. I am up to the task, have paid the price, am present and able to talk about it as much as anyone, perhaps better.

My main deficiency on this topic is that I am neither a marriage counselor nor a psychologist, but the bible stuff I have got.

Are my credentials absolute? No. Nobody has absolute credentials on this. Its ancient, translated, twice forgotten.

Those cast into darkness were the Jews sent into exile. Its the only reasonable explanation.

 

[gnostic]

Who would do such a thing, and for what purpose?

Purpose?

What makes you think I can read the minds of some ancient authors, and know the reasons why stories that are not true?

But people do write things that are not true.

If we are talking about today’s authors, one of the motives for writings (like novels), would be sell as many books as possible, to make a living, to make some money. And since publishers have large printing machines, anywhere between thousands to millions of copies of a novel could be printed and possibly sold to readers.

Printing machine was invented some times around the late 15th century CE.

But it is highly doubtful ancient authors would make money from their writings. And since there were no such machines, every copies made, were done by hands, often by trained scribes, which are often time consuming. It can also be costly too, especially making parchment or papyri.

So if it is not make money, then motives could be anything, eg from political propaganda or national patriotism...or it could be religious propaganda...or it could be both political and religious purposes.

 

[gnostic]

Do you think the Book of Daniel is actual history?

What it isn’t, it isn’t history, because we have a number of 6th century BCE Babylonian sources and even some Persian sources, written as royal annals, or commemorative stelae and clay tablets and cylinders that provide details of the reigns of some of the kings in the 6th century BCE. These sources are either contemporary to the reigning kings at the time, or near-contemporary (meaning they may be written within 2 generations, eg within 40 to 50 years).

All indications are that the book of Daniel was written over 300 years later. The lateness of Daniel’s composition would explain why the book is unreliable.

For instances, in Daniel 5 says that Nebuchadnezzar was father to Belshazzar, but in Babylonian sources, Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. This same chapter also say Belshazzar was “King of Babylon”, but that also untrue, because both Babylonian & Persian sources say, Nabonidus was the last Neo-Babylonian king in the Chaldean dynasty; Belshazzar was never “King”. Nabonidus was still king when Babylon have fallen to Cyrus (540 BCE), and when Nabonidus surrendered.

Nebuchadnezzar did have a son who ruled after him, his name was Amel-Marduk (reign 562 - 560 BCE). Belshazzar was neither Nebuchadnezzar’s son, nor his successor.

In Daniel 5 & 6, the book claimed that say that Babylon and the Neo-Babylonian empire had fallen to this “Darius the Mede”. But all 6th century BCE sources say that it was Cyrus II who was Babylonia conqueror. This Darius the Mede don’t even exist.

Plus, the last Mede king to rule the Median Empire was Astyages, who was contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus and Cyrus. Cyrus conquered Media after a war that lasted from 553 to 549 BCE. There is no Darius the Mede.

The only 6th century BCE Darius that I know of, is a Persian, a son of Hystaspes. This Darius was a nephew of Cyrus, and he became king of Persia in 522 BCE.

There is no Darius the Mede.

It is clear that whoever wrote Daniel don’t know much about the history of Babylonia, Media and Persia, since so many details the author got wrong.

 

[Spiderman]

Purpose?

What makes you think I can read the minds of some ancient authors, and know the reasons why stories that are not true?

But people do write things that are not true.

If we are talking about today’s authors, one of the motives for writings (like novels), would be sell as many books as possible, to make a living, to make some money. And since publishers have large printing machines, anywhere between thousands to millions of copies of a novel could be printed and possibly sold to readers.

Printing machine was invented some times around the late 15th century CE.

But it is highly doubtful ancient authors would make money from their writings. And since there were no such machines, every copies made, were done by hands, often by trained scribes, which are often time consuming. It can also be costly too, especially making parchment or papyri.

So if it is not make money, then motives could be anything, eg from political propaganda or national patriotism...or it could be religious propaganda...or it could be both political and religious purposes.

That's why I asked the question was to get your opinion.

Whoever wrote that, it would have been very time consuming, and at that time would have been very expensive.

Whoever came up with the idea, if it is false, it has deceived billions of people, because it contains prophecies that people believe are for our present day, and speaking about what will happen in our present-day, with countless people believing it to be true authentic historical documentation without error, as well as prophetic inspiration from God.

Whoever came up with this plan, political Religious propaganda, this work of fiction, if their goal was to completely change the world, and influence what a big chunk of the world believes, (thousands of years later), they succeeded, and the Bible is still a bestseller year after year, with a lot of people talking about the Prophecies of Daniel, as if they are about what is currently happening in our world, or what will happen very soon.

 

[1213]

...
Why does the world not have any people like Daniel, ...

Probably because people would not want that.

 

[gnostic]

Whoever came up with the idea, if it is false, it has deceived billions of people, because it contains prophecies that people believe are for our present day, and speaking about what will happen in our present-day, with countless people believing it to be true authentic historical documentation without error, as well as prophetic inspiration from God.

Whoever came up with this plan, political Religious propaganda, this work of fiction, if their goal was to completely change the world, and influence what a big chunk of the world believes, (thousands of years later), they succeeded, and the Bible is still a bestseller year after year, with a lot of people talking about the Prophecies of Daniel, as if they are about what is currently happening in our world, or what will happen very soon.

Most people who believe in the scriptures, are unaware that the Hebrew Tanakh or Christian Old Testament Bible, are not collection of “history” books, and most of the books weren’t even written contemporary to the events.

Most people who do rely on the Bible to follow in their respective beliefs and religions (eg Judaism & Christians) haven’t bother to consider cross-referencing these books with some things that do exist - namely the written sources from the Neo-Assyrians, Chaldeans-Neo-Babylonians, and Persians. Not unless some of these Christians or Jews are archaeologists or historians.

None of the books were written to intentionally deceive people, but it did. Like that of the book of Daniel; it was never written by this Daniel, nor did any Babylonian or Persian sources ever mention anyone “Daniel” by name. Daniel is as fake as the “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 5 & 6.

EDIT:

BTW, Spiderman. There is one member here, who is a retired anthropologist, and who do have some field experiences in archaeology and who have taught theology at university-level students. @metis.

I don't know what his knowledge of Daniel (book) and of Babylonian and Persian histories, but you could always ask him.

 

[Brian2]

What it isn’t, it isn’t history, because we have a number of 6th century BCE Babylonian sources and even some Persian sources, written as royal annals, or commemorative stelae and clay tablets and cylinders that provide details of the reigns of some of the kings in the 6th century BCE. These sources are either contemporary to the reigning kings at the time, or near-contemporary (meaning they may be written within 2 generations, eg within 40 to 50 years).

All indications are that the book of Daniel was written over 300 years later. The lateness of Daniel’s composition would explain why the book is unreliable.

For instances, in Daniel 5 says that Nebuchadnezzar was father to Belshazzar, but in Babylonian sources, Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. This same chapter also say Belshazzar was “King of Babylon”, but that also untrue, because both Babylonian & Persian sources say, Nabonidus was the last Neo-Babylonian king in the Chaldean dynasty; Belshazzar was never “King”. Nabonidus was still king when Babylon have fallen to Cyrus (540 BCE), and when Nabonidus surrendered.

Nebuchadnezzar did have a son who ruled after him, his name was Amel-Marduk (reign 562 - 560 BCE). Belshazzar was neither Nebuchadnezzar’s son, nor his successor.

In Daniel 5 & 6, the book claimed that say that Babylon and the Neo-Babylonian empire had fallen to this “Darius the Mede”. But all 6th century BCE sources say that it was Cyrus II who was Babylonia conqueror. This Darius the Mede don’t even exist.

Plus, the last Mede king to rule the Median Empire was Astyages, who was contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus and Cyrus. Cyrus conquered Media after a war that lasted from 553 to 549 BCE. There is no Darius the Mede.

The only 6th century BCE Darius that I know of, is a Persian, a son of Hystaspes. This Darius was a nephew of Cyrus, and he became king of Persia in 522 BCE.

There is no Darius the Mede.

It is clear that whoever wrote Daniel don’t know much about the history of Babylonia, Media and Persia, since so many details the author got wrong.

If you have read the other historians who disagree with you about these things, you have decided that they are wrong. That's fine, you are allowed to do that, but they do make the good point that Daniel cannot be dismissed as definitely historically inaccurate.

 

[Spiderman]

I think it is an apocalypse, like Revelation. It has import meant to convey a timeless message rather than a prediction about a particular king of the north and south. There will always be a King of the North and a King of the South. They also have a basis in history of famous North-South kings struggling against each other beginning with the unification of upper and lower Egypt by the first Pharoah. His story is an epic in many countries, perhaps transformed and retold in a different way by those rulers who are jealous of Egypt's success.

There is a country called Babylon. There is an exiled group of Jews, and they are forced to live there and to eat unnatural food and to live with other rules than the reality they love. Christian writings may refer to them as those who were "Cast into darkness" from which some never returned, or "Bound with chains of darkness." The Jews in Babylon are compelled to live unnaturally -- against their Torah which they consider to be not simply a set of rules but more like a map. So they by living like Babylonians are leaving nature, leaving the universe that matters for one that doesn't. I don't think I can accurately portray what they think about it, but the idea is that many or all are no longer Jews. Simply eating ham and liking it may not seem like a huge deal to you and I, but to them it is devastating. They have lost the benefits of Israel when they are stuck in Babylon and have to keep its principles alive in new ways.

There are men like Daniel among the exiles -- perhaps many. There are evil men like the satraps who try to get him killed. Some, like Daniel, fight to live by the Torah as much as possible, to retain the hope that Israel represents. They resist assimilation, and they lament the failures of themselves and their country to follow its principles when they lived in Canaan before the Babylonians invaded. Christian writers (basically all I really know) interpret that the Jews were forced (in the first place) to go into Babylon because of their failure to keep the Torah. Then some were brought back, refined and newly aligned with the Torah again. Daniel is an important book for helping us to understand this. It contributes to the picture painted by Zechariah and Jeremiah. Its very personal, talking about how Daniel must resist the bad advice to eat various strange meats and resist the ways of the Babylonians. Its our picture of some Jews in exile.

Exile is part of the Jewish history even before Babylon. They start writing their Babylonian Talmud there, and we generally think about the exile to Babylon as 'The' main exile. It is not the first but is one of many. Its a big one, but before this there are many people kidnapped and made slaves who have lived in exile before. There have also been other invasions, so the idea of living away from Israel and yet being Jewish and upholding the same principles of freedom and love are already strong. Its just that with this Babylonian captivity there is a new understanding of a larger purpose for it. Daniel is a window into that.

I rated this post winner because you said you don't get as many of those as you deserve, and God knows you deserve more of those, after your thoughtful treatise on the Jews in Babylonian Captivity, the exile and captivity they endured before then, and of course, those trials, afflictions, and persecutions for not assimilating, didn't end with Cyrus ending the Babylonian captivity and restoring the Temple, or the restoration of another Temple with Herod the great!

 

[gnostic]

If you have read the other historians who disagree with you about these things, you have decided that they are wrong. That's fine, you are allowed to do that, but they do make the good point that the Bible cannot be dismissed as definitely historically inaccurate.

As I have stated in the past, if you want know parts of the Bible are true, historically, then there are two possible ways to test the validity of specific books.

One way, is through archaeological evidence, which is not just about cities or buildings, also inscriptions that can be tied to actual person with their names, like inscribed names on wall paintings, graffiti, on coffins or inside tomb walls and tomb entry, on storage vessels, kitchen or eating, official seals, minted coins.

The second way is through independent written sources, eg biographies, royal archives, official annals or records, commemorative plaques or stone stelae, etc.

In the second case, if you are serious about claiming that the book of Daniel is history, you must be verified the details with independent texts, and since the character Daniel have supposedly met Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus, then he should be mentioned in any of the contemporary (or near-contemporary) Babylonian and Persian texts.

But there are no Daniel on Nabonidus’ stele, on any of the Nabonidus Cylinders, nothing on the Nabonidus Chronicle or the Verse Account of Nabonidus or the Cyrus Cylinder. If Daniel was such an important person in Babylonian and Persian histories, then you would think his name would appear somewhere.

So Daniel is looking more and more like a fictional character. And he isn’t the only fictional, Darius the Mede. Nowhere is he mentioned. There is a Darius in the late 6th century BCE, but this Darius is Persian, not Mede, and the Persian Darius is Cyrus’ cousin, and he ruled not long AFTER DARIUS, in the late 520s BCE.

Even the other books in the Old Testament (Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai & Zechariah), only the Persian Darius, no Darius the Mede except in Daniel 5 & 6.

Another thing is that the author of Daniel is clueless to the name of Nebuchadnezzar’s son (Amel-Marduk) and Belshazzar’s father (Nabonidus). There are no links between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and Belshazzar was never king; Nabonidus was Babylon’s last Chaldean king.

If your biblical “historians” don’t know what I know, and cannot use independent Persian or Babylonian sources, then they are idiots, as well as incompetent and dishonest apologists, who allow their biases to ignore 6th century BCE literary evidence.

The 5th century BCE Greek historian, got more correct details about the Chaldean dynasty at Babylon, then the idiot who Daniel.

 

[Spiderman]

As I have stated in the past, if you want know parts of the Bible are true, historically, then there are two possible ways to test the validity of specific books.

One way, is through archaeological evidence, which is not just about cities or buildings, also inscriptions that can be tied to actual person with their names, like inscribed names on wall paintings, graffiti, on coffins or inside tomb walls and tomb entry, on storage vessels, kitchen or eating, official seals, minted coins.

The second way is through independent written sources, eg biographies, royal archives, official annals or records, commemorative plaques or stone stelae, etc.

In the second case, if you are serious about claiming that the book of Daniel is history, you must be verified the details with independent texts, and since the character Daniel have supposedly met Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus, then he should be mentioned in any of the contemporary (or near-contemporary) Babylonian and Persian texts.

But there are no Daniel on Nabonidus’ stele, on any of the Nabonidus Cylinders, nothing on the Nabonidus Chronicle or the Verse Account of Nabonidus or the Cyrus Cylinder. If Daniel was such an important person in Babylonian and Persian histories, then you would think his name would appear somewhere.

So Daniel is looking more and more like a fictional character. And he isn’t the only fictional, Darius the Mede. Nowhere is he mentioned. There is a Darius in the late 6th century BCE, but this Darius is Persian, not Mede, and the Persian Darius is Cyrus’ cousin, and he ruled not long AFTER DARIUS, in the late 520s BCE.

Even the other books in the Old Testament (Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai & Zechariah), only the Persian Darius, no Darius the Mede except in Daniel 5 & 6.

Another thing is that the author of Daniel is clueless to the name of Nebuchadnezzar’s son (Amel-Marduk) and Belshazzar’s father (Nabonidus). There are no links between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and Belshazzar was never king; Nabonidus was Babylon’s last Chaldean king.

If your biblical “historians” don’t know what I know, and cannot use independent Persian or Babylonian sources, then they are idiots, as well as incompetent and dishonest apologists, who allow their biases to ignore 6th century BCE literary evidence.

The 5th century BCE Greek historian, got more correct details about the Chaldean dynasty at Babylon, then the idiot who Daniel.

You are rude , but you make some very excellent points, so thank you.

So, a work of fiction, you make a good case that it is.

For some one at that time , to write a work of fiction, that has convinced billions of people something false is true, that person has a rare quality to do that, I have to wonder : "how did he/she pull it off?"

Billions of people have thought, or still do believe prophecies in Daniel are about our current century, generation, or something soon to come, or things already taking place.

It is mind boggling how many people a work of fiction still influences to such an extent, this many thousands of years later, and how the author pulled it off!

 

[Brian2]

As I have stated in the past, if you want know parts of the Bible are true, historically, then there are two possible ways to test the validity of specific books.

One way, is through archaeological evidence, which is not just about cities or buildings, also inscriptions that can be tied to actual person with their names, like inscribed names on wall paintings, graffiti, on coffins or inside tomb walls and tomb entry, on storage vessels, kitchen or eating, official seals, minted coins.

The second way is through independent written sources, eg biographies, royal archives, official annals or records, commemorative plaques or stone stelae, etc.

It's all archaeology to me.

In the second case, if you are serious about claiming that the book of Daniel is history, you must be verified the details with independent texts, and since the character Daniel have supposedly met Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus, then he should be mentioned in any of the contemporary (or near-contemporary) Babylonian and Persian texts.

Nebuchadnezzar knew Daniel and changed his name to Belteshazzar and made him leader of the Maggi. By the time of Belshazzar Daniel seems to have retired and Belshazzar did not know about him. The queen however (who was probably the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar) knew of Daniel. (see Daniel 5:10-12)
Josephus says that Daniel met Cyrus, greeting him with and old scroll with the Isaiah prophecy concerning Cyrus. But I don't think there is anything in Daniel about them meeting.
I wonder how important Daniel was.

So Daniel is looking more and more like a fictional character. And he isn’t the only fictional, Darius the Mede. Nowhere is he mentioned. There is a Darius in the late 6th century BCE, but this Darius is Persian, not Mede, and the Persian Darius is Cyrus’ cousin, and he ruled not long AFTER DARIUS, in the late 520s BCE.

Even the other books in the Old Testament (Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai & Zechariah), only the Persian Darius, no Darius the Mede except in Daniel 5 & 6.

Another thing is that the author of Daniel is clueless to the name of Nebuchadnezzar’s son (Amel-Marduk) and Belshazzar’s father (Nabonidus). There are no links between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and Belshazzar was never king; Nabonidus was Babylon’s last Chaldean king.

There are ideas of who Darius the Mede could refer to.
Evil-Merodak (amel-Marduk) is not mentioned in Daniel because Daniel had no visions in the short reign of this king.
Belshazzar is probably related to Nebuchadnezzar through his daughter, maybe the one who knew about Daniel and who told Belshazzar about Daniel. The work "son" can mean "ancestor".
Nabonidus spent time away from Babylon and Belshazzar probably ruled as coregent in his place while he was away.

If your biblical “historians” don’t know what I know, and cannot use independent Persian or Babylonian sources, then they are idiots, as well as incompetent and dishonest apologists, who allow their biases to ignore 6th century BCE literary evidence.

The 5th century BCE Greek historian, got more correct details about the Chaldean dynasty at Babylon, then the idiot who Daniel.

It is not a matter of knowing what you know because you don't know what you think you know. People in the past have said that Daniel is not historically accurate and have been shown wrong by archaeology. Your idea that something (in the Bible) is not true unless it has been confirmed through independent references is just nonsensical to someone like me who is a Biblical conservative. But to you who is a Biblical Miminalist, no doubt it is just what you do.
You don't seem to recognise that just because something has not been shown to be historically true, that does not mean it did not happen.

 

[gnostic]

Josephus says that Daniel met Cyrus, greeting him with and old scroll with the Isaiah prophecy concerning Cyrus. But I don't think there is anything in Daniel about them meeting.

You do realize that Josephus is about 500 years after Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, so nothing that Josephus wrote is authoritative as a historical source. Over 500 years would mean the sources, and added to the fact that of Josephus have religious background, and already know the story of Daniel, he would not be impartial sources.

Josephus would only be really reliable in the events where he was contemporary, like the Roman-Jewish war, and his relationship with the imperial Flavian family (Vespasian and especially the son Titus): source: the Jewish Wars). With the history of Herod the Great, Josephus would be more reliable than when dealing with the Maccabees. And the more further back in time, he would become increasingly less reliable.

This is true with history

Have you completely ignored everything that I wrote that sources should ideally be contemporary to the events they are recording. And near-contemporary is better than something over 300 years, like book of Daniel, becoming more unreliable as sources the further you go back in time.

Would you trust a source that were 300 years (like Daniel) or 500 years (like Josephus’ Antiquities) after the events?

That you would use a source over 500 years old, only demonstrated you have no interests in using reliable sources.

 

[gnostic]

You are rude , but you make some very excellent points, so thank you.

So, a work of fiction, you make a good case that it is.

For some one at that time , to write a work of fiction, that has convinced billions of people something false is true, that person has a rare quality to do that, I have to wonder : "how did he/she pull it off?"

Billions of people have thought, or still do believe prophecies in Daniel are about our current century, generation, or something soon to come, or things already taking place.

It is mind boggling how many people a work of fiction still influences to such an extent, this many thousands of years later, and how the author pulled it off!

You should try the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The pre-Epic poems exist in the late 3rd millennium BCE, at the time of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, which some historians referred to as the Sumerian Renaissance.

Here 5 clay tablets were discovered about Bilgames (Gilgamesh’s original Sumerian name). Now these poems and the later Epic made not be true, however there 1st dynasty of Uruk that included Bilgames, around 27th century BCE. So the king had become legend by the 3rd dynasty of Ur (21st century BCE).

By 19th century BCE, the Amorite invaders have taken over Babylonia, starting the 1st dynasty of Babylon (1894 - 1595 BCE). This period coincided with Akkadian dialect - Old Babylonian period.

During this the earliest Epic of Gilgamesh were composed, supplanting the earlier Sumerian stories of Bilgames.

This dynasty ended with the Kassites invading Babylonia, and like their Amorite predecessors, started the 2nd dynasty (Kassite dynasty) at Babylon, thereby starting the Middle Babylonian language. And like the Amorites before them, the Kassites adopted the 3rd millennium Sumerian and Akkadian customs, religion and language.

By the mid-2nd millennium BCE, the Epic of Gilgamesh have gone “international”, and clay tablets the Epic and other stories spreading beyond Babylonia.

The Epic of Gilgamesh were so popular, that fragments of tablets were found in Elam (Iran), at Hattusa, the capital of the Hittite empire, Ugarit (a city in northwest Syria), at the royal archives in Megiddo, Canaan, and in Amarna, Egypt.

So the Late Bronze Age, the Canaanites were aware of the story of Gilgamesh (at least at the Megiddo).

The best preserved Epic of Gilgamesh were kept at the 7th century BCE, Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. Eleven of 12 clay tablets were stored in this Neo-Assyrian library (it’s missing the 1st tablet, but the story in this missing tablet can be reconstructed from number of fragmented tablets from Old Babylonian versions and Middle Babylonian versions.

And the Epic continued to be popular in the Hellenistic period, where it was translated into Greek

The point is that historical person can be elevated to legendary or mythological status, over time. So I am not at all surprised that a myth can last as long as the Epic of Gilgamesh did.

 

[Brian2]

You do realize that Josephus is about 500 years after Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, so nothing that Josephus wrote is authoritative as a historical source. Over 500 years would mean the sources, and added to the fact that of Josephus have religious background, and already know the story of Daniel, he would not be impartial sources.

Josephus would only be really reliable in the events where he was contemporary, like the Roman-Jewish war, and his relationship with the imperial Flavian family (Vespasian and especially the son Titus): source: the Jewish Wars). With the history of Herod the Great, Josephus would be more reliable than when dealing with the Maccabees. And the more further back in time, he would become increasingly less reliable.

This is true with history

Have you completely ignored everything that I wrote that sources should ideally be contemporary to the events they are recording. And near-contemporary is better than something over 300 years, like book of Daniel, becoming more unreliable as sources the further you go back in time.

Would you trust a source that were 300 years (like Daniel) or 500 years (like Josephus’ Antiquities) after the events?

That you would use a source over 500 years old, only demonstrated you have no interests in using reliable sources.

You are the one who said that Daniel met Cyrus and even the Book of Daniel does not say that.
It remains an open question even if you want to say that it is proven that they did not meet because it is not confirmed by contemporary sources.
So again I will say that the truth of an event may be established through independent sources but the falsehood of an event is not shown through lack of independent sources.

 

[blü 2]

King Nebuchadnezzar had the dream where the wise men had to not only provide the interpretation of the dream, but they had to tell him the dream without any hints, explain to him what his dream was, and interpret the dream, or suffer the death penalty!

Anyway, nobody but Daniel was able to tell him his dream and interpret his dream. Eventually Nebuchadnezzar went insane, and he spent years crawling on all fours, living with the animals, living like a bull in the wilderness, eating grass. How did he turn out in the end after he got his marbles back after losing them?

A lot of scholars think Daniel actually never really existed, and that was simply a story that was told generation after generation verbally, then finally written down, and is not historically accurate. Do you believe the biblical account of Daniel is actually innerrant historical document (without anything inaccurate)?

Why does the world not have any people like Daniel, when there's more souls, far far more today than then, or ever, when the world needs somebody like him most, to Shepherd and guide the people, to influence world leaders, when so many souls are starving and in danger of being lost, why are all the people like Daniel , people that lived at a time where the world needed them far less?

If we had one person like Daniel in the world today, he would strongly influence whoever is the leader of the nation, and he would probably heavily influence leaders of many nations, and the whole world would be turning to him more than they turn to the Pope or anyone.

The world is very hungry for the truth. It's just, there's so many scandals in every religious denomination, people don't know where to turn for the truth, so they just despair and become lukewarm believers ( without much fervor zeal), or agnostics.

I'm very skeptic and suspicious of this fact that all these great prophets and sign and wonder workers, existed in ancient time, where science and medicine was not advanced enough to verify and certify the miracles, there were not cell phones to pick up on what was actually going on, we don't have videos of these people, recordings of them.

Now that we have all these inventions, I see no evidence that any such people exist on the entire planet, when there's more people than ever, and we need them more than ever. Doesn't that strike you as cause for suspicion and skepticism?

So, I've read the Bible from Genesis to revelation. But that was a long time ago.

The disease and disorder that Nebuchadnezzar experienced, actually has happened before in modern times, where a person begins to believe they are an ox, and acts like one.

Nebuchadnezzar was a prodigal son, if I've ever heard of one.

And in bestial form: the king becomes boanthropic (boanthropy being the delusion that one is an ox)

Have you checked with the ASPCA?

 

[Triumph]

King Nebuchadnezzar had the dream where the wise men had to not only provide the interpretation of the dream, but they had to tell him the dream without any hints, explain to him what his dream was, and interpret the dream, or suffer the death penalty!

Anyway, nobody but Daniel was able to tell him his dream and interpret his dream. Eventually Nebuchadnezzar went insane, and he spent years crawling on all fours, living with the animals, living like a bull in the wilderness, eating grass. How did he turn out in the end after he got his marbles back after losing them?

A lot of scholars think Daniel actually never really existed, and that was simply a story that was told generation after generation verbally, then finally written down, and is not historically accurate. Do you believe the biblical account of Daniel is actually innerrant historical document (without anything inaccurate)?

Why does the world not have any people like Daniel, when there's more souls, far far more today than then, or ever, when the world needs somebody like him most, to Shepherd and guide the people, to influence world leaders, when so many souls are starving and in danger of being lost, why are all the people like Daniel , people that lived at a time where the world needed them far less?

If we had one person like Daniel in the world today, he would strongly influence whoever is the leader of the nation, and he would probably heavily influence leaders of many nations, and the whole world would be turning to him more than they turn to the Pope or anyone.

The world is very hungry for the truth. It's just, there's so many scandals in every religious denomination, people don't know where to turn for the truth, so they just despair and become lukewarm believers ( without much fervor zeal), or agnostics.

I'm very skeptic and suspicious of this fact that all these great prophets and sign and wonder workers, existed in ancient time, where science and medicine was not advanced enough to verify and certify the miracles, there were not cell phones to pick up on what was actually going on, we don't have videos of these people, recordings of them.

Now that we have all these inventions, I see no evidence that any such people exist on the entire planet, when there's more people than ever, and we need them more than ever. Doesn't that strike you as cause for suspicion and skepticism?

So, I've read the Bible from Genesis to revelation. But that was a long time ago.

The disease and disorder that Nebuchadnezzar experienced, actually has happened before in modern times, where a person begins to believe they are an ox, and acts like one.

Nebuchadnezzar was a prodigal son, if I've ever heard of one.

And in bestial form: the king becomes boanthropic (boanthropy being the delusion that one is an ox)View attachment 61296 View attachment 61297

Daniel is a prophet and the story about Nebuchadnezzar is constructed to instruct people generations into the future, give them important info about what will happen, so it is a parable full of symbolism.
The dream Nebuchadnezzar had was of a future caliphate where he ruled as a leader of the entire Muslim world. This is Nebuchadnezzars plans and desires, not God's. Daniel describes events that do occur in the final war associated with that dream. The "Kingdom" is WAR itself required to fulfill the dream and the leader that starts war is the King demanding that kingdom exist but WAR is the King of Kings by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar forcing other nations to fight if they want to or not. The Kingdom = War is divided because WW3 is fought in 2 theaters, same war but like WW2, fought in different areas over different reasons.
Verse 44 explains ALL nations are destroyed by the God of Heaven, as the heavens were created by God with Nuclear Fusion that creates suns and stars.
God harms no one in this war but man devised thermonuclear weapons, Nuclear fusion weapons and uses them to his own complete destruction, extinction.
The kingdom of War will stand forever ruling a dead Earth with self sustaining nuclear fission producing Radiation that becomes the heaven on Earth. ( heaven as described in Genesis 1 as the place birds fly, our sky)
Understanding WAR will never establish a living kingdom on Earth where a man can live and rule, Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face in hopes prayer to the prophet could change the future. But it will not.

 

[Triumph]

It is strange to say that we have found no mention of Nebuchadnezzar taking Jerusalem and destroying the Temple therefore it did not happen.
There is mention of Nebuchadnezzar's madness but not in the way Daniel describes it.
It is strange to say that archaeologists have found no copies of the Book of Daniel in the 6th Cent BC therefore it was not written then.
It is strange to expect to find the name Daniel when his name was changed to Belteshazzar. Are names of other leaders of the Maggi found anywhere?
You already know that supposed historical problems with the book of Daniel have been answered by archaeology and so really all you are basing your scepticism on is your scepticism about the prophecies in Daniel being true.

Notice a subtle but important clue given with the name given to Daniel, Belteshazzar. When Daniel was asked to interpret the dream he is called Belteshazzar.
But in chapter 7, In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed" This is a vision of WW3.
Babylon in the end times represents the nuclear power industry, a source of cheap electricity and supreme power with nuclear weapons.
The difference between the name Belshazzar, king of Babylon, and Belteshazzar is TE. TE is used as a military acronym for Technical Engineering.
Daniel 2:26
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?