gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

I did not say that impaling did not happen. It is clear from the text that it did. What we were discussing was decapitation. According to the text, that did not happen.

Numbers 25:6 A brazen Israelite brought a Midianite woman (the daughter of a Midianite chief) into his tent right in front of Moses and the repentant, weeping Israelite congregation to have sex. (paraphrased)

25:7,8 Phinehas, Aarons grandson went into the tent and impaled them both and the plague ended. (paraphrased)

Here is where impaling took place.

God's "wrath" subsided, and no more action was needed. Read the whole thing for yourself.

Interesting footnotes:

The Midianites were into Baal worship. Baal was a Caananite fertility deity. The fertility rituals often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution. It appears the Midianites were attempting to lure the Israelites into forsaking their own God and to join themselves with Baal.

There is a good article with references about Baal on the Encyclopedia Mythica site. Just google Baal Peor and you will find it easily.

This is something that could not be permitted to continue. So God acted swift and severe.

And yes, I did paraphrase for both brevity and clarity. One only has to read the whole chapter for themselves to "get the picture".

Very hard to impale heads without decapitating them. Baal is a Canaanite fertility deity and is the brother of Yahweh (a Canaanite thunder and war god).

Explains why Jesus hated families as well.

Since you have read the whole thread you already know that I addressed this early on. God does not and did not hate families. I do not believe that He hated Midianites either. I am sure that he hated their vile acts that leads to the degradation of their society and even further debased human behaviors. Like human sacrifice.

Do you suppose that it is just possible that a group of people may be able to become so degenerated and diseased that it would not be in even their own best interest to allow them to continue in their misery?

Some 3000 years later we have no way of knowing what condition that group of Midainites were in. As far as we know the culture could have been infected with aids or even something worse. In that time in history, were that to be allowed to spread into the Israelite population and other tribes in the area it would be absolutely devastating.

When we judge God to be a "monster" because of a couple of seemingly cruel and hart less acts done some 3000 years ago, we make the assumption that we know ALL of the facts. That is not rational.

I could not allow myself to believe anything that is not rational.

We have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. The overwhelming majority portrays a kind and loving God. It also gives us a narrative that helps us to put all this into perspective. To just pull things out and make judgements one or two single events taken out of context is once again, not rational.

gadfly wrote:

1. The vile act of human sacrifice? Like Jephthah and his daughter or Yahweh and his son/himself? Guess you're only against human sacrifice when your favorites aren't doing it.

2. No. I suppose that both groups were equally depraved and "history" is always written by the victors.

3. Indeed we do have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. Reading it made me rethink my belief in that God (I'm still thinking about it). Perhaps you should try reading it and thinking as well.

Once again you take an isolated incident out of context, and make unfounded assumptions.

1. Jephthah was thrown out and disinherited by his family due to the fact he was the son of a harlot. That must have been a very harsh reality. It's no wonder he turned out to be "a might man of valor". And had such "attitude".

2. He left that community that rejected him and "hung out" with "bad company".

3. Those "idiots" who had rejected him came "a runnin'" for his help when trouble came.

4. Jephthah agreed to help them if they would make him their leader. It was agreed.

5. Jephthah made a very stupid oath that he would "sacrifice" the first thing that came out of his house if God were to give him the victory.

6. Jephthah had a great victory.

7. Mezpah his only daughter came out to greet him when he returned.

8. Jephthah felt he had to honor his vow, and sacrificed his daughter.

Here we have what appears to be a rough character. We have no indication that he was a great man of God or that his actions were directed or approved by God. In fact, his horrid act was in direct disobedience to the laws that God had already given. This story is a record of what he did, and in no way supports this as a good or righteous act.

Just because some idiot does something horrible, and it is recorded in the Bible, that does not make it something that God approves of or is responsible for.

There is no where in the Bible where human sacrifice is commanded or condoned. Unless you are perverted enough to suggest that Jesus voluntary death on the cross for the sins of humanity is in any way comparable.

And I am sure you are probably just that far gone.

 

 

Since God didn't say "Jephthah you idiot! Don't kill your kid!" as he supposedly did with Abraham it seems like God was cool with Jephthah's deal.

Seems like you're doing a bit of a reach to keep Yahweh blameless.

As for Jesus "voluntary death" - if I had the same deal that Jesus did (dying knowing that I would resurrect and continue being God) I'd do it in a heartbeat.

It is exactly comparable - look at scripture. It is not for nothing they call Jesus the Lamb of God.

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

I did not say that impaling did not happen. It is clear from the text that it did. What we were discussing was decapitation. According to the text, that did not happen.

Numbers 25:6 A brazen Israelite brought a Midianite woman (the daughter of a Midianite chief) into his tent right in front of Moses and the repentant, weeping Israelite congregation to have sex. (paraphrased)

25:7,8 Phinehas, Aarons grandson went into the tent and impaled them both and the plague ended. (paraphrased)

Here is where impaling took place.

God's "wrath" subsided, and no more action was needed. Read the whole thing for yourself.

Interesting footnotes:

The Midianites were into Baal worship. Baal was a Caananite fertility deity. The fertility rituals often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution. It appears the Midianites were attempting to lure the Israelites into forsaking their own God and to join themselves with Baal.

There is a good article with references about Baal on the Encyclopedia Mythica site. Just google Baal Peor and you will find it easily.

This is something that could not be permitted to continue. So God acted swift and severe.

And yes, I did paraphrase for both brevity and clarity. One only has to read the whole chapter for themselves to "get the picture".

 

Very hard to impale heads without decapitating them. Baal is a Canaanite fertility deity and is the brother of Yahweh (a Canaanite thunder and war god).

Explains why Jesus hated families as well.

Since you have read the whole thread you already know that I addressed this early on. God does not and did not hate families. I do not believe that He hated Midianites either. I am sure that he hated their vile acts that leads to the degradation of their society and even further debased human behaviors. Like human sacrifice.

Do you suppose that it is just possible that a group of people may be able to become so degenerated and diseased that it would not be in even their own best interest to allow them to continue in their misery?

Some 3000 years later we have no way of knowing what condition that group of Midainites were in. As far as we know the culture could have been infected with aids or even something worse. In that time in history, were that to be allowed to spread into the Israelite population and other tribes in the area it would be absolutely devastating.

When we judge God to be a "monster" because of a couple of seemingly cruel and hart less acts done some 3000 years ago, we make the assumption that we know ALL of the facts. That is not rational.

I could not allow myself to believe anything that is not rational.

We have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. The overwhelming majority portrays a kind and loving God. It also gives us a narrative that helps us to put all this into perspective. To just pull things out and make judgements one or two single events taken out of context is once again, not rational.

gadfly wrote:

1. The vile act of human sacrifice? Like Jephthah and his daughter or Yahweh and his son/himself? Guess you're only against human sacrifice when your favorites aren't doing it.

2. No. I suppose that both groups were equally depraved and "history" is always written by the victors.

3. Indeed we do have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. Reading it made me rethink my belief in that God (I'm still thinking about it). Perhaps you should try reading it and thinking as well.

Once again you take an isolated incident out of context, and make unfounded assumptions.

1. Jephthah was thrown out and disinherited by his family due to the fact he was the son of a harlot. That must have been a very harsh reality. It's no wonder he turned out to be "a might man of valor". And had such "attitude".

2. He left that community that rejected him and "hung out" with "bad company".

3. Those "idiots" who had rejected him came "a runnin'" for his help when trouble came.

4. Jephthah agreed to help them if they would make him their leader. It was agreed.

5. Jephthah made a very stupid oath that he would "sacrifice" the first thing that came out of his house if God were to give him the victory.

6. Jephthah had a great victory.

7. Mezpah his only daughter came out to greet him when he returned.

8. Jephthah felt he had to honor his vow, and sacrificed his daughter.

Here we have what appears to be a rough character. We have no indication that he was a great man of God or that his actions were directed or approved by God. In fact, his horrid act was in direct disobedience to the laws that God had already given. This story is a record of what he did, and in no way supports this as a good or righteous act.

Just because some idiot does something horrible, and it is recorded in the Bible, that does not make it something that God approves of or is responsible for.

There is no where in the Bible where human sacrifice is commanded or condoned. Unless you are perverted enough to suggest that Jesus voluntary death on the cross for the sins of humanity is in any way comparable.

And I am sure you are probably just that far gone. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Since God didn't say "Jephthah you idiot! Don't kill your kid!" as he supposedly did with Abraham it seems like God was cool with Jephthah's deal.

Seems like you're doing a bit of a reach to keep Yahweh blameless.

As for Jesus "voluntary death" - if I had the same deal that Jesus did (dying knowing that I would resurrect and continue being God) I'd do it in a heartbeat.

It is exactly comparable - look at scripture. It is not for nothing they call Jesus the Lamb of God.

The story just says that it happened. There is no narrative indicating that God approved. That is just your own perverted point of view. I guess you will believe what you want.

I don't think you really have any idea what Jesus actually went through or gave up for us. You only think you would "do it in a heartbeat. More ignorant assumptions.

That people sacrificed their children to the gods in ancient times is well known. That this story-telling in Judges 11 & 12 is based in reality is not.

 

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

I did not say that impaling did not happen. It is clear from the text that it did. What we were discussing was decapitation. According to the text, that did not happen.

Numbers 25:6 A brazen Israelite brought a Midianite woman (the daughter of a Midianite chief) into his tent right in front of Moses and the repentant, weeping Israelite congregation to have sex. (paraphrased)

25:7,8 Phinehas, Aarons grandson went into the tent and impaled them both and the plague ended. (paraphrased)

Here is where impaling took place.

God's "wrath" subsided, and no more action was needed. Read the whole thing for yourself.

Interesting footnotes:

The Midianites were into Baal worship. Baal was a Caananite fertility deity. The fertility rituals often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution. It appears the Midianites were attempting to lure the Israelites into forsaking their own God and to join themselves with Baal.

There is a good article with references about Baal on the Encyclopedia Mythica site. Just google Baal Peor and you will find it easily.

This is something that could not be permitted to continue. So God acted swift and severe.

And yes, I did paraphrase for both brevity and clarity. One only has to read the whole chapter for themselves to "get the picture".

 

Very hard to impale heads without decapitating them. Baal is a Canaanite fertility deity and is the brother of Yahweh (a Canaanite thunder and war god).

Explains why Jesus hated families as well.

Since you have read the whole thread you already know that I addressed this early on. God does not and did not hate families. I do not believe that He hated Midianites either. I am sure that he hated their vile acts that leads to the degradation of their society and even further debased human behaviors. Like human sacrifice.

Do you suppose that it is just possible that a group of people may be able to become so degenerated and diseased that it would not be in even their own best interest to allow them to continue in their misery?

Some 3000 years later we have no way of knowing what condition that group of Midainites were in. As far as we know the culture could have been infected with aids or even something worse. In that time in history, were that to be allowed to spread into the Israelite population and other tribes in the area it would be absolutely devastating.

When we judge God to be a "monster" because of a couple of seemingly cruel and hart less acts done some 3000 years ago, we make the assumption that we know ALL of the facts. That is not rational.

I could not allow myself to believe anything that is not rational.

We have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. The overwhelming majority portrays a kind and loving God. It also gives us a narrative that helps us to put all this into perspective. To just pull things out and make judgements one or two single events taken out of context is once again, not rational.

gramster wrote:

gadfly wrote:

1. The vile act of human sacrifice? Like Jephthah and his daughter or Yahweh and his son/himself? Guess you're only against human sacrifice when your favorites aren't doing it.

2. No. I suppose that both groups were equally depraved and "history" is always written by the victors.

3. Indeed we do have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. Reading it made me rethink my belief in that God (I'm still thinking about it). Perhaps you should try reading it and thinking as well.

Once again you take an isolated incident out of context, and make unfounded assumptions.

1. Jephthah was thrown out and disinherited by his family due to the fact he was the son of a harlot. That must have been a very harsh reality. It's no wonder he turned out to be "a might man of valor". And had such "attitude".

2. He left that community that rejected him and "hung out" with "bad company".

3. Those "idiots" who had rejected him came "a runnin'" for his help when trouble came.

4. Jephthah agreed to help them if they would make him their leader. It was agreed.

5. Jephthah made a very stupid oath that he would "sacrifice" the first thing that came out of his house if God were to give him the victory.

6. Jephthah had a great victory.

7. Mezpah his only daughter came out to greet him when he returned.

8. Jephthah felt he had to honor his vow, and sacrificed his daughter.

Here we have what appears to be a rough character. We have no indication that he was a great man of God or that his actions were directed or approved by God. In fact, his horrid act was in direct disobedience to the laws that God had already given. This story is a record of what he did, and in no way supports this as a good or righteous act.

Just because some idiot does something horrible, and it is recorded in the Bible, that does not make it something that God approves of or is responsible for.

There is no where in the Bible where human sacrifice is commanded or condoned. Unless you are perverted enough to suggest that Jesus voluntary death on the cross for the sins of humanity is in any way comparable.

And I am sure you are probably just that far gone. 

 

 

 

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Since God didn't say "Jephthah you idiot! Don't kill your kid!" as he supposedly did with Abraham it seems like God was cool with Jephthah's deal.

Seems like you're doing a bit of a reach to keep Yahweh blameless.

As for Jesus "voluntary death" - if I had the same deal that Jesus did (dying knowing that I would resurrect and continue being God) I'd do it in a heartbeat.

It is exactly comparable - look at scripture. It is not for nothing they call Jesus the Lamb of God.

The story just says that it happened. There is no narrative indicating that God approved. That is just your own perverted point of view. I guess you will believe what you want.

I don't think you really have any idea what Jesus actually went through or gave up for us. You only think you would "do it in a heartbeat. More ignorant assumptions.

 

 

In another thread I went over this story with Caposkia about a year ago.

Post #292 in http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17279?page=5

This story is possiblly just glorifed legend though parts may be possible as many of the time killed their children as a sacrifice to the gods.

That of course doesn't make the god in question real.

This story has problems especially in Judges 12 where 42,000 of  Ephraim are slain by Jephthah.

However, there weren't that many people living in Judah/Israel at the time, see archealogy and books by Finkelstein.

I have been spending some time looking into something I ran across recently.

It was suggested that Belshazzar was probably either the son of both Nebuchadnezzar and Nebonidus, or possibly neither of them at all.

It was also suggested that both men may have "gone mad" at the same time.

At first I thought the idea absurd and the invention of a "wacko". But for some reason began looking deeper into the matter. I still have a ways to go, but the idea seems worthy of serious thought and further investigation.

It is probably not something new to some of you. If it is I am sure you are thinking the old man has gone off the deep end.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

d) The spelling of the name of the King of Babylon in the book of Daniel is of the later Persian period. The correct spelling is shown in Jeremiah and Ezekiel is Nebuchad R ezzar. Daniel spells it as the later Persian method 100 years later - Nebuchad N ezzar.

As you say, we do have record of Nebuchadnezzar's name being spelled "Daniel's way" early into the Persian period. I have not been able to find any references to a Persian spelling it any other way. Since Daniel supposedly lived to see the day the Persians took over Babylon it would not be that unlikely Daniel or a scribe writing things down for him would have used the Persian spelling.

More notes:

Jeremiah and Ezekiel predated Daniel. They are generally considered pre captivity prophets. Daniel was actually later while in captivity. In the book of Daniel and afterward the spelling is found to have changed to the "n" way.

Wikipedia notes that the ancient Hebrews, Arabic, and Greek languages all had spellings with the "n" variant.

Brockelmann's Comparative Grammer 136, 173, and 220 note that the use of the "n" was not uncommon in the ancient Semitic languages.

Wiseman calls this simply a spelling variant.

Millard and LaSor claim the "n" was not improper for the Hebrew.

If translated "O Nebo protect my servant" the "n" spelling would be the best in Aramaic.

We know for certain that Nebuchadnezzar was being spelled Daniel's way a mere 100 years after his time. We do not know when this change took place. It is not reasonable to assume that this is in any evidence of a late date for the book of Daniel.

This is really not much of a issue. Just more empty speculation.

e) Errors in Dan 1 - RE: the supposed siege of Jerusalem in "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it" this would be in 605 BCE as he became the king of Judah in 608 BCE. History from secular sources however establish only 2 sieges of Jerusalem, 597 BCE and 586 BCE. Further in 605 BCE Nebuchadrezzar was fighting Necho and Egypt. He was the crown prince at the time not king. His father died and he returned to Babylon. In 601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar fought several battles that reduced his forces such that he stayed in Babylon for the next few years. During this period, Jehoiakin rebelled. This rebellion brought the 1st siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the 1st Jewish captives.

f) Dan 2 - The supposed vision takes place in Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year as king. This would be approximately 603 BCE. As Daniel should not yet have been taken captive until 597 BCE or the king's 7th to 8th year this is erroneous.

 

This list is not totally inclusive and represents some of the other issues you ignore in the account of Daniel.

You do not have:

Verifiable evidence the writer of Daniel ever was in Babylon from any sources.

Show me writing from a source outside the Hebrew propaganda book that places him in Babylon. A copy of his stamped "passport" indicating he was there. A photo of Daniel in Babylon's famous hanging gardens, something not mentioned by Daniel either. An inscription anywhere from Babylon with the details of: Daniel surviving in a den of lions; 3 men not being consumed in a furnace; Nebuchadnezzar promoting a Jewish captive to be in power over Chaldeans.

 

I imagine you will continue to delay and not finish your presentation and final "puzzle piece" arguments to show how this all relates to Rome, the popes and the world's end.

Delay will not help you.

Bring actual evidence and proof that Daniel actually was in Babylon and did not write this in a later period.

Do you have anything of actual physical evidence to present?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

e) Errors in Dan 1 - RE: the supposed siege of Jerusalem in "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it" this would be in 605 BCE as he became the king of Judah in 608 BCE. History from secular sources however establish only 2 sieges of Jerusalem, 597 BCE and 586 BCE. Further in 605 BCE Nebuchadrezzar was fighting Necho and Egypt. He was the crown prince at the time not king. His father died and he returned to Babylon. In 601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar fought several battles that reduced his forces such that he stayed in Babylon for the next few years. During this period, Jehoiakin rebelled. This rebellion brought the 1st siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the 1st Jewish captives.

f) Dan 2 - The supposed vision takes place in Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year as king. This would be approximately 603 BCE. As Daniel should not yet have been taken captive until 597 BCE or the king's 7th to 8th year this is erroneous.

Here is another argument from ignorance.

Here is what we know.

1. Daniel claims Jerusalem was "besieged" or assaulted in about 605 BC by Nebuchadnezzar.

2. Nebuchadnezzar was indeed in the area at that time with a very large army.

3. Judah was in a weakened state from the previous attack by Necho.

4. During this campaign Nebuchadnezzar secured much territory and took much "tribute".

5. We have claims from Berossus although not collaborated that Jewish captives were taken at that time.

6. Jerusalem was being ruled by a "puppet king" set up by Necho who had killed the last king.

It would likely have been "easy pickings" at this time with such a substantial force for Nebuchadnezzar to have demanded a "tribute" including captives to take back to Babylon at this time.

We do not know for certain that this did happen from secular history, but we also do not know for certain that it did not. It is not highly unlikely or improbable.

So all we have here is the old atheist's favorite argument of ignorance. Nothing more.

both e) and f) are answered by this. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

This list is not totally inclusive and represents some of the other issues you ignore in the account of Daniel.

You do not have:

Verifiable evidence the writer of Daniel ever was in Babylon from any sources.

Show me writing from a source outside the Hebrew propaganda book that places him in Babylon. A copy of his stamped "passport" indicating he was there. A photo of Daniel in Babylon's famous hanging gardens, something not mentioned by Daniel either. An inscription anywhere from Babylon with the details of: Daniel surviving in a den of lions; 3 men not being consumed in a furnace; Nebuchadnezzar promoting a Jewish captive to be in power over Chaldeans.

 

I imagine you will continue to delay and not finish your presentation and final "puzzle piece" arguments to show how this all relates to Rome, the popes and the world's end.

Delay will not help you.

Bring actual evidence and proof that Daniel actually was in Babylon and did not write this in a later period.

Do you have anything of actual physical evidence to present?

Oh yes! The old "DNA thing" that atheists like to throw out as if it were reasonable. Photos from 5th century BC??

Now that's really RATIONAL.

I wouldn't imagine the priests or their scribes would likely have wanted to spread around or leave behind much of a record of how the God of their captives got the best of them.

Sorry, you still don't seem to have any substantial evidence for "bad history" or a late date for the authorship of Daniel. Nope! None!

 

e) Errors in Dan 1 - RE: the supposed siege of Jerusalem in "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it" this would be in 605 BCE as he became the king of Judah in 608 BCE. History from secular sources however establish only 2 sieges of Jerusalem, 597 BCE and 586 BCE. Further in 605 BCE Nebuchadrezzar was fighting Necho and Egypt. He was the crown prince at the time not king. His father died and he returned to Babylon. In 601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar fought several battles that reduced his forces such that he stayed in Babylon for the next few years. During this period, Jehoiakin rebelled. This rebellion brought the 1st siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the 1st Jewish captives.

f) Dan 2 - The supposed vision takes place in Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year as king. This would be approximately 603 BCE. As Daniel should not yet have been taken captive until 597 BCE or the king's 7th to 8th year this is erroneous.

Here is another argument from ignorance.

Here is what we know.

1. Daniel claims Jerusalem was "besieged" or assaulted in about 605 BC by Nebuchadnezzar.

Do you need a dictionary?

A siege of an ancient city was complicated. The army surrounded it and stayed there until the people were starving enough to come to terms. Do you have documentation this is what happened?

History shows otherwise. Nebuchadrezzar as Crown Prince attacked the Egyptians on several points from 607 BCE in the Euphrates valley. In May - June of 605 BCE he attacked Karkemish and massacred the Egyptian garrison and their Greek mercenaries.  See Ancient Iraq Roux pp 378-79,  DJ Wiseman Chronicles pp59-61, AK Grayson Assyrian & Babylonian Chronicles p 99

He was still battling the Egyptians, mostly chasing them when his father Nabopolassar died. He raced back to Babylon in 23 days and was crowned king on September 23 605 BCE.

Now when was it you think he "besieged" Jerusalem in 605 BCE? Please give at least the month in 605 BCE you think he did so.

see the translation of the Chronicles here - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

2. Nebuchadnezzar was indeed in the area at that time with a very large army.

Why don't you research where Karkemish was and the battle between Egypt and Babylon. Also note that Nebuchadrezzar's army was on the wrong side of the Euphrates to siege Jerusalem while they were trying to get a bridgehead into Palestine to dislodge the Egyptians. Also note that soon thereafter he return to Babylon to be crowned.

If you are trying to suggest that after he defeated the Egyptians he "sieged" Jerusalem he did not in the accepted meaning of the words siege or besieged. Perhaps he asked for tribute from all the territory he had just conquered, but claiming this to be a siege is you or you Christian source trying to "puzzle piece fit" once again.

3. Judah was in a weakened state from the previous attack by Necho.

Please pick up a few history books on ancient Egypt and Iraq so you stop making statements that have no basis to the situation being discussed.

4. During this campaign Nebuchadnezzar secured much territory and took much "tribute".

What year do you mean here?

After pushing out the Egyptians he returned to Babylon. In 604 he went back taking tribute from Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, and Jerusalem. He also destroyed Ascalon. In 601 BCE Egypt and Babylon fought extensively with very high casualties on both sides.

So you want to infer that Daniel was the "tribute" in 604 BCE is that it?

However, even Daniel says that he was taken in the siege when Jehoiakim was king for 3 years, placing it in 606 to 605 BCE depending on exactly when in 609 BCE Jehoiakim became king.

As pointed out above, there was no siege in 606 - 605 or even in 604 BCE.

5. We have claims from Berossus although not collaborated that Jewish captives were taken at that time.

Which claim? Are you trying to stretch this to mean what you want - http://www.livius.org/be-bm/berossus/berossus-q02.html

Specifically - "But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabopolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldaeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him."

Also note - this account is by way of Josephus from Book 3 as the originals have been lost. Berossus lived from around 330 BCE - 250 BCE. He wrote these books in about 290 - 278 BCE.

This was 300 years later.

He also detailed in book 1 the 430,000 years of the Sumerian - Akkadian kings list from the Chronicles.

So does this mean you agree with the Sumerian kings list and their very long lives as well?

 

The description of captives is minimal here. Were they mercenaries? Were they soldiers allied with Egypt? Or what?

6. Jerusalem was being ruled by a "puppet king" set up by Necho who had killed the last king.

The "puppet king" was also a son of the most praised king Josiah as was the son deposed by Necho II. The one deposed was Jeremiah's grandson and the one put on the throne was from another wife of Josiah.

The puppet king had much discussion with Jeremiah as well.

It would likely have been "easy pickings" at this time with such a substantial force for Nebuchadnezzar to have demanded a "tribute" including captives to take back to Babylon at this time.

We do not know for certain that this did happen from secular history, but we also do not know for certain that it did not. It is not highly unlikely or improbable.

So all we have here is the old atheist's favorite argument of ignorance. Nothing more.

both e) and f) are answered by this.

You take the position that this is evidence?

What an easy mark you are.

 

pjts wrote:

What year do you mean here?

After pushing out the Egyptians he returned to Babylon. In 604 he went back taking tribute from Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, and Jerusalem. He also destroyed Ascalon. In 601 BCE Egypt and Babylon fought extensively with very high casualties on both sides.

So you want to infer that Daniel was the "tribute" in 604 BCE is that it?

However, even Daniel says that he was taken in the siege when Jehoiakim was king for 3 years, placing it in 606 to 605 BCE depending on exactly when in 609 BCE Jehoiakim became king.

As pointed out above, there was no siege in 606 - 605 or even in 604 BCE.

We know that in 605 Nebuchadnezzar conquered much territory probably after defeating the Egyptians and before receiving word of his father's death. This usually involves the taking of tribute and captives.

I don't get your problem in reading the Babylonian Chronicle ABC5. It's fairly straight forward. -

The following lines are quoted from - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

line 5 - He accomplished their defeat and beat them to non-existence. As for the rest of the Egyptian army

line 6 - which had escaped from the defeat so quickly that no weapon had reached them, in the district of Hamath

line 7 - the Babylonian troops overtook and defeated them so that not a single man escaped to his own country.

line 8 - At that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole area of Hamath.

line 9 - For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon,

line 10 - when on 8 Abu[15 August 605] he went to his destiny; in the month of Ululu Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon

line 11 - and on 1 Ululu [7 September] he sat on the royal throne in Babylon.

In line 5 the claim is he beat them into non-existence. In line 7 the cliam is none escaped to their own country.

You are assumimg capture and tribute. It does not so indicate this at all.

And he does not return until the next year as indicated in-

line 12 - In the accession year Nebuchadnezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Šabatu

line 13 - marched unopposed through the Hatti-land;  in the month of Šabatu he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-territory to Babylon.

Which is when he took tribute as documented by the Chronicle.

Your interpretation of this is assumptions not based on what is actually said.

Babylonians had no trouble stating they took heavy tribute when they did as shown in the text.

Hamath is not Judah or Jerusalem.

gramster wrote:

5. We have claims from Berossus although not collaborated that Jewish captives were taken at that time.

pjts wrote:

Which claim? Are you trying to stretch this to mean what you want - http://www.livius.org/be-bm/berossus/berossus-q02.html

Specifically - "But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabopolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldaeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him."

Also note - this account is by way of Josephus from Book 3 as the originals have been lost. Berossus lived from around 330 BCE - 250 BCE. He wrote these books in about 290 - 278 BCE.

This was 300 years later.

He also detailed in book 1 the 430,000 years of the Sumerian - Akkadian kings list from the Chronicles.

So does this mean you agree with the Sumerian kings list and their very long lives as well?

 

The description of captives is minimal here. Were they mercenaries? Were they soldiers allied with Egypt? Or what?

Not stretching anything. Are you suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar completely slaughtered every last Egyptian soldier but separated out the others to take home with him?

The Jerusalem Chronicles specifically state that Nebuchadnezzar  went on to "conquer" the rest of the land. 

I do not believe you can find any respectable historian that would dispute Nebuchadnezzar's well known tendency to take heavy tribute including captives from the lands that he conquered.

Are you also suggesting that when Nebuchadnezzar "conquered the whole land of Hamath", he did not take captives?

Come now. At least make an attempt to be rational.

Yes you are stretching what is in ABC 5.

ABC 5 does not say what you interpret. You take it farther than what the text indicated. It in fact claimed that all the soldiers of Egypt were beat into non-existence. That all were chased down so none escaped to their home country.

If Crown Prince Nebuchadrezzar had sieged cities and towns why would it not be mentioned. They had no problem doing so at other times in this chronicle.

The whole land of Hamath was this - "Hamath is the northern-most city in the mountainous region of Palestine not too far south of Syrian Antioch. It is in the northern borders of Syria and was the fortress that protected the rest of Palestine from northern invaders." - from - http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/hamath.html

What did you think it meant????

see also - http://www.jewish-history.com/palestine/boundaries_index.html

gramster wrote:

To me that is neither scholarly nor rational. It seems to me that if one were really interested in what an ancient text actually said, they would at least look it up in a decent Lexicon.

Now if you were actually to do that here is what you would find. The word translated as "siege" is Strong's 6696 "tsuwr" or "vaiyatzar". It includes the following definitions. Adversary, assault, besiege, to show hostility to, attack from all sides, hem in or surround.

In Esther 8:11 the word is translated "assault". In Psalms 139:5 it is translated "beset" or "trouble or threaten".

If a translator looking at the Book of Daniel was to assume that the incident in the beginning of the book were the same, or confused for the well known siege of Jerusalem, they would wrongfully translate this word as "siege".

pjts wrote:

Now you are assuming what translators did or didn't do in order to avoid another nail in the box.

I also speak Spanish and Southern. The Spanish text that is relevant is as follows from Dios Habla Hoy:

rodeó la ciudad con su ejército - which translates as - surrounded the city with his army.

This is similar to besiege and has the same meaning to me.

Thanks for making my point. The Spanish text just says that he "surrounded the city with his army". That's all. I believe that is likely. All he had to do at that time is surround the city with his massive army and tribute was paid. Yes, including Daniel and his friends.

You must be getting desperate to be moving the bar so far. Now "siege" just means to surround the city. What happened to the months or years of starvation? You just pointed out your own error. Thanks.

Do you speak or understand any language besides English??

When I think in Spanish the "surrounding with an army of a city" is a siege. That's what I envision when I see it in Spanish.

So, no I have only shown that the Spanish version is no different.

Now what language do you understand beside English so we can compare?

Part of the problem is as Daniel continues to describe this supposed besieging and aftermath, is v3 from JPS - "And the king spoke unto Ashpenaz his chief officer, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, and of the seed royal, and of the nobles,"

There is no record of this in the Chronicles, see the links I gave you for the time period.

And, Nebuchadrezzar was not the King at this point if he was still in Hatti land (Palestine or Egypt) he was the Crown Prince until daddy died and he was crowned

In addition, no where is this mentioned in other books of the Hebrew Bible by writers. It is not until after Jehoiakim refuses to pay tribute, dying soon thereafter and his son Jehoiachin and captives of the royal family are taken to Babylon, at least according to 2 Kings.

However, there are variants between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. In 2 Kings, Jehioakim dies and is buried with his fathers and his son Jehiochin becomes king at 18 years old reigning for 3 months when Babylon begins the siege. In this version the kings wives, mother officers etc are taken. In 2 Chronicles, Jehioakim is taken captive to Babylon and his 8 year old son Jehioachin is made king reigning for 3 months when he is taken.

So these 2 versions are very different. 2 Chronicles has many such issues and is generally untrustworthy in comparisons to other writers in the Hebrew Bible.

So, it's possible that the 2nd century writer of Daniel read the sketchy version of 2 Chronicles when he created the Apocalypse of Daniel thus making a 3rd siege.

Just saying.

No response to this?

Your interpretations are not in the ABC 5 Chronicle.

Also, your Bible other than the fairy tale in Daniel does not mention what is in Daniel 1:3. Why not?????

I see you had no answer for the variances in Kings and Chronicles. Why is that. Your perfect Bible has issues? Oh no, the sky will fall!!!

gramster wrote:

6. Nebuchadnezzar left all his "booty" including the captives from Jerusalem with his main force, took his elite and fastest men, and headed straight back across the desert to Babylon.

pjts wrote:

Now you switch to Berossus?

Yes, here Berossus, the Jerusalem Chronicles, and Daniel all fit very nicely.

The Chronicles state in verse 8 that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole area of Hamath. That would generally involve taking tribute including captives.

 

Verse 9 says that Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon. As you say he was in a big hurry. It makes sense that he would leave the heavy armor and spoils of war behind with some of his forces, and take a smaller quicker force with him to secure his throne.

What does not make sense is that Nebuchadnezzar would not have taken tribute including captives from the areas he conquered before receiving word of his fathers death.

And where was Hamath again. Oh yeah, just south of Syrian Antioch.

This was not Judah or Jerusalem Gramps.

gramster wrote:

Thus as the text says. Daniel was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim.

pjts wrote:

Then you switch to the fairy tale.

Interesting how this fairy tale fits so perfectly into the secular accounts we have.

Only in your confusion.

Hamath is not Jerusalem.

gramster wrote:

I am aware that the writings of Berossus, like much of what we have from ancient history is often errant. It is interesting however, that his account makes perfect sense, and also matches Daniels account.

pjts wrote:

Oh, I agree, there were 430,000 years of Sumerian kings, don't you?

It is commonly believed that Berossus "borrowed" much of his information from the materials available at the time when he did his writing. What is interesting is that this account seems to have been in existence in Berossus' time.

While we do not know for certain that this is how things happened, it certainly all lines up. Once again. No bad history is required.

And you ignore that the originals of Berossus were lost and only references to them come from Josephus for Book 3.

So you're admitting that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE and not the 5th/6th as you usually claim?

Yes, a writer can be amazingly accurate when he's writing about history as it happened (and researching earlier topics).

 

pjts wrote:

 

What year do you mean here?

 

After pushing out the Egyptians he returned to Babylon. In 604 he went back taking tribute from Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, and Jerusalem. He also destroyed Ascalon. In 601 BCE Egypt and Babylon fought extensively with very high casualties on both sides.

 

So you want to infer that Daniel was the "tribute" in 604 BCE is that it?

 

However, even Daniel says that he was taken in the siege when Jehoiakim was king for 3 years, placing it in 606 to 605 BCE depending on exactly when in 609 BCE Jehoiakim became king.

 

As pointed out above, there was no siege in 606 - 605 or even in 604 BCE.

 

We know that in 605 Nebuchadnezzar conquered much territory probably after defeating the Egyptians and before receiving word of his father's death. This usually involves the taking of tribute and captives.

 

pjts wrote:

 

I don't get your problem in reading the Babylonian Chronicle ABC5. It's fairly straight forward. -

 

The following lines are quoted from - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

 

line 5 - He accomplished their defeat and beat them to non-existence. As for the rest of the Egyptian army

 

line 6 - which had escaped from the defeat so quickly that no weapon had reached them, in the district of Hamath

 

line 7 - the Babylonian troops overtook and defeated them so that not a single man escaped to his own country.

 

line 8 - At that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole area of Hamath.

 

line 9 - For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon,

 

line 10 - when on 8 Abu[15 August 605] he went to his destiny; in the month of Ululu Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon

 

line 11 - and on 1 Ululu [7 September] he sat on the royal throne in Babylon.

 

In line 5 the claim is he beat them into non-existence. In line 7 the claim is none escaped to their own country.

 

You are assumimg capture and tribute. It does not so indicate this at all.

 

And he does not return until the next year as indicated in-

 

line 12 - In the accession year Nebuchadnezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Šabatu

 

line 13 - marched unopposed through the Hatti-land;  in the month of Šabatu he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-territory to Babylon.

 

Which is when he took tribute as documented by the Chronicle.

 

Your interpretation of this is assumptions not based on what is actually said.

 

Babylonians had no trouble stating they took heavy tribute when they did as shown in the text.

 

Hamath is not Judah or Jerusalem.

 

 

Please note the references to both "the ascension year" and "the first year" of Nebuchadnezzar. There were two methods of referencing what year a king did this or that. One is defined by the year of ascension being year zero, and the following year being year one. The other is the ascension year being year one.

 

Since in these chronicles they have an ascension year, than year one. The ascension year was likely year zero.

 

That would make events go like this:

 

11. Month of Ululu (Sept 7 605 BC) Nebuchadnezzar sat on the throne.

 

12. In the ascension year (Some time after Sept 7 605 BC) He returned to Hatti-Land until Sabatu (Jan/Feb)

 

13. He marched unopposed and took heavy tribute. Still in 605 BC.

 

14. In Nisannu (March/April) He was back in Babylon celebrating the New Year's Festival. This would be the beginning of 604 BC.

 

And yes, I am aware of where Hamath is. I am also aware that when Nebuchadnezzar went back in 604/603 BC to "Hatti-Land" he "dropped by" Ashkelon which is South and West of Jerusalem and conquered it. Hatti-Land is also generally defined as to the north of Judah.

 

Nebuchadnezzar could have very easily stopped by Jerusalem and demanded "tribute" and than headed back across the desert to Babylon. This is in no way conflicting with the text. It is also consistent with Daniels account.

 

But this is not the only possibility. He could have done much the same thing before "racing  back" to Babylon to take the throne as told in the Berossus account. Either of these scenario's are quite possible and not unlikely.

 

3. As verse 8 tells us he continued "conquering the whole area of Hamath". At least conquering South toward Egypt including a stop by Jerusalem to inform Jehoiachin that he now had a new "boss", and collect tribute. This probably happened in the month of simanu (May/June).

 

The Jerusalem Chronicles specifically state that Nebuchadnezzar  went on to "conquer" the rest of the land.

 

 

I do not believe you can find any respectable historian that would dispute Nebuchadnezzar's well known tendency to take heavy tribute including captives from the lands that he conquered.

 

Are you also suggesting that when Nebuchadnezzar "conquered the whole land of Hamath", he did not take captives?

 

gramster wrote:

 

5. We have claims from Berossus although not collaborated that Jewish captives were taken at that time.

 

pjts wrote:

 

Which claim? Are you trying to stretch this to mean what you want - http://www.livius.org/be-bm/berossus/berossus-q02.html

 

Specifically - "But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabopolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldaeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him."

 

Also note - this account is by way of Josephus from Book 3 as the originals have been lost. Berossus lived from around 330 BCE - 250 BCE. He wrote these books in about 290 - 278 BCE.

 

This was 300 years later.

 

He also detailed in book 1 the 430,000 years of the Sumerian - Akkadian kings list from the Chronicles.

 

So does this mean you agree with the Sumerian kings list and their very long lives as well?

 

 

 

The description of captives is minimal here. Were they mercenaries? Were they soldiers allied with Egypt? Or what?

 

 

Not stretching anything. Are you suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar completely slaughtered every last Egyptian soldier but separated out the others to take home with him?

 

The Jerusalem Chronicles specifically state that Nebuchadnezzar  went on to "conquer" the rest of the land.

 

I do not believe you can find any respectable historian that would dispute Nebuchadnezzar's well known tendency to take heavy tribute including captives from the lands that he conquered.

 

Are you also suggesting that when Nebuchadnezzar "conquered the whole land of Hamath", he did not take captives?

 

Come now. At least make an attempt to be rational.

 

Yes you are stretching what is in ABC 5.

 

ABC 5 does not say what you interpret. You take it farther than what the text indicated. It in fact claimed that all the soldiers of Egypt were beat into non-existence. That all were chased down so none escaped to their home country.

 

If Crown Prince Nebuchadrezzar had sieged cities and towns why would it not be mentioned. They had no problem doing so at other times in this chronicle.

 

The whole land of Hamath was this - "Hamath is the northern-most city in the mountainous region of Palestine not too far south of Syrian Antioch. It is in the northern borders of Syria and was the fortress that protected the rest of Palestine from northern invaders." - from - http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/hamath.html

 

What did you think it meant????

 

see also - http://www.jewish-history.com/palestine/boundaries_index.html

 

 

Yes, we all know where Hamath is.

 

I suppose the Egyptians were "fleeing" North trying to get back to Egypt? Not likely. They would have been pursuing them South. How far we do not know. We also do not know which route Nebuchadnezzar took back to Babylon.

 

The only historical account we have that tells us what route Nebuchadnezzar took is Berossus which states that he took hebrew captives before hearing of his father's death. And this agrees with Daniel's account.

 

gramster wrote:

 

To me that is neither scholarly nor rational. It seems to me that if one were really interested in what an ancient text actually said, they would at least look it up in a decent Lexicon.

 

Now if you were actually to do that here is what you would find. The word translated as "siege" is Strong's 6696 "tsuwr" or "vaiyatzar". It includes the following definitions. Adversary, assault, besiege, to show hostility to, attack from all sides, hem in or surround.

 

In Esther 8:11 the word is translated "assault". In Psalms 139:5 it is translated "beset" or "trouble or threaten".

 

If a translator looking at the Book of Daniel was to assume that the incident in the beginning of the book were the same, or confused for the well known siege of Jerusalem, they would wrongfully translate this word as "siege".

 

pjts wrote:

 

Now you are assuming what translators did or didn't do in order to avoid another nail in the box.

 

I also speak Spanish and Southern. The Spanish text that is relevant is as follows from Dios Habla Hoy:

 

rodeó la ciudad con su ejército - which translates as - surrounded the city with his army.

 

This is similar to besiege and has the same meaning to me.

 

 

Thanks for making my point. The Spanish text just says that he "surrounded the city with his army". That's all. I believe that is likely. All he had to do at that time is surround the city with his massive army and tribute was paid. Yes, including Daniel and his friends.

 

You must be getting desperate to be moving the bar so far. Now "siege" just means to surround the city. What happened to the months or years of starvation? You just pointed out your own error. Thanks.

 

Do you speak or understand any language besides English??

 

When I think in Spanish the "surrounding with an army of a city" is a siege. That's what I envision when I see it in Spanish.

 

So, no I have only shown that the Spanish version is no different.

 

Now what language do you understand beside English so we can compare?

 

You seem to be quite confused. Please clarify if a "siege" to you means months and years of starvation, or if it simply means to "surround the city". You seem to have a motorized goal post on wheels.

 

One can not "flip-flop" definitions like that depending on the argument they are trying to make.

 

That is why I go back to the Lexicon.

 

pjts wrote:

 

Part of the problem is as Daniel continues to describe this supposed besieging and aftermath, is v3 from JPS - "And the king spoke unto Ashpenaz his chief officer, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, and of the seed royal, and of the nobles,"

 

There is no record of this in the Chronicles, see the links I gave you for the time period.

 

And, Nebuchadrezzar was not the King at this point if he was still in Hatti land (Palestine or Egypt) he was the Crown Prince until daddy died and he was crowned

 

As I pointed out earlier. This reference is normal for one writing after this event. Example: President Obama had the support of our youth while running for office. Or President Obama was born in Hawaii. Both these sentences are correct even though he was not president at either of these times in his life.

 

You sure like to throw out "silly little non issues". Funny boy.

 

 

pjts wrote:

 

In addition, no where is this mentioned in other books of the Hebrew Bible by writers. It is not until after Jehoiakim refuses to pay tribute, dying soon thereafter and his son Jehoiachin and captives of the royal family are taken to Babylon, at least according to 2 Kings.

 

However, there are variants between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. In 2 Kings, Jehioakim dies and is buried with his fathers and his son Jehiochin becomes king at 18 years old reigning for 3 months when Babylon begins the siege. In this version the kings wives, mother officers etc are taken. In 2 Chronicles, Jehioakim is taken captive to Babylon and his 8 year old son Jehioachin is made king reigning for 3 months when he is taken.

 

So these 2 versions are very different. 2 Chronicles has many such issues and is generally untrustworthy in comparisons to other writers in the Hebrew Bible.

 

So, it's possible that the 2nd century writer of Daniel read the sketchy version of 2 Chronicles when he created the Apocalypse of Daniel thus making a 3rd siege.

 

Just saying.

 

 

pjts wrote:

 

No response to this?

 

Your interpretations are not in the ABC 5 Chronicle.

 

Also, your Bible other than the fairy tale in Daniel does not mention what is in Daniel 1:3. Why not?????

 

I see you had no answer for the variances in Kings and Chronicles. Why is that. Your perfect Bible has issues? Oh no, the sky will fall!!!

 

 

You must have me confused with someone else. At no time have I ever made the claim that the Bible contains no errors. I have no problem with there being some historical errors in Chronicles.

 

I agree that Kings seems to be much more reliable than Chronicles.

 

Now let's take a look at the account in 2 Kings.

 

24:1 In "his days" Nebuchadnezzar "came up". Jehoiakim became his servant three years (we do not know if this was three whole years or one whole year and two partial years). "than rebelled".

 

This clearly puts Nebuchadnezzar in Jerusalem before any of the "famous" sieges. This would likely be shortly after he defeated the Egyptians in 605 BC. He dropped by and let Jehoiakim know that he was now in charge. Daniel could have been taken at that time like as in the Berossus account.

 

vs 2 The lord sent "Chaldeans, Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites" to destroy Judah ... .

 

vs 6 Jehoiakim dies.

 

We clearly have an account in 2 kings where Nebuchadnezzar comes to Jerusalem before the 1st siege. I suppose that he did not take anything while he was there? Somehow that does not seem much like Nebuchadnezzar.

 

I don't see how you can argue that this could not have happened. It seems obvious that this is the most likely scenario. Daniel says this happened. 2 Kings says it happened. The Berossus account says it happened. And it fits well with the account in the Chronicles.

 

The only thing it does not fit into is your claim of "bad history".

 

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

 

I am aware that the writings of Berossus, like much of what we have from ancient history is often errant. It is interesting however, that his account makes perfect sense, and also matches Daniels account.

 

pjts wrote:

 

Oh, I agree, there were 430,000 years of Sumerian kings, don't you?

 

It is commonly believed that Berossus "borrowed" much of his information from the materials available at the time when he did his writing. What is interesting is that this account seems to have been in existence in Berossus' time.

 

While we do not know for certain that this is how things happened, it certainly all lines up. Once again. No bad history is required.

 

pjts wrote:

 

And you ignore that the originals of Berossus were lost and only references to them come from Josephus for Book 3.

 

 

Yes, we all know that the originals were lost. Unless written on clay tablets the "originals" from that period are almost always "lost".

 

That still leaves us with ALL of the accounts that we do have lining up perfectly with Daniel's account. It looks like the book of Daniel is still amazingly accurate for being written in the 2nd century BC.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So you're admitting that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE and not the 5th/6th as you usually claim?

Yes, a writer can be amazingly accurate when he's writing about history as it happened (and researching earlier topics).

No dimwit.

I am saying, just like in my examples that Daniel was not written before 605 BC. Daniel lived into the beginning of the Persian reign over Babylon. He could have written these things down at the later end of his life. We do not know.

 

Or he couldn't have written it at all. As you say, we just don't know (though history and textual criticism runs that way).

Asshat.

I just adore all the little pet names you come up with for me. Please, don't make me blush.

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So you're admitting that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE and not the 5th/6th as you usually claim?

Yes, a writer can be amazingly accurate when he's writing about history as it happened (and researching earlier topics).

No dimwit.

I am saying, just like in my examples that Daniel was not written before 605 BC. Daniel lived into the beginning of the Persian reign over Babylon. He could have written these things down at the later end of his life. We do not know.

 

Or he couldn't have written it at all. As you say, we just don't know (though history and textual criticism runs that way).

Asshat.

I just adore all the little pet names you come up with for me. Please, don't make me blush.

Mad because I finished what you started? I bolded it for you so you can remember who went first.

Or have you finally realized you have nothing to support your argument save the stuff you make up?

No I am not angry or offended. And yes, I "started it". You can go tell "mommy".

I do not get angry when a child sticks their tongue out at me. I usually think it's kinda cute. And I do not get offended when you call me one of your pet names. I do not take this kind of stuff personally. And when I insult you, it is not out of anger. Just having a little fun.

And the answer is NO! It is the claims of "bad history" that have not been able to hold up. Still not one single example of it that holds ANY water at all. Just empty and unsupported assertions, and irrational arguments of omission. As we shall see.

Funny, you're the one still moaning about it.

I agree that the claims of "bad history" are not holding up. Please stop bringing them up.

If the claims hold no water and are unsupported assertions or irrational arguments you'd think you'd stop bringing them up. Instead you repeat them.

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So you're admitting that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE and not the 5th/6th as you usually claim?

Yes, a writer can be amazingly accurate when he's writing about history as it happened (and researching earlier topics).

No dimwit.

I am saying, just like in my examples that Daniel was not written before 605 BC. Daniel lived into the beginning of the Persian reign over Babylon. He could have written these things down at the later end of his life. We do not know.

 

Or he couldn't have written it at all. As you say, we just don't know (though history and textual criticism runs that way).

Asshat.

I just adore all the little pet names you come up with for me. Please, don't make me blush.

Mad because I finished what you started? I bolded it for you so you can remember who went first.

Or have you finally realized you have nothing to support your argument save the stuff you make up?

No I am not angry or offended. And yes, I "started it". You can go tell "mommy".

I do not get angry when a child sticks their tongue out at me. I usually think it's kinda cute. And I do not get offended when you call me one of your pet names. I do not take this kind of stuff personally. And when I insult you, it is not out of anger. Just having a little fun.

And the answer is NO! It is the claims of "bad history" that have not been able to hold up. Still not one single example of it that holds ANY water at all. Just empty and unsupported assertions, and irrational arguments of omission. As we shall see.

Funny, you're the one still moaning about it.

I agree that the claims of "bad history" are not holding up. Please stop bringing them up.

If the claims hold no water and are unsupported assertions or irrational arguments you'd think you'd stop bringing them up. Instead you repeat them.

Interesting that you now agree with me that the claims of bad history do not hold up. Unfortunately PJTS still does not understand this. He is still making the claim that they do. Therefore I will make one more attempt to help him understand.

gramster wrote:

I will make this real simple. One more time my friend.

A claim of "bad history" has not been demonstrated.

There are 2 possible scenario's that fit into Daniel's account in 605 BC.

1. First Possibility.

Some time before Aug 15th Nebuchadnezzar defeats the Egyptians, pursues them South and destroys them. He continues "through" the area of Hamath conquering it.

He continues South towards Egypt. During this time he drops by Jerusalem and demands "tribute". This could include captives. That was not uncommon. Daniel could have been taken at that time.

August 15th Nabopolassar dies. Upon getting word of this Nebuchadnezzar takes his best and fastest troops and races across the desert back to Babylon to secure the throne. He leaves the heavy armor, any loot, and captives with the rest of the army to follow.

This lines up with the Berossus account, and does not conflict with the chronicles in any way.

2. Second Possibility.

In the Ascension Year (year zero - still 605) Once his throne is secured Nebuchadnezzar marches "unopposed" through Hatti-land until the month of Sabatu (Jan/Feb). At this time he could have returned to Babylon by going South along the coast giving him more opportunity to take "tribute" along the way.

Jerusalem would have been along this route. He could have made a stop at that time and demanded tribute including Daniel and his friends.

The accounts of ancient history that we have is very "sketchy" at best. Unfortunately it is not like today where whole books are written, and history is recorded in great detail.

Both of the above accounts could very easily have happened. You are claiming that they could not have happened. I do not see that as rational.

I do not see any "bad history" in the book of Daniel. What I do see is a writer that knew the events of that era better than we do today, and better than a 2nd century BC author would have.

But that is only my opinion. Since our own knowledge is still so lacking it is difficult to prove either way.

Now maybe we can agree to disagree.

Gramps

Your prophet and historian Daniel now has two possible meanings that your infallible God has given him?

Shouldn't prophecy and history only have one meaning? Would God really leave it up to a coin toss?

If you have to create multiple accounts to fit what you claim is history - doesn't that mean something is wrong with what you claim is history?

I will make this real simple. One more time my friend.

A claim of "bad history" has not been demonstrated.

There are 2 possible scenario's that fit into Daniel's account in 605 BC.

1. First Possibility.

Some time before Aug 15th Nebuchadnezzar defeats the Egyptians, pursues them South and destroys them. He continues "through" the area of Hamath conquering it.

He continues South towards Egypt. During this time he drops by Jerusalem and demands "tribute". This could include captives. That was not uncommon. Daniel could have been taken at that time.

August 15th Nabopolassar dies. Upon getting word of this Nebuchadnezzar takes his best and fastest troops and races across the desert back to Babylon to secure the throne. He leaves the heavy armor, any loot, and captives with the rest of the army to follow.

This lines up with the Berossus account, and does not conflict with the chronicles in any way.

2. Second Possibility.

In the Ascension Year (year zero - still 605) Once his throne is secured Nebuchadnezzar marches "unopposed" through Hatti-land until the month of Sabatu (Jan/Feb). At this time he could have returned to Babylon by going South along the coast giving him more opportunity to take "tribute" along the way.

Jerusalem would have been along this route. He could have made a stop at that time and demanded tribute including Daniel and his friends.

The accounts of ancient history that we have is very "sketchy" at best. Unfortunately it is not like today where whole books are written, and history is recorded in great detail.

Both of the above accounts could very easily have happened. You are claiming that they could not have happened. I do not see that as rational.

I do not see any "bad history" in the book of Daniel. What I do see is a writer that knew the events of that era better than we do today, and better than a 2nd century BC author would have.

But that is only my opinion. Since our own knowledge is still so lacking it is difficult to prove either way.

Now maybe we can agree to disagree.

Gramps

 

gramster wrote:

To be able to claim that the Book of Daniel contains "bad history", one needs to demonstrate some kind of proof. This should include eliminating other possible or likely possibilities. One cannot rationally make this claim based entirely upon ignorance. That is what you have done. Now, ignorance as we have seen is ample enough rational for some to be "skeptical". But not for a claim of "bad history"

I have clearly detailed two very possible scenarios that would work quite well with ALL of the accounts that we have from this period. All you have been able to come up with are arguments of ignorance and omission. Well, that's good enough for a skeptic. That's why I relinquished any claim to that title many pages ago. I could not maintain that I am a rational person, and live up to your standards as a skeptic at the same time. 

I cannot prove that things did happen as Daniel claims, and you cannot prove they did not. Like it or not, history is not usually kind enough to leave us with this kind of proof.

As far as prejudice, and believing what one wants to believe, you have demonstrated a strong inclination to play that game repeatedly. Let's not keep parroting the old "pot and kettle" stuff.

The honest claim you should be making is that you personally question Daniel's accounts of history, or Daniel's accounts have not yet been proven to be correct. Even though over time things that once were thought to be errant in Daniel have now been proven to be historical fact.

I am ready to go on and agree to disagree on this one. Otherwise we will just continue to go around in circles.

 

If you go back and read all the details I presented on Daniel as compared to documented history you will see that there are not just this 1 little incident you decided to focus upon but several. As I'm tired of playing the game of argue and repeat over and over please just go on and finish your arguments.

I'm especially interested in how you relate Daniel to the RCC and the popes working your way to the present.

After you do that feel free to present your summary and final arguments. In that final argument you can present how "things that once were thought to be errant in Daniel have now been proven to be historical fact."

I've been clear throughout this thread I do not accept Daniel as prophetic. I have several times made clear that is my opinion and have given documented links as well as books to support my views.

I do not accept magic as based in reality. Daniel has magic in it's  story telling, therefore I see it as creative writing or story telling to present hope for the despondent Jews in the 2nd century BCE. A point I emphasized quoting Bart Ehrman's book, Forged.

I will be traveling for the next few weeks and will only have 3G access and I'm not taking my books along so any response I give until mid August will be very short.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

To be able to claim that the Book of Daniel contains "bad history", one needs to demonstrate some kind of proof. This should include eliminating other possible or likely possibilities. One cannot rationally make this claim based entirely upon ignorance. That is what you have done. Now, ignorance as we have seen is ample enough rational for some to be "skeptical". But not for a claim of "bad history"

I have clearly detailed two very possible scenarios that would work quite well with ALL of the accounts that we have from this period. All you have been able to come up with are arguments of ignorance and omission. Well, that's good enough for a skeptic. That's why I relinquished any claim to that title many pages ago. I could not maintain that I am a rational person, and live up to your standards as a skeptic at the same time. 

I cannot prove that things did happen as Daniel claims, and you cannot prove they did not. Like it or not, history is not usually kind enough to leave us with this kind of proof.

As far as prejudice, and believing what one wants to believe, you have demonstrated a strong inclination to play that game repeatedly. Let's not keep parroting the old "pot and kettle" stuff.

The honest claim you should be making is that you personally question Daniel's accounts of history, or Daniel's accounts have not yet been proven to be correct. Even though over time things that once were thought to be errant in Daniel have now been proven to be historical fact.

I am ready to go on and agree to disagree on this one. Otherwise we will just continue to go around in circles.

 

If you go back and read all the details I presented on Daniel as compared to documented history you will see that there are not just this 1 little incident you decided to focus upon but several. As I'm tired of playing the game of argue and repeat over and over please just go on and finish your arguments.

I'm especially interested in how you relate Daniel to the RCC and the popes working your way to the present.

After you do that feel free to present your summary and final arguments. In that final argument you can present how "things that once were thought to be errant in Daniel have now been proven to be historical fact."

I've been clear throughout this thread I do not accept Daniel as prophetic. I have several times made clear that is my opinion and have given documented links as well as books to support my views.

I do not accept magic as based in reality. Daniel has magic in it's  story telling, therefore I see it as creative writing or story telling to present hope for the despondent Jews in the 2nd century BCE. A point I emphasized quoting Bart Ehrman's book, Forged.

I will be traveling for the next few weeks and will only have 3G access and I'm not taking my books along so any response I give until mid August will be very short.

I have addressed every detail of history that you brought up. This was the last one. You have held on to this one like a blind bull dog. Simply put, the Berossus account could well have happened, and since he said Nebudchadnezzar headed back across the desert instead of along the Euphrates, he would have been pretty far south of the area of Hamath. That could likely have put him in the area of Jerusalem. The captives he took could have included Daniel and his friends.

I'm just making it clear that there is "no bad history" in Daniel. Only in the mind of the skeptic. That false claim would easily influence a reader to make a false conclusion about the Book of Daniel.

I will move on now. But I will not remain silent while false, unsupported claims like this are being made.