There is no such thing as The Bible

I'm going to explain what I meant re. documents and historians one last time. In order to find errors in something you first must assume what the author is saying before being able to make a judgment in the first place. You read it line by line, saying, ok, that is what this author is saying...is it true? You don't just say well, all authors are full of crap therefore, I'm going to make sure it's proven wrong, no matter what!!!
The reason you haven't found 'modern scholars' saying it, is perhaps your definition of that term is more recent than mine. My term meaning, the methods that have been used by liberal scholars in the last 2-3 centuries to debunk the Bible. Your definition was probably what, scholars of the last century, or 50 years, or even 25 years? I don't know. You see, if you studied the history of liberal scholarship and their dogmatic pronouncements and discovered the number of times they have been mistaken, and the Bible proven right, by more recent discoveries, I think you would have a much healthier skepticism of what they say.
Anyway, the archaeological expedition that discovered evidence of Belshazzar's existence occurred in 1854. So the scholars I refer to, predate that time.
Re. titles, we still use the word, King, as re. royalty, but people also use King as a personal name...don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.
There are several indications in the text of Daniel that Darius was not king in his own right but had been temporarily appointed to the throne by some higher authority. In 9:1, it is stated that Darius "was made king". If he had become king by conquest or inheritance, the phrase would have been "became king" in the Hebrew.
In 5:31, we are told that Darius "received" the kingship, as if it had been entrusted to him by some higher authority. It is also appropriate to point out that subordinate or vassel kings were similarly appointed by Cyrus according to the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius the I in the late 6th century. (Thus Darius' own forebear, Hystaspes, is said to have been "made king" during the time of Cyrus the Great). As the incumbent of the time-honored throne of Babylon, it was only a matter of proper protocol for Cyrus' appointee to assume in his official decrees the same titles as had always attached to that title.
Whoever Darius the Mede was (we know he was a son of Ahasuerus), it was certainly consistent with Cyrus's policy to put talented and loyal Medes like General Harpagus into key positions in his govt.
It would appear then, that right after the fall of Babylon, to the Medo-Persian troops, Cyrus' presence was urgently needed on another front of his expanding empire. He therefore found it expedient to put Darius in charge, with the title King of Babylon, to rule for a year or so until Cyrus could return in person and celebrate a formal celebration as king in the Temple of Marduk.
After his year of rule as viceroy, then Darius was retained as governor of Babylon, but with the crown transferred to his overlord, Cyrus (who subsequently had his older son, Cambyses, crowned king of Babylon). It appears from Daniel's failure to mention any date later then Darius's "first year" (9:1) that his reign must have been of very brief duration. It should be observed that an empire that lasts for only a year or two, introduces an element of utter implausibility into the Maccabean date hypothesis; for a one year empire could hardly be set up as number 2 in a series that included the Chaldean empire (73 years), Persian empire (208 years), and the Greek empire (lasted 167 years by 165 B.C.). In Dan. 5:28, the play of words in the Hebrew for the words "divided" and "Persia" make it quite clear the author believed kingdom no. 1 (Chaldean) passed directly to the Persians, allied with the Medes, as kingdom no. 2. There is no room for a seperate Median Empire as required by the Maccabean date hypothesis. Which would make the Greek empire no. 3...the only empire to overthrow and replace the Greek Empire was the Roman Empire. Every work I have consulted in my library (with one exception, dating from about A.D. 1800) all assume the second empire as being Medo-Persian and therefore the Roman Empire as the 4th kingdom.

Of course I actually DID find errors - errors that Daniel should not have made. You are so determined to deny the errors that you will invent all sorts of excuses to dismiss the facts.With regard to the claim that scholars denied the existence of Belshazzar I note that you do not offer any evidence. So the fact is that it is not that I am reading the wrong sources - the fact is that the sources that make these assertiosn - and similar ones - don't back up their claims. And. by yhe way, I have examine conservative sources and liberal sources - the conservative sources are far less reliable.Indeed the fact that you referred to modern scholars - when the events referred to were 150 years ago is a clear example of the sort of inaccuracy that is commonly found.On titles, the fact is that Daniel uses "Darius" as if it were a name. But there is nobody of that name in history. Nor do you offer any support for the idea that Ugbaru was given the title King of Babylon. All you are offering is speculation. THere is no historical figure that fits with Daniel's "Darus the Mede".Your arguments against the hypothesis that the second Empire is the Medes gas several problems. Not least that it does not address the evidence that the 4th Empire is the Greeks. Let us remember that the second Empire is supposed to be lesser than the Babylonian - and the Persian Empire was unquestionably greater. That the Median Empire existed for some time prior the the conquest of Babylon so your "one year" is not an adequate measure of its duration. That Daniel presents the Medes as "senior partners" in the supposed federation (contrary to history).And Daniel 11 blows the Roman theory out of the water.Daniel 11:1-4 starts with Persia which Daniel says will be destroyed by a conquerer who will leave no descendants, but instead his followers will divide his Empire. Nobody would deny that this refers to Alexander, although there are rather more Persian emperors than the 4 Daniel allows to follow "Darius the Mede". The fourth Empire is spoken off as divided - not the 3rd.Daniel 11:4 also tells us that "his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the )four points of the compass" (NASB) Even if it were not obviosu from the context it is clear that the "King of the North" and the "King of the South" represent Greek states.But Daniel 11 has no Empire folllowing these kingdoms, even though Daniel 11:40 tells us that the End times have come. To read the 4th Empire as any other Empire than the Greek is to create a contradiction between Daniel 2 and Daniel 11.Where is Rome ? Om fact Rome is briefly - and indirectly - mentioned. The "ships of Kittim" of 11:30 are Roman Republican forces. But Rome as a great conquering Empire is not to be found in Daniel.


Re. 'modern scholars', they usually use textual critcism methods that originated over 200 years ago...so the way they are interpreting the Scriptures these days, is hardly new.
Re. Belshazzar, he was long assumed to be apochryphal, because the Greek historian Herodotus, writing about 450 B.C., named Nabinidus as the last king of the Babylonian empire. Than came the discovery of the cunieform tablets which revealed that Belshazzar was the son of Nabidonus and had been made co-ruler with his father. Suddenly it seemed that Daniel, writing around 540-530 B.C. knew more about the situation there than Herodotus who wrote 90 years later. And, if the historian was in error about RECENT history, how could an unknown Jewish writer 300 years later know about this lost fact of Belshazzar's co-regency??
It's facts like these that make me hesitant to argue from the absence of evidence that there is no explanation for Daniel's talk of Darius the Mede. Arguments based on an absence of evidence are always much weaker than arguments based on existence of evidence. The fact is, little archaelogical work has been done in ancient Media itself, so the history and accomplishments of these people are not well known. I wouldn't count your chickens on this point.
Re. Dan. 11, you have no quarrel with me up until verse 35.
It seems to me that verses 36-45 cover a new topic. The fact that the events described are not historical make that obvious. (I think it should be pointed out here that chapters and verses were added centuries after the text had been written, which I suspect is what is clouding some folks' perspective on this). In these final verses, the willful king is introduced as a 'third party' in conflict with both the king of the South and the king of the North.
This king is in harmony with all the scriptural predictions re. an Antichrist (see various verses in the book of Revelation and the passage in II Thess. 2). The decisive evidence for an eschatological setting for the willful king is the opening phrase of chap. 12 ("And at that time...", referring to 11:36-45). Then there follows 3 unquestionably eschatological events - the great tribulation for Israel (12:1), the resurrection of the dead (12:2), and the final reward of the righteous (12:3). Obviously not 2nd century B.C. events!!!
II Chronicles 36:20 disproves the alleged belief by the Jews of any intermediate Median empire before Persia. If Daniel views the Medes and the Persians as one empire (which is obvious by his use of the term 'Medes and the Persians'), it would be foolish to count his prophecy as referring to them as two empires, irregardless what history says...after all, it's his vision lol. He simply does not say, Medes, then the Persians.
Anyway, I'm out of time again, have to get to that Roman Empire stuff later, I know!

I note that you won't admit that it is wrong to say that men who worked 150 years ago are "midern scholars" and that you STILL can't find even one person who actually made the claim you attributed to themThere are also problems with your assertions about Belshazzar. He is descibed as the son of Nebuchadnezzar - Nabonidus, it seems, is wholly missing from Daniel (as are the rulers between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus). In your situation I certainly wouldn't rest on the hope that there is undiscuvered evidence that will prove you right. Not when the evidence that does exist is so problematic for you.And it seems odd that you would say that Daniel knew moe than Herodotus. Perhaps you can quote me the part of Herodotus that makes the error you refer to. Or is this just anoter case where you've copied an assertion without knowing the truth of the matter ?On Daniel 11, there seemms no reason to insert a break at 11:36. Even if there were, 11:40 confirms that we are still dealing with the Hellenistic states as it refers again to the "king of the North" and "the King of the South" (see discussion of 11:4).The Eschatological content does not indicate that Daniel intends to refer to our future. Any such claim rests on the assumption that Daniel's prophecies could not have failed. Indeed - given the evidence of 11:40 you rely on the assumption that the actual text of the Bible is less important than what you would like it to say.2 Chronicles 36:20 could be easily read differently. A short-lived Median rulership of Babylon could easily be ignored by the Chronicler - it is Cyrus' conquest that is important. Given that your view requires that the Chronicler has also ignored Daniel's entire career you are in no position to claim that the Chronicler must have included every major event. u

Re. Belshazzar and his 'father', Nebuchadnezzar, there is no word in Chaldee or Hebrew for 'grandfather'. The word 'father' is used by the figure of speech Synecdoche of the Species, whereby one relationship is put for, and includes others.
Re. Herodotus, I thought I was quite clear, he made an omission re. Belshazzar that made the book of Daniel appear mistaken, which it isn't.
11:40 says "At the time of the end"...you also missed my point, up till verse 35, the king of the south is Egypt, the king of the north is Antioches Epiphanes...from verse 36, 'the willful king' is introduced as a THIRD PARTY in conflict with both the king of the south AND the king of the north. The eschatological content thereafter is proof that those prophecies are still to come...unless you think you can find 11:40-12:12 in history somewhere? Jesus obviously felt they were still future (see Matt. 24:15, referring to the abomination of desolation mentioned in Dan. 12:11). No one suggested that he was confused on this point, that that was all history past in NT times, even though he was surrounded by people who had grown up reading the OT and who would have protested had they felt he was wrong to interpret Daniel that way.
At least we are in agreement that the Median empire was shortlived!

I will have to say that over 90% of all biblical scholars disagree with you. You also did not take into account the change of spellings of Nebacanezzer

Since it is highly improbably that Belshazzar was closely related to Nebuchadnezzar at all, quibbling over "son" and "grandson" is not going to get you anywhere.Nor are you correct to say that Herodotus made an error - Nabonidus had returned from Tema and was King when the Persians conquered Babylon. To the best of my knowledge Belshazzar had no special authority beyond his position as heir to the throne at that point. That is what we find from other sources, such as the Nabonidus Chronicle. Now Daniel's omission of Nabonidus is an error.And I have to point out that the Exchatological content is NOT proof that the prophecies referred to events in our future. You can't argue that it doesn't mean what it says just because what it says isn't true. You have to deal with the text as it is.
Still you are right that Jesus thought that it would be in his future. But it is wrong to say that the people of his time had any special insight - indeed the only way to keep Daniel - as we know it was kept - was to reinterpret the failures, just as the Jehovah's Witnesses deal with their failed predictions. Correctly interpretating the text takes second place to theology then - just as it does for you now.. And of course, Jesus predicted that the events would happen in the time leading up to the destruction of the Herodian Temple - which occurred in 70 AD. So he wasn't even right about that.You're even wrong about my view of the Median Empire. In DANIEL's view , as I read it, the Median Empire did not survive long after it conquered Babylon. Historically the Median Kingom lasted more than 200 years, and from the archaeological evidence seems to have been a significant force in the region for about 100 years. More than 50 years before their fall, the Medes and the Babylonians destroyed Assyria and parcelled that empire between them. The Empire ruled by Nebuchadnezzar lasted a similar span of time - Babylon had been conquered by the Assyrians and were a subject people up until the time of Nebuchadnezzar's father Nabopolassar. d

My sources on Nebuchadnezzar seem quite certain that he was indeed a grandfather to Belshazzar...not sure where you get all your doubt from.
I said Herodotus had made an omission re. Belshazzar, which some made to cast doubt on the accuracy of Daniel. That was my point. If Daniel was only in the leadership a short time (a year or two, judging by the text), it's hardly surprising the other leaders' names were not included in his account, after all, he was documenting HIS role in the events, not writing a complete history of that empire!
Re. those verses at the end of chapter 11...they do not fit your view that Antiochus was one of the kings, it introduces a new, unnamed character that fights against both kings...no reinterpretation necessary on my part, just going with what the text says.
Re. the Median empire, although there were a few short-lived rebellions in the 5th century B.C. against the Persians after the two had joined forces in the 6th century, not sure it was much of an empire on it's own after that, given the brief success of it's rebellions.
Re. Daniel and the Median empire, my sources say that liberal critics recognise that historically Babylon was succeeded by Persia and that this took place only after Cyrus incorporated Media into his realm. But it claims that Daniel thought Media succeeded Babylon because of his mention of Darius the Mede. As I've said before, 5:28 dispels this notion. I would like your verses that make clear the 2nd kingdom was smaller than the first in the prophecy itself.

Have 90% of Biblical scholars always been right about everything?? Never made a mistake?? They disagree with me (or, more to the point, my sources) re. what, exactly?
Re. Nebuchadnezzar, I know the KJV and RSV have a variant spelling Nebuchadrezzar...not sure what your point is.

Your sources ? And on what do your unnamed sources base this claim on ?Daniel was supposedly in a leading role from the regin of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BC) through the reigns of the following kings up to the Persian conquest (539 BC) and into the reign of Cyrus. That is NOT a short time ! And even if Daniel were in an important position for a short time it is no excuse for not mentioning Nabonidus who was reigning as king at the time of the conquest.You're wrong about Daniel 11 - there is new "new king", it is Antiochus IV Epiphanes who is described. And if you don't need any reinterptation then you have obviusly accepted that it is about the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemys as it says. Nice to see that you've dropped the reinterpretation that tries to push it into our future !Your comments on the Median Empire are, well, silly. My comments referred to the Empire prior to Cyrus' conquest. You can't deny that they happened by appealing to later events.Your claim about 5:28 is false. Note that it puts the Medes first even though the Medes were Persian subjects at the time. On the other hand it makes more sense from my point of view, because if "Daniel" felt that Cyrus' rebellion came after the defeat of Babylon the Persians would be Median subjects. Thus 5:28 makes more sense if Daniel beleived that the Median Empire conquered PersiaAnd since you seem unable to read Daniel 2 for yourself this is what it says about the second kingdom.
2:39 "After you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you..."
And that's it. That is all that it says. Clearly the second kingdom is not very impressive.

To clear something up as Christians we are called to shed light onto all non-Christians. In doing so we are here to help people pick out the translation that they need. As a bible scholar if you will, you should know by now that Scripture is not in Order, each translation might put the books in order of time, or author or of type of book (ie poetry, laws). A jewish bible is not a Christian bible so depending on what you are looking for depends on what you will buy. In a bookstore a person looking to become a Christian will not say "hey maybe i shuold buy this jewish bible" the most popular of the translations is the NIV which will be the most ubundant translation which is probably what people will buy.First of all if your wondering The Bible was written by men except for one book which God wrote to Moses which encompasses the ten comandments. Secondly the text within the covers of your AV are inspired. If you look up inspired in a dictionary you get this for a definition: "To move by divine influence", "To breathe into" - Websters New Lexicon of the English Language Copyright 2002. By definition Scripture was written by men who were "moved by divine influence" or you could say Scipture is "God breathed". how do you know that men were not moved by God to write these passages known today as The Bible?

---

akldema

Hi, Akldema, and welcome. Stick around on EvC and you might find the reverse. And which, precisely, is the Authorised Version?Given that the only mention of 'inspiration'of Scriptures is a relatively minor epistle that just made the cut, don`t you think it a tad presumptious to claim that for the whole Bible? Especially when it goes on to say 'helpful'or 'profitable', not sacrosanct.

Wouldn't Christians first need to decide what is the Authorized Canon?How can we, as Christians, expect anyone to accept the Bible as accurate or inerrant when Christianity can't even decide what books should be included or excluded much less whether there is any such thing as an authoritive translation?By trying to say that there is only one possible answer to what constitutes The Bible Christians lose sight of the Message of Christ.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As I told you before, the events described in 11:40-45 are NOT historical, therefore could not be about Antiochus IV!! The willful king in this passage is neither the king of the North or the South. Don't know how you can miss that! Why are you trying to force it into the previous 35 verses when it obviously doesn't fit?? Anti-supernatural bias, as per usual...to make it a mistaken prophecy. It is obvious from the context that this passage is eschatological (i.e. not happened yet), this is typical for OT literature, to change focus from shorter term to longer term prophecy quickly. Like I pointed out earlier, I am only following the way of interpreting the OT that Jesus and his disciples did.
From the Collins Gem Dictionary of the Bible re. Medes, Media -
"The word 'Medes' is used more often than 'Persians', [when referring to their empire], simply because the Jews were more familiar with it."
The book of Esther (1:19) also refers to the Persian empire in the same way Daniel does, as if the Medes and Persians were in the same empire, having the same laws.
The Medians were never a great empire, but rather existed only as a small kingdom where present-day northern Iran is located. As Leupold stated: “If the statue represents the truth of history, the silver could not refer to a Median empire, for there never was such an empire” (1989, p. 117).
Re. your argument concerning Daniel 2:39 which refers to the second empire as being “inferior” -
Keep in mind that the reference to it being inferior does not mean that it necessarily was inferior in all respects. Leupold mentioned the fact that the Persian Empire was inferior in the sense of influence on the rest of the world. Babylonian culture was dominant in that part of the world for around 2,000 years, and is well known for many of its accomplishments in architecture and science (p. 116).But does Daniel have to be referring solely to materialism when he says that the kingdom was to be inferior? Perhaps “inferior” could be referring to the moral situation of the empire during the reign of the Persians, as opposed to the Babylonians. Both Barnes and Leupold mention this as a possibility, stating that from the close of the Babylonian Empire, all throughout the time of the Roman Empire, ethics and morals declined greatly (Barnes, 1:160; Leupold, p. 116).Whether it was in influence or morals, the Medo-Persian Empire was clearly inferior in some respects, yet superior in others (such as size and wealth). Daniel 2:39 never mentioned what was inferior about the second kingdom; rather, he merely stated that something would be inferior, not necessarily everything. When viewed in this light, the supposed historical inaccuracy of Daniel disappears.REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1973), Notes on the New Testament: Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Leupold, H.C. (1989), Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

quote:

---

As I told you before, the events described in 11:40-45 are NOT historical, therefore could not be about Antiochus IV!!

---

It's partly historical, partly failed prediction and all about Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

quote:

---

The willful king in this passage is neither the king of the North or the South. Don't know how you can miss that! Why are you trying to force it into the previous 35 verses when it obviously doesn't fit??

---

It obviously DOES fit, it just doesn't fit with your ideas. There's nothing marking a break here, nothing that indicates a leap into the distant future as you wuld have it.

quote:

---

Anti-supernatural bias, as per usual...to make it a mistaken prophecy.

---

Lies, as usual.

quote:

---

It is obvious from the context that this passage is eschatological (i.e. not happened yet),

---

The eschatological cotent hadn't happened at the time of writing - and FAILED to happen

quote:

---

this is typical for OT literature, to change focus from shorter term to longer term prophecy quickly.

---

Perhaps you would like to produce a genuine example. One where it isn't an obvious excuse to twist the words of the Bible.Moreover you are NOT intepreting Daniel in the same way as Jesus and the disciples did. They interpreted those verses as referring to their times. You don't.Your comments about the Medes are in error - the Medes and the Babylonians as partners took down the Assyrian Empire and divided it's land between them. The Medes were, therefore, on a rough par with the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.The fact remains that the 4th Empire is clearly identified as the Greek Empire - which is the major focus of Daniel's "prophecies". The interpretation of the 2nd empire as a mistaken reference to the Medes reamians plausible. While the idea that the 4th Empire is Rome is nowhere - choosing Rome only makes the prophecies even greater failures as the Roman Empire is as dead and gone as the Seleucids, which the prophexies were written to fit.I suggest finally that you choose reliable sources for historicla claims. Apologetic works won't do.r