Determining a book's truth.

First off, please understand my position:One can pull anything off the internet, I have no idea who anyone here are, and I've seen photos and personal testimonies of people I trust and admire that claim contrary to what has been said.I have seen a photo of the land and island of Tyre, and in it, there was no land connection. Iceage, I looked at the map image on the previous post, and the land connecting the two was huge. Was this something recent that was done? I had seen a picture previously, and what remained of the causeway was a thin strip that was underwater for all but the lowest of tides. Yet here it appears that therer is land connecting the two by a thick strip.AS for rebuilt, consider these things:
Eze 26:4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock.
regardless of the whole issue at hand here of never being rebuilt, there is a prediction of soil being scraped from her and making her a bare rock. And the fact that that happened in itself is incredible.
Perhaps it is yet to be fulfilled, but regardless of that, this totally specific thing never should have happened. Who would predict that someone would scrape soil off of something? And yet that is what Alexander did when he built the causeway.I'm still of the opinion though that Neb. did in fact destroy the land city. It would have been a foolish military move otherwise, because he left a city inside of himself that was an ideal port that could be used by any enemies he had. That simply does not make sense and so he would have put a lot of effort into conquering it.Anastasia: At the beginning, nothing was wrong with converts. Be they roman, greek, layodecian, what have you. But the thing is, when Constantine "Became a Christian" it was a political move. He saw a group of people within his country that could be won over, and to keep everyone else happy he brought some parts of Hellenism(?) with him. Compare a former Greek temple. The pillars were all greek Gods, so instead the Emperor substitutes "saints" that people pray to instead.What it seems many people fail to understand, is that we need the Old Testament too. Do you understand what I mean by this? Christ is tyed to the Old Testament. Tell me how. Prove to me that you know this. Because this is something that should be fundamental to what people believe.In regards to most of the Church history, look at it yourself. The Great Schism for one. All three of the Popes claimed the other was the anti-christ? Can you look at that and say something is not wrong? The fact of the matter is that anyone who opposes Christ is anti-christ, because that is what the word means."Well, Paul screwed around with Jews and their tradtions, as well as doctrine. So did Jesus, and I believe all of it is important. Do you know where we got the Bible? Tradition."Could you elaborate on this please? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.The thing with Egypt is that it is prophecy, and in prophecy, one thing will often stand for another, otherwise no prophecy would be fulfilled. Look at Ezk. 37 (?) (its around there at least) about Gog and Magog. As far as I know, there is no city/country by those names, and yet they look rather significant in what they will do.Look at Revelation: It speaks of Babylon, and Babylon has been gone a long time, and had been gone a long time when it was written. Thus either the person writing was dumb, because he didn't realize they weren't there, or it stood for something else. I suppose the same is true if Egypt. Look at what it says (for spatial sake I'll try and sumarize, I don't think I'll misquote, but if I do, let me know):A bruised reed because they hurt Israel when they trusted in them.
This would mean a modern thing that Israel trust in, but that trust cripples them in some way. The question would then be to look for what Israel trusts in that could cripple them.My apologies to everyone for this long post. I was trying to answer to some extent a number of replies.

But what we are telling you, what the satellite photos tell you, is that that did not happen. He did put in a lot of effort. Thirteen years of siege, but he failed.Tyre was the fortress on the Island. The land part was but the marketplace, the trading place where people came to buy and sell the products imported through the port.

To summarize the Tyre thing, let’s look at the prophecy and then what happened:The prophecy:
Nebachadnezzar will destroy the island city of Tyre (several verses make it clear the Ez knows that the city of Tyre is an island, and the mainland is just a settlement - 6, 8, etc.). That’ll include complete destruction, with the city being removed and no inhabitants left, and no one living there for ever. This destruction will be so complete that the soil or dust will be scraped off. One can see how the soil or dust line is included to emphasize that everything of the city is removed. Note also the context - Ezekiel says this in response to Tyre’s gloating over Jerusalem being sacked by Nebachadnezzar - that’s why Ezekial makes it clear that Neb will destroy Tyre soon, and by Neb.What happened next?Neb. Tried hard to take Tyre, but failed. His armies, horsemen, and such never did all the things that Ez says they will do, such as enter the streets, etc. At that point, even without going any further, it’s clear that Ez. Prophecy is just plain bunk. Then, after over 200 years, Alexander attacks Tyre. Tyre sees him coming, and most of the citizens are moved other cities. Alexander uses rocks and building materials from the mainland settlement to make his causeway, and finally conquers Tyre. Alexander is quite mad, and so he sells most of the captured into slavery - but, he does let some stay, and doesn’t kill the king, etc. Many of the evacuated citzens return immediately, and Tyre continues as a phoenician island city with many of the same inhabitants, and is a power again within a few decades. The dust or soil of Tyre is never touched. Materials from the mainland settlement were used to make the causeway, but that’s:
1. Not Tyre - the Bible is clear that Tyre is the island city.
2. Not soil or dust - it is rocks and building materials. It would be hard to make a causeway from dust or soil.
3. not scraped. You carry rocks and such, you don’t have to scrape them. Think about building something as large as the causeway - if you had to get a little material by scraping it, you’d never get done.
4. Not the whole mainland is left bare - even though the mainland isn’t Tyre, you don’t need to take all the rubble to make the causeway, which is only a few dozen feet wide, in 6’ or so deep water, and about a half mile long.We could go on, but that’s probably enough. I don’t see why literalists mention this one. It’s as clearly wrong as the legend that Darwin or Paine or Voltaire recanted - it’s just a feel good legend used to allow bible literalists to feel smug, or at least to keep them paying tithes. Well, making them vague or symbolic means you can twist them to fit a future event. That’s how astrology horoscopes work too. Do you think that astrology horoscopes accurately predict the future? If not, why not? Same for the prophecies of Nostradamus.Also, if a prophet is real, and has real knowledge of the future, then why not make a specific prophecy that will be obviously divine when it's fulfilled? Why bother with vague parlor tricks that aren't convincing if you have the real thing at your fingertips?PS 148 wrote: Well, sure, but as I said back in a previous post, their sincerity or niceness doesn’t make their statements true if they themselves are fooled. A nice or good person can be simply wrong, and nicely tell you something wrong. The most effective liar or salesman is the one who believes everything he says. That’s why groups like Amway or Tupperware try to get you to sell to your family and friends - because they trust you, and you are honest with them.Also - don't take my word or anyone else's word for anything. Check on things yourself. You cand find out if, for instance, Tyre exists today, or if it existed shortly after Alexander's conquest, etc. You may want to just start with wikipedia.Oh, and did you read my previous post, with the other biblical problems? There is no rush to respond, but I hope it wasn’t just ignored.Thanks, and have a good day-Equinox

Ps 148 wrote: The dead sea scrolls date mostly to the first century BCE and the first century CE, with some as old as the middle of the 2nd century BCE. All are 200 or more years after Alexander, who is from the 4th century BCE (that’s the 300s). Jar wrote: Daniel is probably post hoc in the sense that it was written after the events took place. That includes that copy of Daniel in the dead sea scrolls, which dates to the first century BCE or CE.Basically, modern scholars mostly support the 160 BCE date for the writing of Daniel. There are many reasons for this. One is simply the words chosen. For instance, if you found a letter in the attic that had a date on it of 1827, yet talked about “getting together to celebrate flower power and oppose the establishment and the military-industrial complex with free love, peace and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, you could pretty well bet that it was written after 1960. In the same way, scholars say that Daniel reads like something written around 160 BCE based on the words used. Also, there are no copies of Daniel that date to before then, and forgeries were common in the ancient world - it was a common way to get your stuff more widely read.Confirming evidence is found in the “prophecies” of Daniel. They are vague and sometimes a little off at first, then get better and better, and then are detailed and exactly correct, leading up to around 160 BC, then suddenly they become completely wrong and way off, when compared to history. I recently read “Contact” by Carl Sagan, written in the mid-80s. The stuff it talked about happening was generally correct, and got more detailed leading up to the 80’s, then suddenly become all wrong - such as talking about the soviet union existing in 1999. This is because Contact was written in the 80’s, and portrays events before and after when it was written.This is how it works. Let’s say you want to get people politically motivated behind your cause. First you write out an ancient “prophesy”, which claims to be by an ancient prophet, set in the past. Your “prophet” “predicts” things that you know already happened, making him look good. You can do better and have more detail leading up to the time you are writing, since you know more about recent history than older history. Then, write down sensational prophecies for the near future, which seem very likely since you just set up your prophet to have a bunch of good predictions. Then hide it, and conveniently “find” the “ancient” prophecy - or even better, put it somewhere where someone else will find it.
For example - say it is today. I write that I’m Abraham Lincoln having a revelation from God in 1850. I write that Lincoln foresees a great civil war, with hundreds of thousands dead on both sides of the mason-dixon line, then that I see a scientific idea that described how animals got here, and that it will cause controversy, then that I see a war in Europe, and the prohibition of alcohol in the US, then a great depression, followed by an evil german leader and another war, and the invention of the atomic bomb, then hippies and disco in the US, then describe in great detail the Monica Lewinsky incident and the war in Iraq, etc. Then I write that Lincoln sees the nation so fed up with Bush that the Republicans lose big in 2008, and are swept from office. Gay marriage and marijuana are legalized and by 2010, the Republicans are essentially non-existent, and about 80% of the US is Wiccan. Oh, and change that “prophecy” date from 1850 to 1853 - the odd number sounds more realistic. Then, I hide the “prophecy” and “discover” it in an old civil war trunk, and present it to the Democrats as a real prophecy by Lincoln. This energizes the Democratic base, allowing me to win the election in 2008. Of course, the rest doesn’t come true, but that’s not a big deal, since it did what I wanted it to do.See how these work? In all three cases, the “prophecies” are written well after the fact, and are vague at first since old history isn’t as well known as recent history. Then, the “prophecies” get very detailed, since recent history is easy to remember. Then the prophecies break down, since the writer is now really trying to predict the future, which is difficult to do. Hence, Daniel.Have a fun weekend, I’ll be out until Monday- Equinox

Look this is not some artist rendering or simulation but a aerial image of the city of Tyre. The causeway that Alexander built is now expanded so that the Island city of Tyre is a peninsula.http://www.earthspots.com/ExploreEarthSpot.php?NID=1211&MT=1 You most certainly have been deceived!There is no more island of Tyre! If you can find any information that it is not then please present it and overturn all that we have shown you. Please scan and post your photo. I will humbly capitulate if you can show this to be true. Psalm this point is not really debatable. Do your own research. You are really proving the point I often argue - personal testimony is not reliable.

I genuinely mean it this time after this, my next thoughts on Tyre will be in the other thread : )But I don't think all of what you all are saying adds up. One of you say Neb never conquered Tyre. Remember Tyre had two parts, land and sea, and from what I gathered, at least one of you were saying he never took either. However, what I had been saying, and at least one of you said as well was that he conquered the marketplace type land part. As for Neb not taking the island part, read the text:Eze 26:3 therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.
Eze 26:4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock.Many nations, not just Neb. Note also the change in pronouns after he's talking about what Neb will do:Eze 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground.
Eze 26:12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.He, He, He, THEY, The shift is that it is suddenly the many nations he is referring to.To jump back real quick, the verses you specify, 6 and 8, show that Neb is doing things to the mainland, not the island.On to other things.Thanks for reminding me of your previous post. I had forgotten about in the midst of everything else. I'll go to those at the end of this, for now, Daniel.If you Christian, it makes sense to believe Daniel, because Jesus believes Daniel, because he references Daniel. So now we are faced with a predicament: Either Daniel is wrong, and Jesus didn't know that, which makes him not the Son of God, and thus everything about Christianity to be in vain, or Daniel was correct, at least in this instance.(his reference)Mat 24:15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),Sorry for being a little slow, but just to clarify one of your statements: BCE would be BC correct? So 300 BCE would be 300 years before the year 0? And CE marks the beginning of time recording (0-2007?) Sorry, just want to be sure I understand. : )While I see your point about why people might create a post-hoc thing, my question is why would Daniel be? What benefit would it be for the one faking it up? And if it was, why would it still be here? The point is, even if none of the texts predate the time of Alexander, do they predate Rome? Rome is a major part of Daniel's predictions, and the things associated with Rome."They are vague and sometimes a little off at first" Where are they inaccurate? as for being vague at first, oftentimes it refers to events that are current, like Neb. ruling, so what would be the point of him going into great detail about his rule? They already know what is happening.Please go into more detail into what you think on Daniel. Give an example of someone who may have benefited from his writing. If so, why throw in the accounts of Daniels life, and the life if his three friends? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be an all out 'prophecy' without cluttering it up with stories?Sorry, this got long again, one more section! On to Equ. previous post:The different 10 Commandments is because it is two different times. Are you familiar with Moses? He broke the first two stone tablets, and thus had to re-write them. However, as he already knew what was going to be on them, there was no real need to re-say everything. Plus, if someone was going to write something, this would be kind of an obvious contradiction, don't you think? Someone wouldn't screw up on something like 10 Commandments.Herod: There were multiple herods, that may or may not explain, I'm no geneologist, I'll see what I can do to explain the other geneology things, but that isn't really my forte simply because I'm unfamiliar in that area.Peter denied three times. I looked in John and in Mark. Both say he will deny 3 times before the cock crows (exception is one of the accounts, I believe Mark, says it will crow twice.).If the writers of the Gospels were moved by the Spirit to write the Gospel, it would most likely have given them the knowledge of the events. Think of it this way, I tell you a story, and ask you to write it down, and I tell someone else the same story and ask them to write it down. Different people will accent different things, and pay more or less attention to others. There is a purpose to having multiple gospels, otherwise there would be just one.But I think that address most of them at least.

To avoid a "pile-on" I'll stick to just one subject. The author Daniel does not make Rome a major part of his "prophecies". Rome is mentioned - but only briefly and in passing. Daniel is very much focussed on the Hellenistic Empires that were founded by Daniel - especially the Seleucids - although the Ptolomies also have a role. Now maybe Jesus did beleive that Daniel's prophecies referred to events in his future. But if he did he was badly wrong.

Of course Jesus was ignorant. He was just man, totally 100% man. He had to learn how to go potty just like every other human.But he also talked to people using the idiom of the day, stories they were familiar with.The author of Matthew (or authors) cribbed from the Old Testament too. They quotemined and twisted material to support their assertions as do many Christians today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

PS 148 wrote: I’ll leave that one to Jar, who is Christian and doesn’t see a non-literalist understanding of the Bible as a problem. You are also assuming that the Gospel of Mark is correct that Jesus actually said that. The Gospels are known to have lots of stuff that is incorrect about Jesus, so if the Gosple of Mark is wrong, that doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist or whatever. Fundamentalists (who are sometimes called Bibolators - those idolators who use the Bible as their idol), sometimes put belief in the Bible ahead of belief in Jesus. You may be unconsciously doing that here. There are tons of motivations to do that - in a world of people, you know how often political pressures mount one way or the other. It need not be dishonest either. Whoever wrote Daniel could well have thought he was doing the best thing possible, even that this was a real prophecy. Just as with your friends who think that Tyre is still an island, pure motives do not guarantee pure results, and vice versa.Still being here is independent of it’s source. I don’t see why it wouldn’t still be here.Rome dates to the 8th century BCE ( I didn’t know that offhand, I just looked it up - you can too), so it predates Daniel by over a half a millennium. Personal stories and such are often added by forgers to make things look more realistic. Ancient people weren’t stupid any more than we are today. I’m mostly going by the scholarly opinion, since I don’t read Hebrew myself. Again, you can weigh the arguments and check credentials as well as I can. I’ve found that those arguing that Daniel is a second century writing have solid arguments and degrees, and those arguing for a 6th century date are fundamentalists with no education trying to make a buck by convincing people to Tithe. There are exceptions of course, but that’s most common. Here is one such source, among many: from Daniel Right. BCE = Before the Common Era, CE = Common Era. The 0 year is arbitrarily set 2007 years ago, around 3 years after Jesus was born.For the other items below, just as with much of the Tyre thing, the Biblical inerrantist position most often relies on changing, denying or ignoring what the text says. This is often done by adding things to the Bible to make it say something it doesn’t say, something that fits with history or resolves the contradiction. It’s ironic that this is done mostly by people who at least claim to respect the Bible (I’m referring to those who told Ps148 about how to resolve these, not Ps148 him or herself.)Here are some examples: No. The Bible says in Ex 34:1 And then confirms this in Ex 34:28 Don’t forget that very few ancient people could read, or even had the Torah. Plus, for years these were all separate books,and only later redactors put them together. Hence, there is nothing to catch and no one to catch it, until it is in copies far and wide. Understanding the history of the Bible helps with all this. Luke and Mt mention others (such as priests) that confirm which they mean. There is no way I’ve seen that resolves this conflict, which is discussed at length here: Luke 2:2 - Errancy Wiki Again, read the texts. Mk says Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows twice, John says Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows - hence, Bibolators usually say that Peter denied him 6 times (3 before the first cock crow, 3 more before the second). I’d copy them from Biblegateway.com, but I gotta go. So the gospels are just second hand descriptions of what some humans imperfectly remembered from what the spirit revealed to them? That doesn’t sound like a process that would give a perfect or reliable account - just like your friend’s picture of the island Tyre, we know that personal recollection is unreliable. Doesn’t the spirit guide everything to make sure it is perfect, complete, and accurate? If not, then we have to use our reason to figure out what parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject, which is what many Christians, like Jar, do.Gotta scoot. Have a fun weekend, and thanks for catching up on my previous post. I’ll have to skip the Tyre response on the other thread, but I think others will have that covered before Monday anyway.EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : typo

Granted, Jesus was man. He was the Son of God, however, and he is the one we are supposed to look to as an example. This can only truly be done if he was in fact a perfect man, who never sinned, and if he never sinned, it would make sense that he really knew the Scriptures. And what about the Jews? Why would they have included Daniel with the Scriptures? Assuming it was because someone wrote it in the manner you suggested, I doubt it would have worked. A prophet in Israel was immediatly known as a man of God, and that is why his works are "published". As such, Daniel had the book of Jeremiah, and (I cannot yet confirm this, but I think I can shortly) I believe there is evidence of books being held shortly after being written. So the "book" of Daniel would have been available to the people of Israel very quickly as opposed to being something that was "found".I'm no expert in linguistics, so I know nothing about the language style used in the books. If it is of any significance, Daniel was in the King's court, and would no doubt have been well educated, and may have used different speech then others at the time. I don't know if that holds any water or not. It probably doesn't, but just to throw it out there : ).On the article you posted, just to comment on one part of it: The Jews should have always believed in the Resurrection of the dead. That is one of the biggest and most important of beliefs, as they were descendents of Abraham, and he believed in the resurrection.There is a purpose to having four gospels. I know this won't make much sense, but if you'd like I'll try and elaborate a bit later.Rev 4:7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight.Each of the creatures it refers to is one of the gospel. The lion=matthew, ox=Mark, and so on. This is because each gospel depicts a different aspect of Christ ranging from King, Servant, Son of Man, Son of God.No Gospel says he will deny after the cock crows. Perhaps, in mark, the first cock crow was a warning to Peter. Imagine in his position how the first crow could be a trigger. He denied three times. Not six.The Spirit moves them and they write about the different aspects of Christ. Just because John only includes 8 Miracles Jesus did, and other accounts include more, doesn't mean there is a contradiction, it means john was looking at something else.Each account reveals something different. So some will skip somethings, emphasize others, and such.

a prophet in judah. or actually, in daniel's case, babylon.kings david and solomon ruled a united kingdom of israel, but after solomon's death, there was a dispute over who the rightful heir was. jeroboam ended up ruling the northern kingom of israel, and rehoboam ruled the southern kingdom of judah. they are different kingdoms, and often bitter enemies.starting in 597 bc, the kingdom of judah was attacked by babylon, and babylon began to take the jews into captivity. this happens in a number of waves, ending around 581 bc. the kingdom of israel was taken into captivity sometime earlier, from 740 bc to 720 bc, by the kingdom of assyria. assyria was subsequently conquered by babylon, and the israelites were either absorbed, lost, or killed. nobody, to this day, know what happened to the ten tribes from israel. in 537 bc, persia conquered babylon, and allowed the jews to return home to the kingdom of judah. i wont cite chapters and verses, but this is basically a summary of the books of samuel, kings, and chronicles.anyways, daniel was from judah, and was advisor to king nebuchadnezzar of babylon. he was not from israel. and the sons of jacob, according to law, do not just immediately recognize anyone who claims to speak for god.

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

​

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

---

daniel is partially written in aramaic, which is a colloquial (NON-HOLY) tongue. it's what the common people began speaking around the 4th century BCE, which puts daniel rather late, or indicates we have a translation. it also indicates the approximate time daniel must have been added to the canon: between about 400 BCE and 200 BCE (when the septuagint was compiled and translated). the language of the judean kings and high priests at the time of daniel would have been (biblical) hebrew. aramaic, coincidentally, was the language jesus spoke, at least to the populace at large, god, and himself.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

I know of Israel's history. I just kinda referred to Judah as Israel because they more fulfilled the role that Israel was supposed to fulfill.People tested to see if a sign came to pass. Daniel would have been known as an interpreter at least after his interpretation of Neb. dream of the image and then later his dream of the tree. Or even if they didn't accept those then once Persia took over as he predicted that as well.When the Septuagint was written, Daniel would have already had to have been part of the Scriptures at the time. For how long, we don't know, but it was likely not a recent addition.To retouch on a previous post: If Daniel was a fabrication, why use a royal person as the person to be receiving the dreams and prophecies? Daniel, according to the book, was a large figure, and no doubt had popularity among the Jews. Think about it, imagine the US was conquered by Russia, and yet we somehow have the vice-president of the new nation as an American, that is something we would be proud of, and would be known among everyone.
So Daniel is in this high position, with many things of great significance happening to him. Israel would know if this man was not who the book was claiming. Why, because the book places him as second in command over all of Babylon. Daniel's exploits would have been known to the people, and they would know if this new thing was in fact nothing.On a different note, what are some thoughts on this:
Isa 45:1 Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed:
Isa 45:4 For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.
A prophecy that names a man before he was born, as well as predicts the role he would play in helping Israel.Isa 45:13 I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward," says the LORD of hosts.Thoughts?

it's still a pretty big error -- one that usually indicates that someone doesn't know israel/judah's history, or hasn't understood the book of kings. which, granted, gets mildly confusing due to the switching back and forth. the version we have has to have been after aramaic began being used by the jews. that puts it after about 400 bc. so sometime between 400 and 200. it's possible that it is a partial translation (it is partly in classical hebrew), or has been reconstructed from a portion of an original and the translation, at about that time, and the text itself is actually older. i wouldn't totally dismiss that the dogmatically presumed date for the original book of daniel is incorrect -- the time around the exile was a very fertile period in jewish authorship. many of the books of the old testament were written near that time.as a side note, i'm not sure if you aware of the structure of the jewish canon. it comes in three sections, the torah ("the law," five books of moses), the nevi'im ("the prophets," joshuah, judges, samuel, kings, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, and 12 minor prophets), and the kethuvim ("writings," psalms, proverbs, job, five megillot, daniel, ezra, and chronicles). you can find a more detailed outline of the structure here.the interesting thing is that it provides a loose outline of when books were canonized, where the christian arrangement does not. kethuvim is kind of the "odds and ends" section, where books that were used in service (psalms) and the most recent writings of questionable holiness are kept. daniel is among the most recently canonized jewish texts of the tanakh (old testament), and is necessarily after isaiah and jeremiah. that should be obvious, actually. so this date doesn't come completely out of thin air; it's consistent with other factors. i am not arguing this point, i was merely providing historical context you seemed to be lacking, what with using the name of the wrong country.but the bible makes constant use of a particular theme: god manipulating the head of a foreign (occupying) nation. think exodus. the point is that god is the god of everyone, and it is by his consent only that anything happens to his particular favourite children, the sons of jacob. it is a message of hope -- if god can speak to nebuchadnezzar, and put daniel in a high place, surely he will save us from exile. again, the country you are looking for is "judah." it really does make a difference at this point in history. during the exodus, "israel" is the proper word. during the book of samuel, under david or solomon, "israel" is the proper word. but after that point in time, the tribes of judah and benjamin are abandoned by the other ten tribes, and form the nation of judah. for them, the proper word is "judah." what thoughts, in particular, are you looking for?this could be an issue where keeping the countries straight in your head is of utter importance. isaiah did not live to see the babylonian captivity, but he did write a fair deal about the assyrian exile of israel. in one famously misread chapter, he predicts that the assyrians will take over israel, and thus they will stop attacking judah.so this bit would almost certainly be talking about israel -- but as for setting the exiles free, it's a sad fact that almost nobody came home from assyria. the only tribe that was in israel that's still around today is levi, and that's because they lived in both countries.though, in what seems to be an odd coincidence, cyrus the second set judah free from babylon.

---

Hi, Ps. Once you start dissecting the Bible, you get into a can of worms. Especially debating those who have actually READ the book.If you start questioning the standing of Jesus when quoting Daniel, what do you make of Jesus referring to the Flood? (Matt24:37-39/Lu 17:26-28) Now we have multiple lines of evidence that the Flood never happened, and zero evidence that it did. Does this make Jesus:1. Mere man--with no knowledge of the past save tradition?2. God--who knew the non-existence of the Flood and deceived His followers?3. Star in the Gospels written by men who fabricated the words allegedly spoken?4. A complete Gospel fabrication?

I cannot discuss the flood because I do not know enough about all that would be involved to accurately say whether or not it could or could not happened (I know that there is a section dedicated to the discussion of the Flood). I do know, however, that scientists that know more than I do believe that the flood happened, and they must have some reason to do so.
I've never looked for them myself, but I have heard at least (like my brother watched and told me about one) about documentaries that explain both how the flood could have happened, and how it could have made things to how they are today in correspondence to a 7000 year old earth."Especially debating those who have actually READ the book." Out of curiosity, are you insinuating I haven't?Personally, I believe in a literal (for the most part, exceptions are prophecy in which we are often times told things represent something else) interpretation of what the Bible says. This includes floods, plagues, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as read, miracles done by Christ, 7 day Creation, and many others.However, to attempt to answer your question: (I'm going to do this as if I was now convinced that the flood never happened)1. This is what I would most likely believe.
2. I don't think Jesus is/was God in the first place. If God were to willingly write a book filled with deception, I have two comments: 1. Why? 2. If such were done, there would be no way to know what did happen and what was false, such as the Plagues, if people like Abraham and David existed or not, and other such questions.
3. So you mean that people misquoted him? I think if that is what happened, then we really have nothing to go on as to who he was and thus what he taught, and this whole thing of believing in God is rather pointless since then his plan couldn't be completed.
4. So an invention of the early gov't to control the masses: I doubt they could have done as good a job as they did, but I would probably go for the first as said earlier.On another note, I don't know if we are getting very far with this discussion, it seems everyone isn't exactly approaching this with an open mind, myself included. As such, nothing will really change about what we all think, and thus all of this will be in vain. So, I ask that if we are all going to take part in this, the least we can do is consider each others points and questions.