BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Daniel 9:24-27
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The biogeographic evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Daniel 9:24-27
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I can rephrase:
1) The author(s) of "Daniel" wrote, in your opinion, as late as the Maccabean period, 2nd century BCE
2) "Daniel" predicts that 483 years elapse between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the death of Messiah for all human sin
3) This means "Daniel" predicts the Messiah dies on Passover in 30 CE!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The death of Messiah for all human sin was predicted for Passover, 30 AD, not the cessation of sin.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
"It's not a belief about "atonement of all mankind", it's a prophecy, "MAKE AN END OF SIN" is what the text says. Either the author wrote late about the Maccabees and felt he should like about atonement, or the book is what I think it is, a predictor of Jesus."
gnostic
The Lost One
You are still talking about Daniel as if he is a actual historical person...he isn’t.
It was Cyrus who captured Babylon, not this “Darius the Medes”. And this Darius the Mede, a son of Xerxes, also don’t exist.
BilliardsBall, you are making them all up, or you are simply illiterate.
It talk of “Seventy Sevens” in 9:24, and then “seven sevens” and “sixty-two sevens” in 9:25-26. And while verse 25, do add up 483, but they are adding the total number of weeks, hence 483 days, not 483 years.
These calculated numbers are total numbers of days, not years.
Each times, it referred to “sevens”, they are talking about “weeks”...soon it become clearer, to refer these as in 70 weeks and 7 weeks plus 62 weeks.
Lastly, it say nothing about Passover, and there was no destruction of the city or temple at Jesus’ demise.
Genus is a taxanomic grouping of similar and related species. It is the first name used in the binomial name of a species. Homo sapiens is in the genus Homo, for instance. Subspecies is a taxonomic category beneath species and is expressed as a trinomial. A subspecies is a geographically isolated population of a species. Darwin hypothesized that a species in a large genus should also have a large number of subspecies.
A student recently found the evidence to warrant accepting the hypothesis.
One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved
A student recently found the evidence to warrant accepting the hypothesis.
One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved
ecco
Veteran Member
Nope. Perhaps you do not know what the word "unequivocally" means.
D9:24-27 is just a whole lot of words that don't really say much of anything.
However, I'll give you one more chance. Please extract those portions from D9:24-27 that unequivocally shows this prophecy.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
"It's not a belief about "atonement of all mankind", it's a prophecy, "MAKE AN END OF SIN" is what the text says. Either the author wrote late about the Maccabees and felt he should like about atonement, or the book is what I think it is, a predictor of Jesus."
How did the Maccabees atone for sin or make an end of it? They turned a subjugate state into a vassal state.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I keep putting "Daniel" in quotation marks, still, so you know I'm referencing the title for the book of the Bible, not a specific person.
I know that's why you put "weeks" in quotes because you believe "shabuas" or "SEVENS" is WEEKS. 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem brings us to Jesus's atoning death on Passover 30 AD, fulling the "Daniel" prophecy in "Daniel" 9 to MAKE AN END OF SIN.
The Maccabees turned a subjugated state into a vassal state, which is not MAKING AN END OF HUMAN SIN.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Are you trying to say that "make an end to sin" and "cessation of sin" are different things?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I'm saying that I read it as "pay for sin"--sin has biblical consequences, but whether we say "end sin" or "pay for sin" or "human sin will cease", the Maccabees accomplished this:
They turned a subjugate state into a vassal state.
Jesus clearly fulfilled the prophecy, which date comes into play on Passover 30 AD!
gnostic
The Lost One
Excuse me, but Jesus didn’t because he was never king of unified Israelite kingdom, never unite and rule the 12 tribes, and Jesus certainly never ended sin.
So Jesus didn’t fulfill any of these messianic prophecies.
Nothing in the messianic prophecies included anyone being born half human and half god, and nothing about virgin birth. Matthew 1:22-23 is a complete misrepresentation of the original sign Isaiah 7:14-17, because the gospel left out 3 vital verses from Isaiah’s sign. The sign was meant to be fulfilled during Ahaz’s reign, when his kingdom was invaded by Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel; the sign was about Assyrian intervention, when the boy reach a certain age...so the sign had nothing to do with the boy being a messiah.
You are still ignoring the fact that the Book of Daniel wasn’t written by Daniel (a mythological character), and there is no one by that name, being contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus.
In the Cyrus Cylinder, there are absolutely no mention of this Daniel; in fact, there is no mention of Jews, Jerusalem or its temple.
And another fictional character in this book (beside Daniel), is Darius the Mede. It was Cyrus, not this fictional Darius who conquered Babylon, and it was Cyrus who gave freedom of worship and rebuilding of temples and shrines to all in Mesopotamia.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
From memory, Alexander won the Persian Empire from Darius III. So there was no Darius the I, eh?
I kept writing "Daniel" so you know what Bible book I'm referring to.
Where does "Daniel" 9:24-27 say Jesus will reign over a unified 12-tribe Israel in His First Advent?
gnostic
The Lost One
BilliardsBall, according to Daniel 9:1-2 and Daniel 11:1, Daniel stated that he was contemporary to Darius the Mede in his 1st year of reign. And in 10:1, contemporary to Cyrus II’s 3rd year.
But you are now saying, this Darius the Mede, is the same person as Darius III, whom Alexander defeated him at Gaugamela in 331 BCE and took over Persia in 330 BCE?
How can Daniel be contemporary to Darius III, who ruled 2 centuries later?
Perhaps, you mean Darius I (520 - 486 BCE), but this Darius I is a Persian, not a Mede, and his father was Hystaspes, not Ahasuerus (9:1).
Although ancient Persians and Medes were Iranian stocks and speak Iranian languages, they are not same.
According to the lineages of Cyrus II and Darius I, they are uncle and nephew. Both their ancestors go all the way back to Achaemenes, who was Cyrus’ great, great grandfather. This is why their dynasty is called Achaemenid dynasty and Achaemenid Empire.
Darius III was a descendant of Darius I, but only through his mother.
I think you are barking the wrong tree, when you trying to equate the fictional Darius the Mede with other real historical “Persian” Darius, just because they shared the same name..
kiwimac
Brother Napalm of God's Love
Genesis 1 and 2 are not concerned with the HOW but the WHY, things exist because God desires them to exist. That God used the processes of physics and chemistry to do this in 14 or so BY does not remove the desire of God to create.
gnostic
The Lost One
Ah, no.
The creation story isn’t really important at all.
Genesis is about God’s relationship with man, from Adam to Jacob. The story of creation, Adam, Noah and flood, are merely backstory to the main theme: the covenant to the 3 patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The Creation and Eden myth had nothing to do with science, whatsoever.
It is moral story - like a parable or allegory - meaning God wanted faith and obedience from Adam and Eve.
The problem with modern creationists is they are trying to twist Genesis myth into science and natural phenomena, which it isn’t.
All they (creationists) do is put the Bible under unwanted scrutiny of ignorance the authors were in regarding to science. The creationists have turned the Bible into a circus acts.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Darius the Mede is not to be confused with the later Pers. monarch, Darius I Hystaspes (521-486 b.c.), for he was of Median extraction (“of the seed of the Medes,” Dan 9:1 KJV), and his father’s name was Ahasuerus (the Heb. equivalent of “Xerxes,” the name of the son of Darius I. See Esth 1:1). Darius the Mede was born in the year 601/600 b.c., for at the fall of Babylon in 539 b.c. he was sixty-two (Dan 5:31).
A major assumption of negative higher criticism has been that the Book of Daniel was authored by an unknown writer of the Maccabean age (c. 164 b.c.) who mistakenly thought that an independent Median kingdom ruled by Darius the Mede followed the fall of Babylon and preceded the rise of Persia under Cyrus. Darius the Mede, however, is not depicted in the book as a universal monarch. His subordinate position (under Cyrus) is clearly implied in the statement that he “was made king (Heb. passive, homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans” (9:1 KJV). Also, the fact that Belshazzar’s kingdom was “given to the Medes and Persians” (5:28) and that Darius found himself incapable of altering the “law of the Medes and Persians” (6:15) renders the critical view untenable.
The early 20th cent. publication of additional cuneiform texts from this period has enabled one to understand much better the circumstances surrounding the fall of Babylon in 539 b.c. It seems quite probable that Darius the Mede was another name for Gubaru, the governor under Cyrus who appointed sub-governors in Babylonia immediately after its conquest (“Nabonidus Chronicle,” ANET, 306; cf. Dan 6:1). This same Gubaru (not to be confused with Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, the general under Cyrus who conquered Babylon and died three weeks later, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle) is frequently mentioned in cuneiform documents during the following fourteen years as “Governor of Babylon and the Region Beyond the River” (i.e., the entire Fertile Crescent). Gubaru thus ruled over the vast and populous territories of Babylonia, Syria, Phoenicia, and Pal., and his name was a final warning to criminals throughout this area (cf. J. C. Whitcomb, Darius the Mede [1963], pp. 10-24). The fact that he is called “king” in the sixth ch. of Daniel is not an inaccuracy, even though he was a subordinate of Cyrus. Similarly, Belshazzar was called “king,” even though he was second ruler of the kingdom under Nabonidus (5:29). Source: Darius the Mede - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway
gnostic
The Lost One
BilliardsBall, now you are making up.
The only thing you have said right, is that Darius the Mede isn’t Darius I (son of Hystaspes)...but I had already told that in my previous reply.
There was no king of the Medes by the name of Darius the Mede or Darius son of Ahasuerus (or Darius son of Xerxes) contemporary to Nabonidus, Belshazzar and Cyrus II...because Darius the Mede is fictional character created only in the book of Daniel. Nor were there any general or governor by these name, serving Cyrus. No other books mentioned Darius the Mede.
As to Darius son of Xerxes, he is another fictional character in book of Esther. Perhaps in Esther, the author confused Xerxes son of Darius I.
The last native Medes ruling Median empire in Cyrus’ time, was Astyages (Ishtuvegu) son of Cyaxares, reigning from 585 to 550 BCE. Cyrus defeated Astyages in 550 BCE, and became the new king of Media. And when Cyrus captured Babylon, the only king of Media present, was Cyrus himself; Cyrus then became the king of Babylon, as well as being king of Media, and king of Persia.
Astyages was related to Nebuchadnezzar’s family by marriage, and his father Cyaxares (reign 625 - 585 BCE) was ally of Nebuchadnezzar’s father, Nabopolassar (626 - 605 BCE), in ending the Neo-Assyrian empire in 612 BCE, by capturing both Assur and Nineveh.
Darius the Mede isn’t the Book of Daniel only mistakes, BilliardsBall. The author of Daniel, repeatedly and mistakenly referred to Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar II, except the only son Nebuchadnezzar had, was Amel-Marduk (562 - 560 BCE), who immediately succeeded him.
Amel-Marduk was succeeded by Neriglissar (560 - 556 BCE), was not related to Amel-Marduk. Nabonidus (556 - 539 BCE) succeeded Neriglissar’s son Labashi-Marduk (556) after Nabonidus murdered him.
Nabonidus was Belshazzar’s father, not Nebuchadnezzar II. And it was Nabonidus, who was king of Babylon, and ruled the Neo-Babylonian empire, not his son Belshazzar. Belshazzar was merely a governor of Babylon, he was no king.
The book of Daniel is so unreliable when it comes to history, and that can only happened if Daniel was written much later, to get so many historical figures wrong and relating people who don’t exist.
Ps
You do realize that the Nabonidus Chronicle was written during Cyrus’ reign, not during Nabonidus’ reign? The Nabonidus cylinders were composed in Nabonidus’ reign.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The author of "Daniel" was spot on regarding Rome, its breakup into two parts--Eastern and Western--the coming of the Christ, and more.
You are making big decisions based on archaeology, not just written, documented history. That's risky, since often, the Bible is superior--until archaeology catches up. I'm read some verses and thought of you this week (note the remarks regarding the miracle that is modern Israel):
Isaiah 41...
But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend,
9
I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, `You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
10
So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.
11
"All who rage against you will surely be ashamed and disgraced; those who oppose you will be as nothing and perish.
12
Though you search for your enemies, you will not find them. Those who wage war against you will be as nothing at all.
But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend . . .
gnostic
The Lost One
It still doesn’t change the facts that the Book of Daniel wasn’t written in the 6th century BCE, and there no contemporary sources to Nebuchadnezzar II, Nabonidus and Cyrus II that speak of this Daniel, or that of Darius the Mede.
The absence of these fictional characters in the Book of Daniel in the Nabonidus cylinders and the Cyrus cylinder, which suggest that these 2 characters weren’t contemporary to these historical rulers of Neo-Babylonian empire and the Achaemenid Empire.
You had claimed that Darius the Mede being governor of Babylon, a subordinate of Cyrus, and yet, the Cyrus cylinder and Nabonidus verses don’t say anything about Darius the Mede.
And there have no Mede rulers since Cyrus defeated Astyages, who was the last ruler of Median Empire. What was once Media, were now part of Cyrus’ growing empire.
It is better to go by any contemporary records than texts that were written later...and in the case of Daniel, centuries later.