Revisiting Daniel

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Why would we expect these references?

I would expect them because Daniel is supposedly making prophecies that include the future of Palestine.[/quote']

I thought you were talking about what you expect the prophet to say in Daniel 2.

Quote:

In Daniel 11 the writer prophesies that a king of the south will attack the Greeks in Palestine under Antiochus, that the Greeks will win, conquer Egypt and most of NE Africa, and then the Greeks will return to Palestine where Antiochus will die. None of these prophecies came to pass, although Antiochus did die, but in Persia.

Please cite the texts you're referring to. I think you might be misunderstanding the prophecies there.

Quote:

Given the writer's interest in Palestine, some reference to other conquerers of Palestine and despoilers of Jersualem might have been expected.

The prophet is not giving information about the future of Palestine simply in order to tell everything that is going to happen. His purpose is to describe events that are of relevance to those studying the prophets and believed in God. That is why he doesn't talk about China and Russia or the people living in the Americas. He's addressing issues directly related to the Jews and to the Christian Church, the battle between good and evil, between the antichrist and Christ.

People could speculate all they want about why Daniel didn't write about other nations or other events. The fact that Daniel didn't do it is no evidence that he was not a good prophet. Whether he was a good prophet must be tested by those things he did write about, not those things he didn't write about.

[John317]

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- Has the ancient Roman Empire ever been united since it broke up about 470 AD?

What is your definition for the boundaries of the Roman Empire? As it was when it was proclaimed? As it was at whatever date might be assigned to its break up? At some intermediate date? What are the grounds for your choice?

North Africa from the Red Sea to Atlantic Ocean

Western Europe, including England, Spain, France, and Italy

Palestine, Turkey, and parts all the way to the Caspian Sea

The question is, have those territories ever been united again under a monolithic power?

In fact, has Western Europe ever been united again since those peoples were broken up in about 470 AD?

There were books published during WW2 which said that on the basis of Daniel 2, the authors were absolutely certain that Hitler would fail in his attempt to unite all of Europe under his power. They were right.

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- And can we define what we mean by break up? Into Eastern and Western Empires? When each of the two Empires fragmented individually? It can be argued that the Eastern Empire didn't break up until the sack of Constantinople in 1204, or even the fall of Byzantium in 1453.

The Eastern Empire was only part of the Roman Empire. When the Western Empire broke away and formed separate nations of Europe, that was the beak up of the Roman Empire. The prophecy does not say that any of various nations or parts would not be united in some fashion.

Historians are agreed that the Roman Empire collapsed between 395 and 476 AD. The fact that there continued to be an Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire does not in the slightest affect the more important fact that the united Roman Empire collapsed and ceased to exist. Notice that it was no longer "a united Roman Empire," and after AD 395, and there was a "permanent division."

See below, from the wikipedia, which agrees with other histories such as those by Gibbons, Durant, and Wells, etc.:

Quote:

... after the death of Theodosius the Great in 395, no single emperor would ever again hold genuine supremacy over a united Roman Empire. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 as Romulus Augustus was forced to abdicate by Odoacer. The Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire endured until 1453 with the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks led by Mehmed II. Therefore, it is difficult to give an exact date when the Roman Empire ceased to exist, but this article will focus on the empire from 27 BC to the permanent division in AD 395.

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- Almost any chosen date is arbitrary and suit the purpose of the point we wish to make.

Take a second look above. Was the Roman Empire united after 476 AD?

It seems to me that any arbitrariness would be in the form of denying that the Roman Empire ceased to be united after 476 AD.

Do you believe that the Eastern Roman Empire's existence alone showed that all of the Roman Empire was in fact united and still in existence in, say, 538 AD?

Again, we need to remember that the prophecy of Daniel 2 does not say every part of the fourth empire would become disunited with every other part.

[Michaelangelo]

John, once more I am sorry for my slowness in replying and I very much appreciate the effort you have gone to in your replies that come after the one I am replying to here. I will do my best to reply to your posts as time is available.

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

... Some of the greatest difficulties I see are the confusion the writer of Daniel shows when mixing together the Median and Persian Empires

I'm not sure what specifically you believe Daniel got confused about, but here is some information from the wikipedia which sheds light on the reasons that Daniel "mixed" the two kingdoms together. There are no grounds in the book of Daniel for separating an individual Median kingdom.

[John317]

I do not see that Daniel would have any grounds for failing to separate the Median and Persian (Achaemenid) Empires in prophecy as it is a fact that the two were distinct geopolitical entities, albeit sharing some common territory. A possible explanation for the apparent confusion is that the writer of Daniel was not confused at all. The prophecies of Daniel 2:32 and 8:3-7 have been argued as symbolizing the so-called Medo-Persian Empire in order to fit theprophetic sequence to the preferred historic sequence: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and yet in Daniel 5:28 the Medes and Persians are identified separately:

5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Does it say, "given to the Medes and to the Persians"? If it did, that would mean two different powers. On the other hand, "the Medes and Persians" refers to one kingdom.

Quote:

I do not see how anyone can reasonably understand this to mean that the kingdom of Babylon would be divided any way other than between the Medes and the Persians, i.e. between two separate kingdoms. Both Joshua and Jeremiah prophesied the destruction of Babylon by the Medes, and yet it was the Persians who accomplished this deed - or, at least, its conquest.

The Medes and the Persians joined forces to conquer the Babylonians. Daniel 6: 8 and 12 make it obvious that they are considered one power. The "law" (singular) of the Medes and Persians.

Would it be correct to say, "the law of the Russians and Americans"? Clearly not, and for obvious reasons.

If they are two separate powers, the only correct way would be to say, "the laws of the Medes and of the Persians," etc.

In both instances, the grammar of Daniel 6: 8, 12 shows that it is considered a single kingdom, not two separate kingdoms.

[Michaelangelo]

Bob, thanks for taking the time to reply to me and sorry it's taken so long to get round to answering your thoughtful post.

Is it your position that a writer during the time of the Greek empire who was commenting on history of the Persian empire would know LESS about the details of the Persian Empire than someone actually writing during the time of Daniel as they attempted to predict the future? Since you are claiming that his facts are not accurate and therefore he must be writing later than Daniel claims to be writing - you must then be arguing that people who look back at history -- are more likely to be LESS accurate than an earlier writer trying to predict the future.

And in that case -- I find your logic illusive.

[John317]

Quote:

Are you in fundamental agreement with the following:

BRIEF HISTORY OF MEDO-PERSIA

There seem to be no grounds for rolling Media and Persia into the sort of bipartite geopolitical entity that this title requires. It seems to be a case of assuming the desired conclusion.

I didn't devise the name. Historians did. That is how it sometimes occurs in history books.

[John317]

Quote:

In 549 BC, the Persians conquered the Medes to form Medo-Persia.

There was no such geopolitical entity as Medo-Persia; as you have mentioned before, the power referred to is properly known as the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

Whatever name you give it is irrelevant. The fact is that the Persians conquered the Medes and formed a union. "...a unified Iranian empire of the Medes and Persians, often referred to as the Achaemenid Persian Empire."

Let's call this unified empire of the Medes and Persians the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Since it is referred under different names, it is OK if you speak of it under one name and I another.

For review:

Quote:

The Medes were an ancient Iranian people who lived in the northwestern portions of present-day Iran. This area was known in Greek as Media or Medea, Old Persian ;da; adjective Median, antiquated also Medean). Under Assyrian rule, the Medes were known as---;yu. They entered this region with the first wave of Iranian tribes, in the late second millennium BC (the Bronze Age collapse).

By the 6th century BC, after having together with the Chaldeans defeated the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Medes were able to establish their own empire, which stretched from the southern shore of the Black Sea and Aran province (the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan) to north and Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and which included many tributary states, including the Persians, who eventually supplanted and absorbed the Median empire in the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

The Medes are credited with the foundation of the first Iranian empire, the largest of its day until Cyrus the Great established a unified Iranian empire of the Medes and Persians, often referred to as the Achaemenid Persian Empire, by defeating his grandfather and overlord, Astyages, king of Media.

[John317]

Quote:

The Medo-Persians conquered Babylon in 539 BC. This was prophesied by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah:

Isa.13:17ff. ñ about 713 BC, approximately 175 years beforehand.

Jer.51:11,28 ñ c. 595 BC, approximately 56 years beforehand.

Again, referring to the Achaemenid Empire as the Medo-Persians is misleading.

I don't object to that name of it, but I may sometimes refer to it under the name of Medo-Persia because that is how it often appears in books discussing that empire. If you want to refer to it under the Achaemednid Empire, that's fine. We both know what we're talking about, and that's what's important. But I'll try to remember Achaemednid Empire. The other name is so much easier, for one thing.

Quote:

The Medes are credited with the foundation of the first Iranian empire, the largest of its day until Cyrus the Great established a unified Iranian empire of the Medes and Persians, often referred to as the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

Quote:

Michaelangelo: Both Isaiah and Jeremiah promote the Medes as the power that would overthrow Babylon. Their prophecies concerning the permanent desolation of Babylon were wide of the mark as well.

It will be good to look closely into those prophecies.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- They were under the domination of Assyria until the 7th century BC.

Media was, but not Persia.

They were unless this is wrong:

Quote:

The earliest known record of the Persians comes from an Assyrian inscription from c. 844 BC that calls them the Parsu (Parsuaš) and mentions them in the region of Lake Urmia alongside another group, the Mādāyu (Medes). For the next two centuries, the Persians and Medes were at times tributary to the Assyrians.

David, do you have documentation that the Persians were not tributary to the Assyrians during this time?

[John317]

Quote:

In 549 BC, the Persians conquered the Medes to form Medo-Persia.

There was no such geopolitical entity as Medo-Persia; as you have mentioned before, the power referred to is properly known as the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

Do you have documentation that the only way one properly refers to this power is under the name, Achaemenid Persian Empire?

I know it is often referred to that way, but I don't see that referring to it under the name of Medo-Persia is considered in accurate. It is, after all, also called the Empire of the Medes and Pesians.

[John317]

Quote:

The Medo-Persian empire covered the entire Middle East and surrounding areas, and they ruled up until the rise of Alexander the Great in 331 BC.

The Achaemenid Empire was, in terms of geographical extent, the greatest empire of classical antiquity, the Roman Empire notwithstanding.

Strictly in terms of territory, the Achaemenid Persian Empire covered 6.5 million Km.

The Greek, or Macedonian Empire covered 5.9 million km

The Roman Empire 5.9 km.

The real importance of the Roman Empire did not lie in its size but in its actions and its influences, as I'm sure you realize.

[John317]

Quote:

Daniel 2:39a refers to Medo-Persia. The imageís breast and arms of silver represent Medo-Persia, one arm is Media, the other arm is Persia.

Daniel doesn't refer to Medo-Persia at all. Elsewhere Daniel refers to Media and Persia as two distinct kingdoms. The fiction of the Medo-Persian kingdom is necessary to validate earlier prophecies and to identify Rome as the fourth kingdom of Daniel s prophecy.

The denial that the second kingdom was the unified empire of the medes and Persians is obviously in order to avoid identifying Rome as the fourth kingdom of Daniel's prophecy.

If it is admitted that Rome is the fourth kingdom, a lot of other unpleasant things must follow: such as how did Daniel know about Rome dividing; how did Daniel know about the bishop of Rome becoming such a great figure in history and in the church; etc.

We know where the idea comes from that the second empire consists of Media alone.

The identification of the bear as representing both the Medes and the Persians goes far back in history to early Jewish Rabbis. Very early Christians also saw the 2nd power as representing Medo-Persia. For instance, Hippolytus and Porphyry (a pagan), Eusebius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Jerome.

The evidence from Daniel itself as to what he's referring to is overwhelming.

Consider again the evidence:

A) Does it say, "given to the Medes and to the Persians"? If it did, that would mean two different powers. On the other hand, "the Medes and Persians" refers to one kingdom.

The Medes and the Persians joined forces to conquer the Babylonians. Daniel 6: 8 and 12 make it obvious that they are considered one power. The "law" (singular) of the Medes and Persians.

Would it be correct to say, "the law of the Russians and Americans"? Clearly not, and for obvious reasons.

If they are two separate powers, the only correct way would be to say, "the laws of the Medes and of the Persians," etc.

In both instances, the grammar of Daniel 6: 8, 12 shows that it is considered a single kingdom, not two separate kingdoms.

In Daniel 7: 5, the reason the bear is higher on one side than the other is because the Medes and the Persians rule together, but the Persians became the higher power. The three ribs represent the three nations conquered by the Medes and Persians as they came to power: Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.

C) The two-horned ram of Daniel 8 represents the combined kingdom of the Medes and Persians. This is indisputable. Now since the unified kingdom of the Medes and Persians is represented by one symbol, the ram, it certainly makes sense-- especially in the light of all the other evidence-- that this unified kingdom is also represented by the bear in Daniel 7.

[John317]

Quote:

Daniel 7:5 refers to Media-Persia. The bear raising itself up on one side refers to Persia being greater than Media.

I see no grounds for determining this other than wishing it to be so. It could also be argued that the bear represents the Median Empire alone.

Why would we wish it to be so, unless that is what happened in history? Would you be willing to admit that it does describe exactly what took place?

Did not Media come up first, followed by Persia, which became dominant and the greater power?

What motive does anyone have for rejecting such an understanding? Could it be that he might be opposed to any idea that Daniel was right?

The Bear is portrayed as having three ribs in its mouth. Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that the bear only represents the Median Empire alone. If that is true, what do you believe is the significance of (a) the raising of itself on one side; ( the three ribs in its mouth between the teeth; and © being told to arise and devour much flesh?

[BobRyan]

Bob, thanks for taking the time to reply to me and sorry it's taken so long to get round to answering your thoughtful post.

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Is it your position that a writer during the time of the Greek empire who was commenting on history of the Persian empire would know LESS about the details of the Persian Empire than someone actually writing during the time of Daniel as they attempted to predict the future? Since you are claiming that his facts are not accurate and therefore he must be writing later than Daniel claims to be writing - you must then be arguing that people who look back at history -- are more likely to be LESS accurate than an earlier writer trying to predict the future.

And in that case -- I find your logic illusive.

I don't know why you take this from my argument. My argument is that the writer of Daniel displays inaccurate knowledge of the Achaemenid Empire and 'Darius the Mede'. Therefore either the prophesy is incorrect or else the writer is making up a prophesy

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Bob asks --

Is there an iron-and-stone blue print for Danil 11:40-45 that I have missed? I thought it was still in the "guess it must mean..." stage.

Quote:

Michaelangelo said -

My take is that these verses of Daniel refer to the rivalry between Antiochus and Ptolemy.

Vs 40-45 of chapter 11 are taking place wayyyy too late in the Dan 10-11 sequence to be a reference to anything before Christ.

And hence your problem in assuming that you have an iron-clad in-stone rendering for Dan 11:40-45 for proving a flaw. Step one -- find the well accepted in-stone rendering of the text.

So far you simply assume that salient point in your argument rather than proving.

Again - I find the logic illusive.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Bob asks

Is it your claim that a greek writer would have known that Rome would split into ten kingdoms (Dan 7) and that the dark ages would be 1260 years following that split (Dan 7) and that Papal rome would rise out of Pagan Rome (Dan 7) -- AND yet would NOT know to name it "Rome" whereas someone writing in Daniel's day during the Babylonian empire WOULD certainly have known to call it Rome? (in other words -- not calling it ROME was proof that the writer could not be writing in Daniel's day in Babylon since they all WOULD have known to call the 4th empire Rome while also knowing all those other details about it?)

This get's to your assertion that NOT naming ROME the 4th empire is proof that Daniel could not have been writing during the time of the Babylonian empire.

Quote:

Michaelangelo said -

There's a lot of unsupported asertions here - Rome splitting into ten kingdoms and 1260 years of dark ages to name two - even without addressing what a Greek writer may or not have been expected to know.

I would be happy to discuss those details - but first you have to find your initial claim that knowing the future name of the 4th empire would be expected of a writer in the days of the Babylonian empire and since Daniel does not name it -- he must have been writing during the time of the Greek empire.

Again - you use logic that I find totally illusive.

Quote:

Michaelangelo said -

My point was that, whether writing in the 6th or 2nd Centuries BC, the writer would have no reason to name Rome as the fourth kingdom because at neither time could the rise of the Roman Empire have been predicted.

I see - so your claim is that NOT naming the 4th empire is an indication that Daniel WAS probably writing at some early time -- and that certainly the Bayblonians would not have known that name as a world empire.

Quote:

On the other hand, around 170 BC Antiochus looked very much like the man of the moment.

HOW in the world did Antiochus of 170 BC look like a bigger hit than Alexandar the Great too ANYONE?!!!

Quote:

Michaelangelo said -

The point I was trying to make is that the failure to identify Rome as such is itself significant. There is little doubt that the Book of Daniel was originally penned at least as early as the late 2nd Century BC

I see that your intent is to push the book FORWARD in time no matter what the book says -- but I don't see how this "not knowing the name of Rome" is a fact driving the book FORWARD -- even CLOSER to the time of the rise of Rome?

If anything such a fact argues for EARLIER dates - not LATER ones.

As I said -- I find that logic illusive.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Bob said --

Is it your claim that the Ottoman empire or the British empire every owned all of Europe as did Rome??

Quote:

Absolutely not, but then neither did Rome.

As I said -- I find your logic illusive.

Quote:

Bob asks

DO ANY historians argue that the next major world empire to follow Greece -- was the Seleucid line of kings? Do they ever present the line of Selucid kings as being vastly superior to the one that Alexandar established -- that Daniel claims for Rome in Dan 8 and in Dan 7?

Quote:

Michaelangelo

What contemporary historians argue about the status of the Seleucid Empire bears no relation at all to what a writer contemporary to the Seleucid Empire may have thought about its likely future.

So the fact that Daniel writing in the time of Babylon and predicting those precise 4 empires -- with no one able to re-unite the former pagan Roman empire after it's split into ONE empire (hint that includes the Holy Roman Empire failing to get that same level of unity) -- should be imagines as a Greek writer looking for a selucid king to fill the role -- and failing badly?

Quote:

Do ANY historians argue that the 11th king of the Selucid dynasty usurped 3 of the prior kings? Do any of them argue that the 11th king was greater than all others and was known for persecuting the saints?

Quote:

Antiochus usurped Heliodorus, himself the murderer and usurper of Seleucus IV, as well as a young son of Seleucus IV (whom he murdered) and another son of Seleucus, the future Demetrius I, the rightful heir to the throne, left as a hostage in Rome. So, yes, the 11th King of the Seleucid Empire did exactly as you say.

1. Leaving a future as yet-unkinged personage hostage is not uprooting a prior king.

2. Are you sure Antiochus is number 11 -- which Antichous are you suggesting?

I thought Epiphanese IV (also called Epimanese)was 8th as well as being an incredibly minor king.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- and then when he misidentifies Persian Emperor Darius the Great as Darius the Mede...

What is the proof or strong evidence that Daniel misidentified him?

That Darius the Mede is not an historical figure found in any roughly contemporary records other than Daniel suggests that either such a person did not exist or was mistakenly identified. Clearly Babylon fell to the Achaemenid Empire armies of Cyrus the Great. This further points to the failure of the alleged prophecy concerning the fall of Babylon. It is also worth noting that while Darius I did, in fact, also conquer Babylon, this was in 522 BC following a rebellion. More grounds for the confusion displayed by the writer of Daniel and some evidence that the author of Daniel was writing some time after this event.

There was a time when the critics did not believe that Belshazzar existed, either. In fact, people used to say Daniel was wrong about a lot of things that they now know are true.

There's very good reason to believe that Darius the Mede was a throne name for Gubaru who was the military commander who attacked Babylon on Oct. 12, 539 BC. This was two weeks before Cyrus came to Babylon on Oct. 29. The Nabonidus Chronicle and the historian Xenophon tell about this man Gubaru. He was a Mede, a governor of Gutium, a province of Media. He helped Cyrus in the conquest of Babylonia. The Nabonidus Chronicle indiciates that Gubaru "installed governors in Babylon." This harmonizes with Daniel 6:1.

Gubaru governed Babylon for a full year. There is good evidence that this Gubaru served as king of Babylon for a short time. He died just before Cyrus took the title of king of Babylon in late fall of 538 BC. His death is recorded in the Nabonidus Chronicle-- which almost never recorded the deaths of anyone except members of royalty-- and then a few days later the same Chronicle says that "the wife of the king" passed away. Historians do not believe it was talking about the wife of Cyrus, because the Chronicle did not mention Cyrus coming to the funeral.

The conclusion is that the evidence makes it highly reasonable to conclude that Darius the Mede was the same person as Gubaru the Gutian and that he governed Babylon, within the Medo-Persian (or Achaemenid Persian Empire), as its local king (Daniel 6:6) from the autumn of 539 BC to the autumn of 538 BC.

For documentation, see William H. Shea, "An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period," 4 parts, Andrews University Seminary Studies 9, 10 (January 1971 to July 1972). See also William H. Shea, "Darius the Mede and Daniel His Governor " (research paper, Andrews University, 1978).

For the Nabonidus Chronicle, see Pritchard, Texts, p. 306.

For information from Xenophon, see Cyropeadia, 7. 5; 4.6.2.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- It is entirely possible, even likely, that "Darius" is the throne name of someone who was known by a different, personal name before being appointed to the rulership of Babylon. Didn't this happen in the ancient Near East? Tiglath-pileaser III assumed a throne name as did also Shalmaneser V.

Quote:

Michaelangelo--- I disagree. It is at least equally likely that the identification of Darius the Mede is, just as it appears to be, an error. If you want to argue that it is even likely that Darius is a throne name, you need to provide evidence that this is so. Why would Daniel refer to the king by a throne name that is nowhere else referenced by contemporary records? Does he do this elsewhere? No evidence is available that Darius is a throne name and your argument is entirely speculative.

Are you in agreement that assuming throne names did happen in ancient times?

I think it's important to provide the evidence again, on this post:

There was a time when the critics did not believe that Belshazzar existed, either. In fact, people used to say Daniel was wrong about a lot of things that they now know are true.

I do not know of anything in the book of Daniel that anyone has established beyond question is not true or factual. If you know of anything, I really would like to know what it is. The issue of Darius could not be one of those because everyone recognizes that he is simply not identified, so that is far different from knowing for a fact that Daniel was wrong about him.

Later on we can discuss some things which Daniel said, which only someone living at that time could have known. It is something that a writer of the second century BC would not have known but which we know today because of archeology.

There's very good reason to believe that Darius the Mede was a throne name for Gubaru who was the military commander who attacked Babylon on Oct. 12, 539 BC. This was two weeks before Cyrus came to Babylon on Oct. 29. The Nabonidus Chronicle and the historian Xenophon tell about this man Gubaru. He was a Mede, a governor of Gutium, a province of Media. He helped Cyrus in the conquest of Babylonia. The Nabonidus Chronicle indiciates that Gubaru "installed governors in Babylon." This harmonizes with Daniel 6:1.

Gubaru governed Babylon for a full year. There is good evidence that this Gubaru served as king of Babylon for a short time. He died just before Cyrus took the title of king of Babylon in late fall of 538 BC. His death is recorded in the Nabonidus Chronicle-- which almost never recorded the deaths of anyone except members of royalty-- and then a few days later the same Chronicle says that "the wife of the king" passed away. Historians do not believe it was talking about the wife of Cyrus, because the Chronicle did not mention Cyrus coming to the funeral.

The conclusion is that the evidence makes it highly reasonable to conclude that Darius the Mede was the same person as Gubaru the Gutian and that he governed Babylon, within the Medo-Persian (or Achaemenid Persian Empire), as its local king (Daniel 6:6) from the autumn of 539 BC to the autumn of 538 BC.

For documentation, see William H. Shea, "An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period," 4 parts, Andrews University Seminary Studies 9, 10 (January 1971 to July 1972). See also William H. Shea, "Darius the Mede and Daniel His Governor " (research paper, Andrews University, 1978).

For the Nabonidus Chronicle, see Pritchard, Texts, p. 306.

For information from Xenophon, see Cyropeadia, 7. 5; 4.6.2.

[John317]

Quote:

My understanding is that the identity of Darius the Mede is still a matter of some dispute. Some of the candidates include two Persian kings, two Median kings, and two Persian governors. But so far they are only candidates, far from certain.

The dispute existing, presumably, only because otherwise the error of the prophecy has to be recognized? Do you have any references?

References given on previous posts.

I could quite easily and logically throw the question back, why do people seek so desperately to disprove the prophecy except for not wanting to admit that predictive prophecy, and perhaps God, exists?

You know, there was a time when people used to say that Moses could not have written the Torah because they didn't have writing back in Moses time.

The things that caused people to doubt prophecy and the Bible, but which have been proven to be true, are numerous. Perhaps some time we should devote a whole thread to those things.

Quote:

If Darius is correctly identified as a Mede, it seems unlikely that there would be a Median king of Babylon untilafter the Achaemenid conquest. Therefore it seems clear that the most likely explanation is that Darius the Mede has been confused by the writer of Daniel with either or both Cyrus the Great and Darius I.

Question dealt with on previous two posts.

[John317]

[Michaelangelo]

John and Bob, thanks again for your thoughtful posts. You have raised many interesting points. I will respond (slowly!) as time permits.

[Michaelangelo]

Do you believe that the book of Revelation contains references to Rome in symbolic language?

The Book of Revelation certainly contains symbolic language and references which have been subject to diverse interpretations, one of which suggests that Rome is at least partly its subject. On the other hand, as the Wiki article points out, individuals as widely different in their viewpoints as Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther and John Calvin viewed Revelation with varying degrees of distaste and scepticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

[John317]

All that is true, but I was interested in your own personal viewpoint of Revelation, whether you believe it contains references to Rome.