It is time now to begin the evidence portion of this series of posts. I will begin by giving an overview of each biblical story in Daniel as we come to them. I will then analyze each story with respect to its logic and what we know from the history of the supposed time. A pattern of descrepancies will emerge that cannot be satisfactorially explained under the assumption that the book of Daniel is as the bible portrays it ... a book written by a 6th Century BCE Jewish prophet who had risen to become a high-ranking official in the court of at least 4 rulers of the Babylonian - Persian courts.
1.1 Summary of Chapter 1 According to the first chapter of Daniel, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon lays siege to
Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. Daniel and his friends; Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, are taken away to Babylon and chosen to undergo 3 years of training to serve at the king’s court because they are of royal blood, handsome, “skillful in all wisdom, cunning in knowledge and understanding science”. These four remain true to the Jewish traditions by forsaking the rich food Nebuchadrezzar had offered them and instead live off of vegetables and water. Despite this diet they are fatter, and better nourished than the others who were similarly chosen. They distinguished themselves above the others and were given new names: Daniel becomes Belteshazzar, Hananiah becomes Shadrach, Mishael becomes Meshach, and Azariah becomes Abednego. Daniel especially showed a talent for being able to interpret dreams. He was “ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers in [Nebuchadrezzar’s] realm”.
1.2 Analysis
The first thing a skeptic notices is that the tone of the chapter is like that of a fable, complete with a moral. Daniel and his friends suffer the adversity of being taken away captive into a foreign land. However, they keep their faith when it would have been easy to forsake it and prosper for it. There is not necessarily anything wrong with this, but it does increase the level of skepticism.
The second thing to note is that there are some curious minor discrepancies in it. All extant early copies of Daniel (the earliest of which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and dates to about 150 BCE) spell the king of
Babylonia’s name Nebuchad-N-ezzar. The proper spelling (and found in some copies of bible books such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel which date back to that time) is Nebuchad-R-ezzar. The N → R replacement took place during the writings of the Persian period, a hundred years or so after the supposed time of Daniel.
Third, its history does not conform to that generally accepted for its time. Daniel says “King” Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to
Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. That would be 605 BCE. However, Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to
Jerusalem twice, once in 597 BCE and again in 586 BCE. The history of the time is as follows:
Pharaoh Necho (610–595 BCE, 26th dynasty) killed King Josiah of Judah (an ally of the Babylonians who along with the Medes had conquered the Assyrians) in a battle at Miggedo. This eventually led to Judah becoming a vassal state of
Egypt. Necho set up one of Josiah’s sons, Jehoiakim (whose name was changed from Eliakim) as king (II Kings 24:23; II Chronicles 36:4). This was done in 608 BCE. Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years.
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim Nebuchadrezzar was not king. His father, Nabopolasar, was still alive and king (He would die a short time later and Nebuchadrezzar would succeed him). That year (605 BCE) Prince Nebuchadrezzar led Babylonian forces against Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish (in present-day
Syria) and defeated him. By all accounts Nebuchadrezzar battled the retreating Egyptians all the way back to their eastern border. Nebuchadrezzar would have been very unwise to have diverted troops to lay siege to
Jerusalem at that time. The conflict with the Egyptians ended when Nebuchadrezzar heard of his father’s death. He hurried back to
Babylon to take over the throne. In the year 604 BCE, he consolidated his kingdom by obtaining submissions from some of the lesser kings, including Jehoiakim, but this was done without a siege.
In 601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar fought a particularly costly battle with the Egyptians, which caused him to withdraw and rebuild his forces. During the next two years he stayed in
Babylon putting down some local uprisings. It was at this time that Jehoiakim sensed a window of opportunity and rebelled against him. This is what set the stage for the first siege of
Jerusalem which ended with Jehoiakim’s death. It was the first time any significant numbers of Jews were carried away from Jerusalem to
Babylon.
The Jews rebelled again and Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to
Jerusalem a second time in 586 BCE destroying the city and the first temple at that time. This time he took the entire population with him back to
Babylon. This is the start of the Jewish exilic period.
According to the book of Daniel, Daniel (the supposed author of the book) becomes a high-ranking official under 4 different kings and 3 different empires. It would be surprising that he would confuse the date of his incarceration by at least eight years.
But this leaves open the question, “How could the author of Daniel make that mistake?” One possibility is that the author (whoever he may have been) misunderstood the account in II Kings in which it says that Jehoiakim became a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar for 3 years and thought that was all the time that Jehoikim ruled. However, historical records clearly indicate that Jehoiakim reigned 11 years.
While these mistakes are fairly minor, they are just the first of many more to come as we shall see as we examine the upcoming stories in Daniel. If the bible is inerrant word of God as extreme bible believers claim, no mistake no matter how small should be there ... even these. By the time we complete our overview of the book of Daniel mistakes of this sort will be so glaring that it will become apparent that the book of Daniel could not have been written by the character Daniel. In other words, it is a forgery.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
would you please explain this:
It is still claimed in some circles that Dan 1:1 and Jer 46:2 are in conflict and yet recent discoveries have shown that each is using different dating techniques. [contra Rowley (1950): 156; Porteus, 25-6; Farrar, 45-6; Davies (1988): 29-30; Larue, 405); Lacocque (1979): 7; Collins (1984): 51, (1992): 29; McNamara (1970): 132; Montgomery, 72-3; Taylor; Heuvel, 4-5]
As Richards points out "[n]o Jew writing the Book of Daniel in the second century B.C. would have gone against Jeremiah 46:2 and dated the invasion using a Babylonian system [that was] three centuries out of date." He notes that this is "a most compelling argument for fifth-century authorship." [page 210; see also Hasel (Spr. 1981): 48-9; (1986): 118-21] "Had the author of Daniel been an unknown Jew of the second century B.C. as critical scholars have been wont to insist, it is unlikely that he would have followed the obsolete Babylonian chronological system of computation in preference to his own Palestinian method, which had the sanction of so important a personage as the prophet Jeremiah." [Harrison (1969): 1112-3; Emery, 21 notes that these "too-obvious blunders" could have been removed "by any later copyist or editor"; see also page 113.]
On this issue Waltke writes, "But how can one square the statement in Daniel 1:1 that Nebuchadnezzar in his first year as king besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim with the statement in Jeremiah 25:1, 9; 46:1 that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho in the fourth year of Jehoiakim?
Edwin Thiele harmonizes this conflicting date by proposing that Daniel is using the Babylonian system of dating the king's reign whereas Jeremiah is using the Palestinian system of dating [The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 163, 165].
In Babylonia the year in which the king ascended the throne was designated specifically as 'the year of accession to the kingdom,' and this was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of rule. In Palestine, on the other hand, there was no accession year as such, so that the length of rule was computed differently, with the year of accession being regarded as the first year of the king's reign.
David Conklin, 'Evidences Relating to the Date of the Book of Daniel', 2000
Thank you.
Source: http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?s=551beb4f589e09c3d73022f14bb8bce3&showtopic=7345&pid=223397&st=30&#entry223397
I found something regarding the dating systems:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Regnal.html
But it is too complex for me to understand it. Would you read it and present it in a more understandable form?
Thank you
I wont read it, but I am familiar with the argument.
Here is the problem.
The book of Daniel says that Daniel was carried away to Babylon in the 3rd year of the reign of Johoiakim. This supposedly happened after "King" Nebuchadrezzar laid seige to Jerusalem. The book of Jeremiah says that Nebuchadrezzar fought the Battle of Carchemesh in the 4th year of the reign of Johoiakim.
What extreme-bible believer claims is that:
(1) Jeremiah's fourth year of the reign of Johoiakim corresponds to Daniel's third year of the reign of Johoiakim. The rationale behind this is that Judah dated the reign of their kings from the moment they took over. Babylonian records suggest that they did not begin dating the reign of their kings until the first new year after they became King. They say that Jeremiah was in Judah all the while he wrote Jeremiah so it is reasonable that he would use the Jewish system. But Daniel lived most of his life in Nebuchadrezzar's court so it is reasonable that he would use the Babylonian system.
So let's pretend that both the Jews and the Babylonians used the same calender we use today. Let's further suppose that Johoiakim took over on say ... March 608 BCE. Nebuchadrezzar fought the Battle of Carchemesh in say ... April 604 BCE. Under the Jewish system (the one Jeremiah supposedly used) that would be the 4th year of Johoiakim's reign. While under the Babylonian system (the one Daniel supposedly used) that would be the 3rd year of Johoiakim's reign. The time period between March and December would have been referred to as Nebuchadrezzar's Regnal Year.
(2) During the time that Nebuchadrezzar fought the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemesh he could also have instituted a seige of Jerusalem after which he carried away Daniel.
They see this a resolution to the problems in Daniel.
I find this incredibly lame, but unfortunately typical of extreme bible-believer apologetics. There is so much wrong with this I have a hard time coming up with a place to start.
(1) Nebuchadrezzar NEVER put up a seige against Judah in 604 BCE.
(2) Nebuchadrezzar fought the Battle of Carchemesh in 605 BCE datable by sources independent of the bible.
(3) Nebuchadrezzar after defeating the Egyptians at Carchemesh chased them all the way back to Egypt. He had no time to lay seige to Judah, nor could he afford to divert troops to Judah to do so.
(4) At the Egyptian border Nebuchadrezzar learned of the death of his father (the actual KING at the time of the Battle of Carchemesh) and he returned to Babylon 3 weeks later. Thus, he had no time to lay seige to Jerusalem after he fought the Egyptians.
(5) There is no independent evidence that the Babylonians ever recognized a Regnal Year for the kings of other countries.
(6) There are literally hundreds of other problems with Daniel. Many of these significantly more serious than this one. These problems all paint a consistent picture that Daniel was not written in the 6th Century BCE but instead was written in the 2nd Century BCE. Extreme bible-believers come up with similar incredulous apologetics to harmonize those but it is pitifully lacking in critical thinking.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I'm sorry to disagree with your skepticism, but THERE IS historical evidence. Either you may have been unaware of the historical evidence before your critique of the Book of Daniel, or you willing suppressed the evidence. I would like to believe the former.
1-4) First, you claim that Nebuchadnezzar never went against Jerusalem in 604BC or 605BC. Negative evidence is not historical scientific proof.
We have just encountered the so-called contradiction that the skeptics are quick to point out. They claim that Nebuchadnezzar did not besiege Jerusalem in 605 B.C. and that there are no records to prove it. In the latter, the critics are almost correct. Both II Kings and II Chronicles are surprisingly silent about this event. Even Josephus does not record any such siege against Jerusalem in this period of time. However, there are at least a few indications that there was interaction between Judah and Babylon in 605 B.C.
First, the Hebrew word “besieged” in Daniel 1:1 is tsuwr which can either mean:
1) to besiege, or
2) to show hostility to, be an adversity, treat as foe
(according to The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 21st Century Edition, James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D.) It is quite probable that with the defeat of Pharaoh Necho II, Egypt’s vassal states became Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion. There was no need for Nebuchadnezzar to lay siege to Jerusalem, and already being in the area, his army simply “showed hostility towards” Jerusalem and required tribute.
Daniel 1:1,2 was written by Daniel some time after he was taken captive to Babylon and is meant to be a summary of the events in Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem that occurred over several years. It is even possible to infer from this passage that Daniel may have been taken captive during any of these subsequent years; however, according to Daniel 2:1, Daniel was living in Babylon during King
Nebuchadnezzar’s 2nd year so he was obviously part of one of the first groups to be exiled from Jerusalem in 605 B.C.
Although, no exact historical record indicates that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem in 605 B.C., there is an indication that there was some interaction between Jerusalem and Nebuchadnezzar. In quoting a Babylonian priest by the name of Berosus, Josephus writes, “Being informed ere long of his father’s death, Nebuchadnezzar settled the affairs of Egypt and other countries. The prisoners – Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and those of Egyptian nationality – were consigned to some of his friends, with orders to conduct them to Babylonia, along with the heavy troops and the rest of the spoils; while he himself, with a small escort, pushed across the desert to Babylon.” (Josephus Against Apion 1.19, underline, mine) Note the inclusion of Jews from other countries.
5) The claim that there is no proof of the reginal year dating system in Babylon.
First of all, before I start, I need to settle once and for all the question of recording the reigning monarchy of the kings. As most critics are eager and willing to point out, Daniel 1:1 states that, “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.”
However, both Jeremiah (Jeremiah 46:2) and Josephus (Josephus’ Antiquities 10.6.1) report that Nebuchadnezzar became king in Jehoiakim’s 4th year. This seems at first glance to be a blatant contradiction to Daniel’s account. Granted, it is only the period of 1 year, 2500 years ago, but since the critics deem this to be proof of either the credibility of Daniel or that Daniel was not written in the sixth century, I will address this issue once again.
The cultures of the Babylonian empire and Judah differ in respect of the recording of the years that a king rules. The Jewish reckoning is that when a king assumes the throne, then it is his first year as king, followed by the 2nd year, 3rd year, and so on. The Babylonian reckoning is slightly different. When a king assumes the throne, it is called the kings “accession year,” followed in the next full year as the 1st year, 2nd year, and so on. For example, in Judah, a king’s first year on the throne would be recorded as his first year, while in Babylon, it would be recorded as his accession year. A king’s 5th year reign in Judah would be his 4th year of reign in Babylon, and so on.
There is little doubt that since Daniel was taken to Babylon as such an early age of fourteen that he would have learned and applied the Babylon terminology for the reigns of kings. Therefore, in describing Jehoiakim’s 3rd year as king, it would be equivalent to Jehoiakim’s 4th year as king as put forth by Jeremiah and Josephus.
Most historical scholars are in agreement with reconciling the dating of kings as previously shown. However, there are still skeptics and demand proof and say that none exists. First of all, proof, or lack thereof, does not make a matter false. Lack of proof only renders an argument to: 1) it may be true, or 2) it may not be true. Only proven evidence that is in direct contradiction nullifies the validity of an argument.
Secondly, here is the “proof,” or written evidence of the Babylonian system that the critics so desperately require. According to the Babylonian Chronicle; ABC 5, (underline, mine), Line #12, “In the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Sabatu,” followed shortly by Line #15, “In the first year of Nebuchadnezzar in the month of Simanu he mustered his army.” And so on as recorded in the chronicles. With this historical written evidence there is no room for doubt in the Babylonian reckoning of the king’s years.
What surprises me, or scares me, is that either the critics are ignorant of the historical evidence, or they are willfully suppressing the evidence in their criticism. In the event of the former, an intelligent person cannot take their criticism realistically if they are not thorough enough to research all of the available evidence. In the latter situation of knowingly suppressing the truth, it shows a dishonest intent in willfully deceiving the audience. Either way, significant flaws on the part of the critics nullify the arguments and lead further questions into the credibility of the person.
Point…set…match. Game over.
copyright@stevenohliger
Extreme bible-believers are an interesting lot. I believe that if the bible had said that we do NOT have noses, these people would happily look into the mirror and deny that they had one. If one asked them what that thing is on their face that they breathe through, there would be a variety of answers ... it is the thing that God gave me to hold up my glasses; it is something to keep rain off my upper lip; it is there to streamline my face when I am running; it's not a nose ... it's my odor detector; I don't breathe through that ... I breathe through my mouth; etc. And what is more they would claim that it is the people who point out that we DO have noses that are the ones that are ignorant of the facts. They never realize that the reason their excuses aren't mentioned is because they are (1) ridiculous, and (2) don't solve the problem. So is the case of ohliger here.
(1) I might be mistaken but I don't get the impression that he is REALLY all that sorry to disagree with me. We will take a look at how good his "evidence" is in just a little bit.
(2) After having read his response, I guess I would fit in the intentionally suppressing the evidence. The reason is ... YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING. Except he's not, and that is unfortunate.
(1) Anyone who uses the word "proof" in connection with science, doesn't understand science. Science is an inductive enterprise, and as such science doesn't "prove" anything. It collects evidence that either supports or contradicts an hypothesis. But, no matter how much data one has, there is always an infinite number of possible explanations. That doesn't mean that all explanations are equally valid, however.
Suppose that one hears a swishing sound, sees the curtains move near an open window, which is followed by a cool sensation on his skin. One hypothesis might be that a cool breeze just blew through the window. Another hypothesis could be that a gremlin coughed giving us the swishing sound while a fairy rustled the curtains and a pixie slyly fanned air across your skin. Both hypotheses explain the data equally well. But one is obviously better than the other.
(2) The phrase that ohliger didn't use, but should have is ... ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. That is the phrase that has been popular in science for a long time. Unfortunately its popularity has led to misunderstanding. Absence of evidence ONCE YOU HAVE LOOKED FOR IT IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACES AND NOT FOUND IT is evidence of absence.
For instance, suppose I say that I had a dream in which it was revealed to me that a personal hero of mine .... Charles Darwin ... had married a prostitute early in life before he married Emma Wedgewood. First of all, I would be appropriately ignored. On its face the claim is not credible. But suppose someone decided to take me seriously. He might say something like, it is an interesting claim. But it has no evidence supporting it though.
I could respond that many things have been revealed to me in my dreams which later have turned out to be true.
He could then say that there have been numerous biographies of Charles Darwin done, by Gertrude Himmelfarb, Peter Bowlby, Adrian and James, Janet Browne, David Quammen (sp?) etc. none of them mention it. Also there is no mention of such a thing in the 90,000 plus pages of Charles Darwin's writings that are online which include numerous letters that cover virtually his entire adult life.
I could then respond that "Negative evidence is not historical scientific proof". I might even add that one might easily expect that to be the case since Darwin was from a family of high social standing they would of course want to cover up such a liason.
But of course, my argument would be bogus. In a few minutes I will try to explain how this relates to the argument concerning whether or not Nebuchadrezzar laid seige to Judea and took prisoners during the third year of reign of Jehoiakim as it says in the book of Daniel.
(1) When evaluating historical sources one must determine what are the independent sources. Kings was written well before Chronicles and Chronicles relies heavily on Kings. Josephus was written last, and Josephus relies heavily on Kings and Chronicles. So the original source is from Kings.
(2) So really of the ones mentioned above only Kings qualifies as an original source. So to be overly fair to ohliger, it is not as bad as he implies. But Kings is THE SOURCE for that time period of Judean history. It mentions all sorts of things about the rulers of Judah from that time. It makes a point of including conflicts just like that mentioned in Daniel. But it says nothing about such an event, and in fact implies that such an event never happened. 2 Kings says that Jehoiakim became ruler at the age of 25. At that time he was a vassal of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt (who PRINCE Nebuchadrezzar would later defeat at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE). Jehoiakim ruled for 8 years. He became a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar for 3 years before rebelling against him. Nebuchadrezzar then sent an army to destroy him. We know that this happened in 587 BCE. So counting backwards Jehoiakim didn't become a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar until 600 BCE, after having ruled for 5 years.
Also 2 Kings gives us a plausible explanation of how the author of Daniel could have screwed it up. Perhaps the author of Daniel (a SECOND CENTURY BCE Jew and not a SIXTH CENTURY BCE one) knowing that Nebuchadrezzar selected his own ruler of Judah (it was actually Zedekiah, two rulers after Jehoiakim) mixed THAT ruler up with Jehoiakim. Knowing that Jehoiakim had been a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar for 3 years he assumed that Jehoiakim had ruled for 3 years.
So not only does 2 Kings not mention a supposed seige of Jerusalem in which members of the royal family is carried off, it tells us how the author of Daniel could have screwed up just like he did.
This is the classical "the bible doesn't mean what it really says" approach. Let's see how a huge number of biblical scholars actually have interpreted the line over the ages. We can do that by looking at a number of different versions of the bible. These interpretations have been the works of individual and groups of biblical scholars. Here is what the versions I have access say about Daniel 1:1:
By my count that is 17 different translations and none seem to be enthralled by the "to show hostility to, be an adversity, treat as foe" option for a translation. Why not? Perhaps it is because the verses that follow it suggest that Nebuchadrezzar actually kicked Jehoiakim's ass:
Funny thing, taking the vessels from the temple was also mentioned in 2 Kings. As a rule states that voluntarily became vassals were forced to pay tribute but they weren't disgraced by having give up their sacred artifacts. That was the price paid by states beaten in warfare, the way Jehoiakim was ... at the end of his 11 year rule (not in his 3rd year; or even his 4th year as ohliger is going to argue in a few seconds).
(1) Daniel 1:1-2 was not written by Daniel at all. It was written about 400 years after it was claimed to have been written.
(2) The "summary of events of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem" doesn't square with any other telling of the events anywhere.
(1) As an observation, ohiliger's numbering system in his response makes no sense with respect to anything I have said and appears to be quite arbitrary with respect to his response. Also he has phrases like "underline mine" but nothing is underlined. It makes me think that this response is mostly not his own, but is instead a cut-and-paste job from the internet. However, I am unable to confirm it from a Google search of his phrases.
(2) I suppose ohliger wants us to believe that Daniel was one of the Jewish prisoners mentioned in this account from Josephus quoting Berosus. This line is in Josephus' AGAINST APION, but Berosus' original writings are not to be found anywhere. This makes it very problematic as to what he actually said.
But let's get some perspective. What was Josephus using Berosus for? AGAINST APION was written after Josephus had written his most famous treatise, ANTIQUITY OF THE JEWS, a rather massive tome that discusses the Jewish traditions from their creation myth right up through his time. His early history was taken from the bible with a few extra embellishments for good measure. His real contribution to history is his detailing the Jewish history during his own time, the later part of the 1st century CE. That would be about 700 years after the time we are discussing.
The title, AGAINST APION, suggests that someone named APION had written things that went against what Josephus had said. AGAINST APION is his rebuttal and is a justification of his earlier work. Keep that in mind.
Here is that paragraph quoting Berosus:
Sorry for such a long quote, but I thought it necessary to give the proper context. Notice that Josephus refers to Berosus as having written about Greek philosophy. That suggests that Berosus wrote at least 100 years after time of Nebuchadnezzar. It could have been several hundreds of years after Nebuchadnezzar. This alone gives us reason to doubt the validity of what he has to say about times that were only a legend to him.
Furthermore, Berosus was not adverse to writing about times MUCH longer before. He wrote about Noah? He wrote about Noah's posterity? What Josephus is using Berosus for is as an independent source confirming what he himself had said. Significantly, in Josephus' ANTIQUITY OF THE JEWS he makes no mention of Nebuchadrezzar taking Jewish captives at the time he becomes King (in 605 BCE). He does mention it when he overthrows Jehoiakim (in 597 BCE) and again when he finally destroys Jerusalem and carts everybody off to Babylon (in 586 BCE). Josephus is obviously using Berosus as confirmation that Nebuchadrezzar took Jewish captives.
But doesn't the passage say that Nebuchandrezzar had Jewish captives following the defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish and Hammash? It sure does. But the one thing it doesn't say nor does it mention is any seige of Jerusalem. So what the heck is going on? Well, (1) we don't know when Berosus wrote what he wrote. (2) We cannot even be sure that Josephus is quoting him correctly. So the account may very well not be accurate at all.
But for argument's sake let's assume that it is. Then where did those Jewish prisoners come from? ohliger would like you to believe that they were taken from Jerusalem and that Daniel was one of them. But wait a second ... at the time of Carchemish Judah was a vassal state of Egypt. So were the other nationalities mentioned in the Berosus quote (the Phonecians and the Syrians). It was common practice for vassal states to contribute soldiers to the ruling state to fight battles. Isn't it MUCH MORE likely that any Jewish prisoners were Jewish soldiers fighting for Egypt at the time. Especially when absolutely nothing else mentions any seige of Jerusalem or prisoners being taken from Jerusalem.
ohliger would rather believe that an unprovenanced remark in Josephus whose intent is only to show that Nebuchadrezzar took Jewish prisoners (something noone doubts) actually shows that Nebuchadrezzar "threatened" Jehoiakim so badly that he gave up prisoners including members of royalty to be taken away to slavery in Babylon, even though 2 Kings suggests that Nebuchadrezzar didn't even threaten Jehoiakim enough to become Nebuchadrezzar's vassal untill 5 years later.
The only reason to believe that is to try and save Daniel, which is so throughly flawed it cannot be saved anyway.
It should be noted that I NEVER CLAIMED that there was no reginal year in Babylonian dating. This is another reason I think ohliger is doing a cut-and-paste instead of original work.
What I claim is that it doesn't matter whether there was a reginal year or not. It doesn't solve the conflict. I will get to that in a bit. I will also show that ohliger (or more likely ohliger's source) is being a little loose with the facts.
(1) We know with a high degree of certainty that Daniel was actually written in the 2nd century BCE and not by any Daniel. In fact, there never was any such person as Daniel as described in the book of Daniel. So he wasn't taken to Babylon at the age of 14.
(2) But let's for the sake of argument for the moment allow the claims of Daniel to go uncontested. Why is there "little doubt" that Daniel would have applied Babylonian customs to writings intended for Jewish people. At the age of 14 Daniel would have been considered an adult in the Jewish community. He would have learned enough of their customs to know better. And the book of Daniel suggests that Daniel was quite adamant on retaining his Jewish customs. Daniel writing using Babylonian customs would have been totally out of character for him.
ohliger's "little doubt" is a rhetorical device designed to avoid having to justify this out-of-character apologetic he uses.
Which is all well and good, but no seige of Jerusalem occurred untill Jehoiakiim's 11th year as king.
This is blatant bullshit. The only scholars who are in agreement on such a thing are evangelicals and they are extreme bible believers of the "Nope, I don't have a nose on my face" variety. HISTORICAL scholars, as opposed to these evangelical theologians and apologists agree that Daniel is hopelessly and obviously flawed.
So what ohliger demands is that somewhere in ancient texts from the time is an authorative source saying, "THE BABYLONIANS DID NOT USE A REGINAL YEAR IN DESCRIBING THE REIGN OF THEIR KINGS". But you wont find that for anything. Nowhere in Darwin's writings were there anything that said he DIDN'T marry a prostitute. The fact that there is no reason to think he did and every reason to think he didn't should be good enough.
This is absolutely HORRIBLE proof and speaks to the level of scholarship that ohliger will unquestioningly accept if he thinks that it will support his belief.
Let's be clear on what the Babylonian chronicles actually say. But before we do that we have to understand their calender.
The Babylonian calender had 12 lunar months. That made their year 354 days. Unfortunately that meant their seasons got out of whack in a hurry. To prevent that an extra month was added every so often to get things back into synch. But for the most part their months were:
(1) Nisannu (corresponding to our late March/early April)
(2) Ajaru (corresponding to our late April/early May)
(3) Simanu (corresponding to our late May/early June)
(4) Du'ûzu (corresponding to our late June/early July)
(5) Âbu (corresponding to our late July/early August)
(6) Ulûlu (corresponding to our late August/early September)
(7) Tašrîtu (correspoinding to our late September/early October)
(8) Arahsamna (corresponding to our late October/early November)
(9) Kislîmu (corresponding to our late November/early December)
(10) Tebêtu (corresponding to our late December/early January)
(11) Šabatu (corresponding to our late January/early February)
(12) Addaru (corresponding to our late February/early March)
Now with that in mind let's take a look at the pertinent lines from the Babylonian Chronicles. To give you the proper context it will be necessary to include a few more than ohliger does:
Notice how this is chronologically arranged. The Babylonian calender begins in Spring (late March) runs through the end of winter (early March). Nebuchadnezzar begins his reign in the month of Ululu (September). Five months later (still part of the same calender year for them) in what the Babylonia Chronicles refer to as his accension year (aka Reginal year) he takes heavy tribute. Two months later (7 months from his having become King) he celebrates the Akitu. Two monts later (9 months from his having become King) in what the Babylonian Chronicles call his first year Nebuchadrezzar musters his army.
ohliger wants you to believe that this occurs over a year after Nebuchadrezzar has been King so he can establish his Reginal Year. Only ... nine months after his having become King is still part of his first year of rule. It doesn't work.
But to be fair, there are other places in the Babylonian Chronicles (not dealing with Nebuchadrezzar) in which it does seem to me to refer to a first year completely separate from the accension year. I think that assension year refers to the Babylonian calender year in which the person becomes ruler. Then the first year is the next calender year. So if a person become ruler in early spring the the accension year is nearly a year long. However, if the person becomes ruler in late winter his accension year is almost nil.
But as to the problem at hand ... WHO CARES! Daniel says that Nebuchadrezzar set seige (not just threatened as ohliger would have you believe) in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. However, the only seige of Jerusalem occurred in the 11th and final year of Jehoiakim's reign. That is being off by 8 years. Even if we assume that Daniel, a supposedly devout Jew, writing for a Jewish audience for some inexplicable reason used a Babylonian tradition in referring to Jewish rulers, that would only reduce the discrepency to 7 years.
It is not the critics who are ignorant. It is the apologists who are ridiculous. If ohliger truly feels the way he says above then he should be scared everytime he looks in the mirror.
Rather pathetic hubris, isn't it. But just to point out how really shallow it is, just assume that his argument did settle this point. Would that mean that Daniel is historically reliable?
I have written several blogs detailing the problems in Daniel. This one is by no means the ultimate. The problems in Daniel are overwhelming and devastating. No serious scholar thinks anything otherwise. The only people familar with the facts who think otherwise are the "Nope, no nose on my face" extreme bible believers:
Links to my series of blogs on Daniel:
http://www.progressiveu.org/144926-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-is-a-forgery-introduction
http://www.progressiveu.org/115341-daniel-is-a-forgery-chapter-1-daniel-and-friends-in-nebuchadrezzars-court
http://www.progressiveu.org/131001-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-and-nebuchadrezzars-first-vision
http://www.progressiveu.org/114050-skeptical-bible-study-shadrach-meschach-and-abednigo-in-the-fiery-furnace
http://www.progressiveu.org/083011-skeptical-bible-study-chapter-4-daniel-nebuchadrezzars-dream-of-insanity
http://www.progressiveu.org/155209-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-chapter-5-belshazzar-and-the-writing-on-the-wall
http://www.progressiveu.org/170336-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-chapter-6-daniel-in-the-lions-den-0
http://www.progressiveu.org/132214-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-chapter-7-daniels-vision-of-the-4-beasts
http://www.progressiveu.org/150906-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-chapter-8-daniels-vision-of-the-goat-and-ram
http://www.progressiveu.org/223119-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-is-a-forgery-conclusion
http://www.progressiveu.org/223119-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-is-a-forgery-conclusion
http://www.progressiveu.org/223119-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-is-a-forgery-conclusion
Go ahead I don't plan on quoting it again.
cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
The subject title above comes from the previous blog. I was thrilled by the title of "Extreme Bible Believers". I wonder if, as a Muslim, I logged in to dispute the theory of evolution, I would have been labeled as an "Extreme Islamic Quran Supporter". I doubt it. Nonetheless, with the obvious mocking exhibited in at least the first few paragraphs of the previous response, and throughout the blog, I assume that I must have struck a nerve to generate a scoffers reponse. Even so, I assumed (quite correctly) that despite the author's blatant disrespect for an alternative opinion, that he is well versed in academics. I am glad to live in a country where people are free to voice their opinions (for the present time) and he is free to have his own opinion. He has the complete freedom to be wrong. Doesn't really matter to me. He also must have quite a lot of time to research so thoroughly. I, on the other hand, am a medical professional with not much time to browse the internet. Since The Book of Daniel has so much controversy over the work, I have been doing my own indepedent research. The author of the previous blog, despite searching the internet, will not find a "cut-and-paste" work on the internet. Unless I decide to publish my research on the internet. All "cut-and-paste" sections that he claims were copied from the internet, therefore, came from my own research, in contrast to the obvious slur.
But I do deal in truth. I deal in absolute facts in my profession and one mistake can have dire consequences. With the same search for fact & truth, I have given the "Extreme Bible Believers" due merit. If you ask if I believe the Bible, the answer is yes. I find that the 66 seperate books written by over 40 different authors over a time span of at least 1500 years form a cohesive and reliable work. Add to the fact that archeological evidence continues to prove the Bible is correct, and prophetical evidence... who would have thought that the State of Israel could be reborn in 1946? Isaiah predicted Cyrus destroying Babylon 150 years prior to the event. And it goes on. Don't even get me started on the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament and their consequent fullfillment (and the statistics concerning that!) All in all, I find that compared to the Theory of Evolution, with all of its extreme assumptions and lack of proof, requires more faith (belief in things unseen) than faith to believe in a Divine Creator. I challenge any supporter of the "theory" of evolution to read the basic assumptions of evolution. I think even a moderately intelligent person with a background in biology and medical science would find the "assumptions" to be extremely far-fetched. If I accepted those assumptions, I might as well invite Bigfoot, the Lochness monster, and residents of the planet Caprica to my next birthday party - and expect them to show up.
Science continues to "catch up" with the Bible. Years ago, critics of Daniel laughed because they said that Belshazzar, King of Babylon, was a fairy tale because there were no historical records. What a surprise. Then, the name turned up on the Nabonidus Chronicle. Ooops. Open mouth, insert foot. On the other hand, as science advances, the most high-ranking proponents of evolution are now coming out and saying that due to the extreme assumptions of evolution, and the intricate design of life, that now they believe that the earth was seeded by little green men from outer space. I'd like to see the proof of that. Do I even have to mention the "Peppered Moth" deception and the fallacy of the layers of fossil records? Some people will give audience to the most extreme theories, just to avoid admitting that there is a possibilty of a Divine Creator behind everything. Hmmmm. I wonder where our Moral Human Law came from..... let me guess, the herding instinct theory.
By the way, thank you for the phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence". I was looking for the exact wording but couldn't remember where I had read it. There is also a similar phrase on the internet that I read once concerning "negative evidence". I am still looking for that quote.
To comment briefly on the eloquent reply, the main thrust of his lengthy argument (length does not presume truth) was that there is no evidence of Babylon beseiging Jerusalem in, or around 605 BC. I have pointed out that Berosus, did in fact, write of the Jews being captured by the Babylonians upon the death of Nebuchadnezzar's father in 605 B.C. One other piece of evidence that I left out was the fact that Jehoikim had to pay tribute to Babylon for a period of three years until he rebelled. It just so happens that the first "recorded" seige of Jerusalem was to unseat Jehoikim. Now, for some reason, I don't think Jehoikim payed tribute out of the goodness of his heart BEFORE being forced to by Nebuchadnezzar. So there is obvious evidence of an unfriendly interaction between the reigning Jehoikim and Nebuchadnezzar before the seige in 597 BC. But as he said, there is no recorded evidence of an interaction... yet. How do you explain the 3-year tribute prior to the seige in 597BC?
As for the Book of Daniel not being written by Daniel. That is another area where the Book has been attacked. There are many sides to this opinion and to cover all of them including the etymology of Daniel would take more of my time than I wish to spend. I would refer you to the etymology "The Hebrew of Daniel" by WJ Martin and "The Aramiac of Daniel" by KA Kitchen. (tr) Daniel was also referred to by the prophet Jeremiah several times (who lived and wrote during the same time period of the Babylonian captivity) and by Jesus who called Daniel a prophet. Now, I am sure the the Jewish religious leaders of the time would have jumped all over that saying, if Daniel, had in fact, been written in the Helenistic Period as recent critics claim (its easy to critic something 2500 years after-the-fact. It has been only 50 years and now some people are doubting the holocaust ever happened).
I have proved conclusively that with the reckoning of the Babylonian Chronicles, that the Babylonians did, in fact, use the reginal year dating system. There is no reason to assume that Daniel did not use the same system since he was educated in all knowledge of Babylon. His post also says that "I NEVER CLAIMED that there was no reginal year in Babylonian dating." I will cut and paste from the post previous to mine titled, "I skimmed over the links". The post reads and infers as such: "(5) There is no independent evidence that the Babylonians ever recognized a Regnal Year for the kings of other countries." Hmmm.
Finally, in conclusion, I will quote from C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, said, "The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them."
A wise man once wrote not to waste your effort on a scoffer, for they will not learn anything. He also said to teach a wise man, because a wise man will value your opinion. Let us see... fool or intellect?
(1) As for ohliger's title to this reply (not a blog), I am an extreme evolution believer. But then again I have objective evidence on my side.
(2) If ohliger wants his replies to be arranged so that the context is more apparent then he needs to use the "reply" button at the bottom of these boxes.
(1) This is a multipart blog. I introduced and defined the term "extreme bible believer" in the first part, I left you links to them in my last post.
(2) If you "logged in to dispute the theory of evolution" as a Christian I would not call you extreme bible believer either. I would call the act inappropriate in a blog about the bible, and I unless you wrote something that was significantly beyond what anyone has ever written I would think you ignorant.
(1) Let's get something clear ... your original reply was quite snarky as evidenced by:
and
and
So get over your "holier than thou" attitude.
I might be wrong, but you aren't about to show me where. ... nor are you going to address where I HAVE SHOWN YOU TO BE WRONG. Why is that?
(1) We are all busy. As for busy-ness, I will put my day up against yours any day.
(2) If you are a "medical professional" and don't believe in evolution, then you are a poor one. But then again that is shown by your acceptance of your shoddy research that you seem so happy to claim refuted mine, and your apparent refusal to address evidence presented against your belief.
Yeah, right. Exactly what original sources did you use? ... None?? You relied on what others said?? So exactly why do you consider that "independent" research.
Actually what I said was:
For the moment, I'll accept that your claim that you did write it up yourself. But you didn't write it up in response to my blog, for the reasons stated above. It may be a cut-and-paste of something you had previously written though.
Whenever I hear anyone claim this, I immediately think they are lying or are overstating their position. And I am seldom mistaken.
Now you need to get off your "I'm mightier than thou" high horse. We do not know what type of medical professional you are (other than poor). You could be a medical records specialist for all we know. But in any case, "medical professionals" seldom deal with "absolute facts". They deal with the best information they have. They make diagnoses, which is an educated guess based on that information. They devise treatment regimens based on the diagnosis. Treatment regimens are the best ideas the medical professional has as to how to handle the patients problem. None of that is absolute knowledge.
While it is possible that a mistake COULD have disasterous consequences, that is not a certainty or even the norm. "Medical professionals" make millions of mistakes most of which have little to no detectable consequences.
So you do your "medical profession-ing" the same way you did your response. Does that mean that you don't have time to check things out like you admitted to above? ... and you just let it go? Doesn't bode well for your patients, does it?
Nobody need ask if you are extreme bible believer, your response showed you obviously are one.
Then you have very lax standards for both cohesiveness and reliability. Besides the other blogs I have done on Daniel I have written several detailing numerous instances where the bible contradicts itself, and is flat out wrong.
Archeology is overall a minus for the bible. The things that it confirms in the bible are peripheral things like the names of cities mentioned in the bible. What archeology has convincingly demonstrated to be WRONG are important things like ... the biblical account of creation, Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, the entire early patriarchal period, the Exodus, and the conquest of the Holy Lands... and of course DANIEL.
Were it not for the fact that you are an extreme bible believer ... and of the "Nope, no nose on my face" variety ... I would say, "YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!" The reestablishment of Israel in 1946 ... or even 1948 -- the year it was actually established ... satisfies NO biblical prophecy.
I am fully aware that many people CLAIM it does. But that claim does not make it so. The best case can be made for Ezekiel 37:21. Let's look at it. But to put things in proper context I will quote Ezekiel 37:15-23 which contains a whole paragraph, the so-called prophecy (Ezekiel 37:21) will be in bold
If one only looks only at the bolded verse above one can easily believe that modern Israel fulfilled a prophecy. But to understand what this is really talking about one needs to know a little history of the times. According to the bible the Israelites are derived from the offspring of Jacob. Jacob had 12 sons; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. The descendants of these sons formed 12 tribes of the Israelites, and each tribe was awarded a certain area in the promised land. ... With a couple of minor adjustments.
All the Israelites priests came from the Levites. All tribes needed priests so the Levites could settle anywhere. They didn't have their own land. Also, Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers. He worked his way up from slavery to become a valued member of the Pharaoh's administration. Joseph used his position to save his family (including the brothers who had sold him into slavery in the first place). Joseph had two sons of his own, and each one of them got their own area. Those two sons were Mannassah and Ephraim. So the 12 land owning tribes of the Israelites were: Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Ephraim, Mannassah, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.
Again according to the bible, David (from the tribe of Judah) was the first king of a united Israel. His son, Solomon, ruled in peace and did a lot of building. To do this he taxed the tribes heavily. Solomon's son, Rehoboam, when he came to power wanted to tax the tribes even more heavily than did his father. This caused a revolt. Ten northern tribes (Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, Ephraim, Mannassah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher) split away from the southern two (Judah and Benjamin). The ten northern tribes retained the name "Israel", while the two southern tribes called their land "Judah".
Israel had the better land. It had virtually all the farmland. And most of that farmland was in the area of Ephraim. This made Ephraim the dominant tribe in Israel. However, bigger kingdoms wanted Israel's wealth, and eventually one took it over. That kingdom was Assyria in 721 BCE. Assyria did what Nebuchadrezzar would do to Judah about 140 years later. Assyria took the Israelites away. However, the Israelites unlike Judeans assimilated and lost their ethnic identities. The 10 northern tribes are what is referred to as the "lost tribes of Israel".
However, Judah never accepted that they were lost. There were numerous prophecies that the descendants of these lost tribes would be found and returned to their ancestral homes and Israel would become a united kingdom again. Ezekiel is making such a prophecy. Let's look.
Ezekiel begins by talking about two sticks, one represents Judah (the dominant tribe in the south) and the other represents Ephraim (the dominant tribe in the north). He joins these sticks together to make a single stick. He is saying that the northern and southern tribes would be joined again and they will never be split into two nations again.
The 1948 reestablishment of Israel did not fulfill this prophecy. The 10 northern tribes remain lost. The "Israelites" that returned to modern Israel are from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and a few from Levi), but none from Ephraim, Reuben, Simeon, Mannassah, Issachar, Gad, Asher, Dan, Naphtali, or Zebulun.
Er ... nope. The verses you refer to are Isaiah 45:1
and Isaiah 45:13
The original Isaiah wrote at the time of the Assyrians conquering the 10 tribes of Israel (late 8th century BCE) while Cyrus let the exiles out of Babylon late 6th century BCE (approximately 170 years AFTER Isaiah). However, textual criticism demonstrates that the book of Isaiah is a composite book. It is the work of the original Isaiah (called proto-Isaiah) and two other "Isaiah's" (called deutero-Isaiah and trito-Isaiah respectively). Chapters 1-44 were written by proto-Isaiah, chapters 45-55 were written by deutero-Isaiah during the early post exilic period (in other words ... AFTER Cyrus had allowed the Judeans to return to Judah) and chapters 56-66 were written by trito-Isaiah (even later than deutero-Isaiah).
Only someone who has either never really looked at those "prophecies" or someone who would wants to believe it despite the evidence would say that.
Wrong! All evolution requires is a belief that the evidence is as it appears and not an intentional act of deception on part of an unseen supernatural creator.
And what assumptions would that be? Perhaps, it would be more appropriate to comment on those in one of the many blogs I have done on modern evolutionary theory or on creationism:
http://www.progressiveu.org/092142-scientific-vacuity-intelligent-design-creationism
http://www.progressiveu.org/172720-paleontological-evidence-of-the-origin-of-man-part-1
http://www.progressiveu.org/094159-creationism-in-schools
http://www.progressiveu.org/000343-liars-damn-liars-and-creationists
http://www.progressiveu.org/212446-the-transitional-fossil-challenge-for-creationists
http://www.progressiveu.org/231431-the-cambrian-explosion-part-4
http://www.progressiveu.org/000634-the-cambrian-explosion-part-3
http://www.progressiveu.org/185137-the-cambrian-explosion-part-2
http://www.progressiveu.org/152714-the-cambrian-explosion-part-1
http://www.progressiveu.org/184956-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-vestigial-structures-evolutionary-remnants
http://www.progressiveu.org/151101-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-3
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-2
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-1
Take your pick, it wil be an appropriate response to those blogs.
I have a very good background in both biology and medical science. Since I obtained my PhD at a medical school, I know a LOT of people with very good backgrounds in biology and medical science. All of them and I find modern evolutionary theory so well supported by the evidence that its core principles are beyond reasonable doubt. It isn't it amazing that all of us must be less than "moderately intelligent" according to you.
So you think the assumptions behind modern evolutionary theory would support the existence of things like "Bigfoot, the Lochness [sic] monster, and residents of the planet Caprica" and they would be socially inclined to come to your birthday party? If not, then what you have just said is a non-sequitur and doesn't speak well of your abilities to make a logical argument.
Yeah, we scientists are finding out how the earth is 6,000 years old, the earth is covered by a dome that keeps all the water in outer space from falling in on us ... like it must have during Noah's global flood that we find all the evidence for. Yeah, if you look at scientific grant proposals we are always looking to and quoting the bible as inspiration for us to study. I can hardly wait until we correct our mistake that was originated by Galileo and find out that the sun really does orbit the earth. ... Just in case you couldn't tell all this paragraph except this sentence is sarcasm.
Only an extreme bible believer of the "Nope, no nose on my face" variety would say this. The historical records support bible skeptics MUCH more than Daniel. Daniel has Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadrezzar. He was the son of Nabonidus, and not even in the Nebuchadrezzar line. So tell me, how do you like the taste of your Skechers?
And who says that? The closest you are going to get is Orgel and Crick's (circa 1985) idea of panspermia, and that is a long way away from "little green men". Neither Crick nor Orgel have seriously argued panspermia in about 20 years. The closest serious idea you are going to get that still has proponents is the idea that the building blocks of life (amino acids etc.) were created in outer space ... and there are spectographic recordings showing that they are there.
Concerning the Peppered Moth, Biston bitularia, you are referring to Judith Hooper's book, OF MOTHS AND MEN. Here is a review by a REAL scientist of her book. I doubt if you have read it. Nor have you read anything by Michael Majerus who continues research on industrial melanism. Too bad, as usual (and so far as I can tell ... as always) the creationists have it badly wrong.
As for the "fallacy of the layers of fossil records", my guess is that you are going back to source like Kent Hovind and his ilk. You continue to disappoint.
Yeah right, it so much more reasonable to believe that a sky-daddy just whipped us and all species up just off the top of his head. Magic explains so much. Again this is sarcasm.
No one would call it "the herding instinct". They would say that morality evolved as a result of our societal instincts. You say it comes from God? So if God were to come and show himself to us conclusively to be God, and said, "Blessed is he who dips his baby's feet in boiling oil for its screams are a balm to the righteous soul.", that would make dipping babies' feet into boiling oil to hear them scream a moral thing to do? I am hoping even you will realize that it would not. If God's say-so can't make that moral then morality exists separate from God and does not come from God.
You're welcome. It would have been nice if you would have acknowledged the other things I said about it, but to do so would require you to address an argument that goes against your idea.
Too bad you seemed to have missed my response to your Berosus evidence. Actually it is Josephus that says that Berosus said that Jews were taken captive at the time of Nebuchadrezzar becoming King. Who was Berosus? You don't know. When did he write that? You don't know. What was his source for this? You don't know. How come neither Kings nor the Babylonian Chronicles mention (the two most contemporary sources from each of the sides) mention this supposed seige?
You may have left it out, but I didn't. The reason is that in 600 BCE Jehoiakim became a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar. Nebuchadrezzar would have kicked his ass with no trouble at all if he hadn't. In 597 BCE Nebuchadrezzar had an uprising in Babylon that had to be put down. Jehoiakim thought that Nebuchadrezzar was vunerable and rebelled. That wasn't a good move. He got his ass kicked ... and that was the first seige. A full 8 years after 605 BCE when you claim that it was.
Nothing like a quick argument from authority to avoid having to deal with the evidence is there? If you read the rest of my blogs on Daniel I discuss many such claims and show why it is almost certainly the case that Daniel was not written by Daniel as claimed.
Er ... no, Jeremiah never refers to Daniel. However, Ezekiel does. ... three times. But he refers to a Dan'el. And he also refers to him in context with legendary people (Noah and Job). It just so happens that there is a legendary Dan'el found in Ugaritic text. Ezekiel is almost certainly referring to this person and not Daniel of the book of Daniel. You would know this if you had read my blogs.
Duh!! All this shows is that Jesus wasn't so good either.
You DO know that Daniel is part of the Hebrew bible, don't you? Daniel was written by a pious Jew in 165 BCE, why would a Jewish religious leader during Jesus' time even question it? The reason we question it now is because we have the freedom to and because we have done some research.
No, you didn't. You gave VERY POOR EVIDENCE for it. The phrase that you used to support the idea that the first year of a Babylonian kings rule is actually their second year, when we look at the actual chronology happened in Nebuchadrezzar's 9th month of reign. That is still his first year.
However, I have never claimed that the Babylonians didn't use a reginal year for their kings. I claimed that it doesn't matter whether they did or not as for Daniel. The only seige of Jerusalem that occurred during the reign of Jehoiakim occurred in his 11th year, not his third ... or even his fourth.
Yes there is reason to assume otherwise. Daniel was a member of Jewish royalty. He would have been FULLY trained in Jewish traditions prior to being taken to Babylon. He was KNOWN for following Jewish traditions over Babylonian traditions. He was writing for a Jewish audience. But again ... WHO CARES. Seige didn't occur until well after Daniel says it did.
There is absolutely no contradiction here. Babylonians may well have used a reginal year for THEIR kings, but the Babylonian chronicles do not indicate that used it for KINGS OF OTHER COUNTRIES.
That sounds like advice you should take. ... It is also advice that CS Lewis should have taken as well.
I gave your critique the respect it deserved. I addressed EVERY SINGLE POINT you made. You on the other hand, have ignored everything I said. You didn't respond to a single point. Nothing .. you just repeated the exact same assertions you made in your original post, and these are things that I took a great deal of time rebutting. I gave THIS response MUCH MORE respect than it deserves. You have gone off-topic, yet I have responded to that ... in full. I have even responded A SECOND TIME to your already refuted points you made in your first post. I am not asking you to be kind in your response. I am asking you to present pertinent evidence and be honest about it in your response, and so far you haven't. Because of that your "holier than thou" attitude comes across as shallow.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France