Two good books. I like Revelation better. The books have done nothing to anybody. The White Album did not murder people. A cult led by Charles Manson believed The White Album was about a race war and the apocalypse...and that the cult members needed to murder people to get these things started. But that's not the fault of the White Album. It's the fault of Charles Manson. Revelation is a book about comfort in a crazy world. If people choose to use the book to scare people or encourage violence, that's the fault of the people who use it that way. Just because sexuall assault is bad, that doesn't mean all sex is bad.
@@AustGM a couple of thousand? You forgot wars of the past and current governments where he have Xtians who are driven by thst stuff. E.g. the blind support of Israel
Like many other parts of the Bible, there was an original story that got passed along orally or in a limited amount of texts now lost, which subsequent generations used and adapted for their own political and religious needs. Once a specific generation got many written copies into circulation, the text froze in that form. Whether one believes the original author's version and/or subsequent ones were divinely inspired, in whole or in part, should be treated as a different question. But those who want perfect, inerrant scripture are simply out of luck.
One thing that I don’t think I’ve ever seen mentioned in this is the built in apologetic in the book of Daniel. It literally tells Daniel to keep it a secret and seal the book until the time of the end, so if anyone was asking why this supposedly 400 year old book of prophecies was just now showing up, it says right there in the book that it would only be released at the time of the end, and the current times for those people was exactly how the book described the end times would be. If you don’t believe it’s prophetic, it all but tells you exactly when the book was written. Or at least those portions I should say.
Of course, thing is this book existed long before even Jesus. There’s the problem. The fact that it even says such a line is reason to say it’s inaccurate. Or even just wrong.
Funny how a book that was "sealed up" until the end times got revealed in the 160s BCE…but apologists want to interpret it as a book of prophecy about the Tribulation and Rapture 2200 years later.
Yeah, the last part of that discussion makes the point pretty clearly - you don't even have to assume prophecy isn't possible to make the argument here, you just have to critically read the text on its own merits to see that it's exactly what we'd expect from a text written in the 160s: Vague and error written for the early parts, more detailed and accurate as it gets closer to the time of composition, then completely wrong about what happens after that. Even if we assume prophecy is possible, we could still tell that this isn't real prophecy.
Their argument is designed to keep the faithful faithful. I remember from when I was religious. "Don't listen to the nay sayers, it's fine, just trust us.". Those who have guilt free access to good scholarship can find the truth easy enough.
Great respect for those who came out of religion, but why even humour the false dogma in our time? I respect the scholarship that can convincingly place the authorship of Daniel in the BCE 160's, but I've read that old story in both the 20'th and 21'st centuries CE. God was foretold to end the days of my ancestors long ago. Again, respect for you and our scholarly host, and for the ancients who compiled and passed down this literature, but today we know that the Bible is, to put it bluntly, false.
One of the things that the book of Daniel gets wrong is that the world didn't end in 2nd century BCE as predicted in chapters 11 and 12. Now, if there's evidence it did, I'm ready to become a turbo-preterist
Daniel 8:11 records Antiochus' defilement of the altar in Jerusalem which occured in 167 BCE. Daniel 11:40-43 predicts a war between the Syrians and Egyptians that never happens and Daniel 11:44-45 predicts that Antiochus will die in Palestine which he doesn't. Antiochus died in Persia in 164 BCE so Daniel was obviously composed in it's complete form between those two dates.
Slight correction, the prediction of a war in Daniel 11:40-41 between the north and the south was supposed to be between the two Macedonian dynasties, the Ptolemies of the South (not the Syrians) and the Seleucids of the North, this most definitely did not happened because of the Romans intervening and stopping Antiochus from advancing any further into Egypt.
There’s a set of documents outside of Arabia from land of Tema that explains Nabonidus was ill and couldn’t govern for 10 years so he appointed Belshazzar for 10 years. His name could have been Cyrus even Darius the mede. Taking two names one as a Persian the other name as a Median. We still have yet to excavate northern Median capital Ecbatana. It would connect the dots if we found a tablet’s explaining Darius was Cyrus. Medo-Persian Empire.
Add to this the book’s inability to get pre-Hellenic history correct, amongst so many other errors. Daniel is a schizophrenic mess. Of course you have Hebrew and Aramaic jumbled into it, combined with different writing styles that betray authorship dogmas. Yet another fail for inerrantist Christians.
This was a topic of discussion between evangelical literalists and scholars IN THE 1970's, for heaven's (?) sake! An excellent example of van Neeuwen's argument in the excellent "Religion as Make Believe ".
Prophecy is a double portion. Promise and fulfillment. Also the witnesses are directly contrasting. Kings say one person is righteous' Chronicles says that they may have been the worst. Consistent all through scripture. The story arc's have to be piecemealed together: with what little information we have. People abandoned to the wilderness were Lilith, Moses, Yeshu and so on. So with the double portion; all has been fulfilled. So its a matter of partaking in the fulfillment and looking forward to the unseen promise....
The critics should have read Maccabees, earliest extra Biblical source where Matthias speaks to his sons, " Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael were saved from the flames because they had faith. Daniel was a man of integrity, and the Lord rescued him from the mouth of the lions. Take each of these ancestors of ours as an example, and you will realise that no one who puts his trust in the Lord will ever lack strength". (1Maccabees 2 58-61). Matthias speech was in 166BC, so Daniel was "supposedly" concocted in 167BC! So the Maccabees invented an entire book and passed it off as part of Scripture. Just a year or so earlier! NONSENSE. They were men who fought to death for their Scripture. Mathematics in Daniel is a problem for the critics too, the dimensions for the plain of Dura image are in the sexagisimal system of 6th c BC, which Daniel uses, a later forger of 2ndC BC would be using the Greek or Persian decimal system we use today. Another problem is Daniel's use of the name of the Hiddekel river. A later forger of Greek , Persian would have known the river as the Tigra or Tigris as we know it. The Book of Daniel is correct ii showing facts like being burned alive fo blaspheming Chaldean gods was a known punishment. But not 400 years later. The Persians worshipped fire , they wouldnt have defiled sacred fire. Ezekiel writing in the 6thC BC talks of Daniel who he would have known in Babylon. Daniel would have come there in the first wave. Greek historian Xenophon (431 to 435)BC has plenty to say about Balshazzars feast. Daniel gets the exact date of the feast also 12th October 539 BC. And much much more. Most important of all Christ Himself refers to him.
@@Greyz174 The evidence is overwhelming, Daniel wrote Daniel, in the 6thC BC. Even how the books structured by the chapters is unreal. No lying forger could have created this brilliant book 400 years later.
This was the book that led to my loss of faith in biblical Christianity. I stared at Daniel so hard i couldn't help but see the cracks. Unfortunately Jesus and the early church took it for granted that Daniel was a real prophet, so the whole belief structure starts to degrade after recognizing the problems.
Hey Dan, do you've a video on John 17:5? I'm not sure how to make sense of "So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed." Is this a later addition to the bible? What does it means?
Here are two big reasons to think Daniel was written after 200 BCE. 1) The book of Daniel is not included among the prophetic books in the Hebrew bible which was put together before 200 BCE. (Its in a group called the writings). If it had predicted all those things before that it would absolutely been included. And 2) There's a book called Sirach (part of Catholic bible not Protestant) written about 200 BCE. It has a section where it lists all the prophets of the bible (talks about great they were, etc.) It NEVER mentions Daniel. Again, if Daniel had made those predictions 200 some odd years earlier, there's no way he would have been excluded from that list.
Dude is doing the "British guy walking in nature on an overcast day" style of narrative that Monty Python mocked so often. To clarify: this is not me mocking the guy. I actually find this presentation style compelling. Except if it's Python, of course. 😆
Those are based on the way historiographers like Herodotus and Ctesius understood history as a series of three great empires: Assyria, Media, and Persia. Daniel, being written after Alexander's conquest, adds Greece as the fourth empire (the iron legs) and replaces Assyria with Babylon because the story begins in the Babylonian exile. The main historical problem with this is that Babylon and Media had their empires at the same time, so the sequence doesn't make sense any more.
0:07-0:27 i think the whole thing was composed altogether in 164 BCE. The reliance on Menippus would seem to eliminate any date before 200 BCE and the account of Eleazar in 2 maccabees (150 BCE) probably serves as the backstory for “Daniel” and “nebuchadnezzar.”
The dimensions of the golden statue built by Nebuchadnezzer are 60 cubits high and 6 cubits wide. That's because until the Greek empire in the 4th century B.C. , a sexedecimal numerical system was employed, particularly by Babylon . Everything was based on the number six. It wasn't until the Greek empire that the numerical system became based on ten. That alone dates the writing of Daniel to the fifth century B.C. and that makes his prophecies predicting three world empires accurate and of DIVINE origin. There are several chapters of Daniel, starting with ch 5 that are written in Aramaic. But it's the formal kind of Aramaic used in the 5th century B.C., not what would come later. Words and numbers don't lie...but you sure are!
That's in the Nabonidus Chronicle, basically. A document called the Prayer of Nabonidus found among the Dead Sea Scrolls contains a fictionalized account of Nabonidus's sojourn.
@@InquisitiveBible It must be nice to have followers who answer any questions/objections that people raise in the comments section. Anyway, I suspected that this was the text he was referring to. It's numbered 4Q242. It has Nabonidus (נבני מלך א[רעא די בב]ל) say the following: [I, Nabonidus,] was afflicted [by a malignant inflammation] for seven years, and was banished far [from men, until I prayed to the God Most High], and an exorcist (גזר) forgave my sin. He was a Je[w] from the exiles, who said to me:] "Make a proclamation in writing..." Even if the reconstruction and translation (Martinez/Tigchelaar) here are correct - and that's a big IF because much of it is disputed - certain questions remain. For example, why does Dan prioritize this text over the book of Daniel? Why assume that this account is the historical one and the Danielic account isn't? Couldn't it just as well be argued that the story in Dan 4:31ff. about Nebuchadnezzar, the great king of Babylon, has colored and influenced this extra-biblical story about Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon? Another question that I would ask is why Dan so confidently asserts that there was no genetic relationship between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar? There's a lot that we don't know about Nabonidus' ancestry. Even if he was unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar himself, it's entirely possible that he married into the family. This would plausibly explain his accession to the throne and would dovetail with the detail in Dan 5:2.
@@InquisitiveBible I had posted a response to you but now it's gone so I'm not sure what happened. Well, the Nabonidus Chronicle, along with other texts from the time of Cyrus, were written with a certain slant. The Persians were trying to convince everyone who had been under Babylonian subservience that their previous king had been very bad. Like Americans in so many recent wars, the Persians saw themselves as liberators rather than conquerors (or at least that's how they wanted to be perceived). The Nabonidus Chronicle has therefore been interpreted as Persian propaganda. How does it qualify as propaganda? By suggesting that the gods allowed Babylon to fall because Nabonidus had been neglecting the annual festivals by taking long vacations. So I'm not sure why this should just be taken at face value, as if it were an reliable historical record. The account from the the Prayer of Nabonidus talks about how the same king had been healed by a Jewish(?) soothsayer (גזר). I'm reluctant to draw connections between this work and the Nabonidus Chronicle. The Prayer may have been colored by the story of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4. I think there's a lot about Nabonidus' reign that we don't know. So some of Dan's dogmatic pronouncements in this video strike me as sensationalistic and un-scholarly. For example, even if he was unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar by birth, he could have married into the family. That would explain how he - an apparent outsider - was able to accede to the throne in the first place. It would also explain why the book of Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's father (Dan 5:2).
@@MichaelVFlowers There’s also the Verse Account of Nabonidus, which dates to the end of Nabonidus’s reign. There is no doubt among historians that Nabonidus did go on a sojourn to Tayma, leaving behind his son as regent. As for the strained argument about Belshazzar, Dan would call that a “sliver of plausibility”. There’s no evidence for the relationship that you’re proposing, but even so, when an ancient writer says X was the son of Y, is it really reasonable to think that the ancestry of X’s in-laws is intended? Is that what people normally mean by the word “son”? Your approach seems to be to find any possibility, however slight, filled with "could haves" and "might haves" to defend the inerrancy of Daniel. Surely, whatever explanation you personally prefer, you can admit that the mainstream interpretation of scholars and historians is more plausible and straightforward compared to the gymnastics necessary to argue that Daniel wasn’t wrong about Belshazzar’s parentage.
@@InquisitiveBible Whether he spent time in Tayma/Teiman is a separate issue from whether he "ran off into the wilderness like a hippie for a bunch of years". Dan is conflating Nabonidus' time away from Babylon with the account Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4. He's doing that in order to suggest that the biblical author confused Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus. He's stating it as an established fact, which it's not. It's speculation that goes beyond "what the data indicate". Nabonidus was arguably staying away from Babylon for fear that it would be attacked. Or, I suppose it's possible that he was taking vacations and willfully neglecting the religious festivals, as the Nabonidus Chronicle suggests. Any number of other explanations could actually be proposed here. But we don't have to assume that he was living out in the wilderness like a hippie, as Nebuchadnezzar did in Dan 4. A point that you and Dan don't seem to appreciate is that the mention of Belshazzar in Dan 5 dovetails nicely with what we're told in the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Prayer of Nabonidus. My guess is that if the book of Daniel had stated that the king's name in Dan 5 was "Nabonidus", you and Dan would have cited this as evidence that the biblical author had erred because Nabonidus was most likely not hanging out in Babylon at the time. It's gratuitous to say there's "no evidence" of Nabonidus marrying into the royal family. There's no evidence that he didn't marry into the family as you maintain. And it strikes me as plausible that he did marry in because that would help to explain how he managed to accede to the throne even though he does not seem to have been of the same family as his predecessors. Kings would often marry their daughters off to nobles and Nabonidus was definitely a noble before he became king. So there's nothing inherently implausible about the theory and, as I said, it helps explain how Nabonidus became king. It also accords with what we're told in the book of Daniel (and yes, if you can count the Prayer of Nabonidus as evidence, I can count the book of Daniel as evidence). There's no "gymnastics" going on here. I'm just being honest about what can or cannot be said from the sketchy evidence that exists. Unlike Dan, I don't state things as established facts when they're not. I state my views more carefully, recognizing that the evidence is sketch and only suggestive, and there are people who interpret the evidence in other ways. Being intellectually honest doesn't require a person to be as cynical and dismissive of the Bible as possible. But you can interpret that evidence as you choose. Don't complain, though, when people point out that you're stating things that go beyond the actual evidence.
Neḅuchadneẓẓar is also a title of a king, like Pharaoh & Caesar. I know there was also at least Neḅuchadneẓẓar I & Neḅuchadneẓẓar II. If we consider Neḅuchadneẓẓar Nabonidus as the father of Belteshaẓẓar, then there is no Biblical contradiction. Additionally, Belteshaẓẓar might have been a GRANDSON [i.e. son - Heb., Aram.] of Neḅuchadneẓẓar II.
Nice tale if we don't know how and when the Egyptian start using Pharaoh and the Romans start using Caesar or we know? Hint if Moses was ever in the Egyptian court he will not know the King name? Pyramids were built during the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt, which dates back to around 2686-2181 BCE, while the events in the Old Testament are generally believed to have taken place later, starting around the second millennium BCE. So Egyptian gods are real by your logic?
Except that : 1. Nabonidus was Assyrian on his mother’s side (and likely on his father’s side too). He may have been descended from the Sargonid dynasty of Assyria. 2. Nebuchadnezzar’s direct line died out when his son Amel-Marduk was killed by Neriglissar, a general of Nebuchadnezzar’s who probably married one of Nebuchadnezzar’s daughters. His successor was his son, Labashi-Marduk, who was assassinated by unknown plotters (probably led by Belshazzar); in the power vacuum, Nabonidus was appointed king. 3. During Nabonidus’ time in Tayma, Belshazzar was the de facto ruler of Babylon, but he was never a co-regent. There seems to be a tradition that the king doesn’t hold lands or deal in commerce (for instance, when Neriglissar became king he gave all of his estates to his son Labashi-Marduk). When Labashi-Marduk was overthrown, his estates went to Belshazzar, not to Nabonidus. This suggests that, if Belshazzar had been officially co-regent, he would have had to give up his estates. 3. Belshazzar is never referred to by the title of “king” historically; he is always referred to by the title of “crown prince”. He was unable to perform any of the religious rituals reserved for the king. All of the building projects undertaken during his “regency” don’t name him at all , and instead name Nabonidus as the builder. 4. Belshazzar probably led the Babylonian army in the battle of Opis, and probably died there, during or after the battle. So, by the time of the writing on the wall narrative, Belshazzar was probably already dead, and was nowhere near Babylon, even if he was alive. So, historically speaking, Belshazzar wasn’t the regent, he might have been descended from Nebuchadnezzar II (but this is a poorly-sourced idea), and he was not in Babylon (and probably quite dead) when the “writing on the wall” narrative is reputed to have occurred. This is what Dan is talking about; the narrative is quite good as a folktale, pretty effective as a religious parable, but it is significantly inaccurate as a historical account.
There’s a set of documents outside of Arabia from land of Tema that explains Nabonidus was ill and couldn’t govern for 10 years so he appointed Belshazzar for 10 years. His name could have been Cyrus even Darius the mede. Taking two names one as a Persian the other name as a Median. We still have yet to excavate northern Median capital Ecbatana. It would connect the dots if we found a tablet’s explaining Darius was Cyrus. Medo-Persian Empire.
@cedward5718 No, it's what's called historical fiction. Why don't you actually try learning about it. You would also know the Abrahamic god isn't real if you looked into his origins and how he evolved over time. No matter how many times we try and tell you guys, you never listen because it will mean acknowledging you've been duped by Israelite fiction.
I am aware of many of the historical errors in Daniel, but is Nebuchadnezzer being named father a belshazzar a historical error? I've read that more as a "forefather" as opposed to biological father. Is there a grammatical or linguistic feature that makes that not the case?
I haven't even watched this video but I already know the contents. It is a matter of dogma that atheists claim Daniel was written in the Greek and not Babylonian era. If it was, then its remarkable prophecies would be proof of God's foreknowledge. But answer this: How did Daniel get the time of Jesus' baptism correct even from the Greek era? (Daniel 9) I suppose you have an excuse for that as well.
@@InquisitiveBible Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens. Daniel 9:25 The decree to rebuild Jerusalem took place in 457BC. The sevens in this prophecy refer to weeks of years, that is 7 years. 483 years after 457BC is 27AD, the date of Jesus' baptism. He became the Christ (the Anointed One) at His baptism. (Acts 10:38)
Thanks for the reply. Here are the challenges to that interpretation. 1. In verse 23, the angel says “a word went out” and proceeds to relay that word to Daniel: a new interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years. In other words, the “word that went out” is how the text describe’s God’s revelation to Daniel. Because this is the immediate context, when verse 25 uses exactly the same language of “the word that went out”, most scholars think it implies a divine word - either Jeremiah’s prophecy of 605 BC (Jer. 25), or else the same word that has just been given to Daniel (522 BC). 2. If, despite the context, one insists that a human edict is intended, then the best fit is the edict of Cyrus which, according to Ezra 1, was given “to fulfill the word of YHWH from the mouth of Jeremiah”. That was in 538. Subtracting 483 results in 55 BC, which is not a particularly interesting date. 3. The only reason to favor the edict of Artaxerxes in 458 is because one is deliberately cherry-picking dates that get closer to Jesus’ time. This one makes the least sense in context, since Daniel suggests no knowledge of Artaxerxes or his edict, nor does the angel provide any such explanation. Furthermore, the edict of Artaxerxes was not the order to rebuild the temple. That was Cyrus's edict. 4. Subtracting 483 years from 458 BC takes you to 26 AD. The 69th week of Daniel’s vision marks when the “anointed one” is “cut off”, meaning murdered, but I don’t think many people would argue Jesus was killed in AD 26. The Gospels are hardly clear on this point, but Luke says Jesus began his ministry in AD 28 (the 15th year of Tiberius). I think it’s safe to say (1) scholars are correct, and a divine word is intended, (2) the exact start date is unclear, (3) the time length is schematic based on the apocalyptic motif of sevens and not a precise number, and (4) the intended date is around 170 just prior to Antiochus’s banning of temple sacrifices, which is clearly alluded to in verse 27. This is concordant with all the other visions in Daniel 7 through 12.
@@FernLovebond I have read and seen similar. It has to be that way. If atheists give any concession to traditional Christian belief, they are on the path to defeat and that will never do. Deny everything.
Are you guys this ignorant? The scholar is not an atheist, we share the same view in a lot of things. Jesus told the disciples the "Holy Spirit" will lead you to all knowledge, not the Bible.
@youngmarcio No one says he is. But your cooment is irrelevant to this video or his scholarship. So, let me be clear for you. What you said has nothing to do with this video, i5s content, or his scholarship's argument. So why say it, and if you aren't here to engage with that, then I ask again, why are you here? Cause to me, at least, it just looks like preaching. He isn't talking about your personal faith (or his, for that matter) so why are you? Do you have something to say about Dan or the creator's video at all? I could come here and just post that "I believe the sky is blue today." Maybe it's true, maybe not, or maybe mine is, and your sky is grey. None of that has anything to do with the video. Perhaps you forgot a few paragraphs of context that would bring it together for us ignorant folk?
The change of language for me is strong evidence of the situation that Daniel went through: Jerusalem (Hebrew) and then Babylon (Aramaic). The Aramaic in Daniel, as K.A. Kitchen argues, dates before the second century B.C. Daniel 9 clearly points to Jesus; we are talking about various things that should have happened (end of sins, eternal justice,...) and clearly did not happen in those times. Nevertheless, the Jews continued to write; it doesn't make sense. Even if scholars argue that the book was a response to Antiochus Epiphanes, where is the eternal justice and the end of sins?
BUT BUT BUT the bible has to be inerrant, my fundamentalism tells me so. Dan is a big mean meany, and must be wrong about everything he says. snakes and donkeys do talk and humans can live in big fishes and and ....
@@olivercromwell8688I have a metal chariot , your god is powerless , and I am real, It is not.. your god means nothing to me but thanks for the threat. all you got? lol threatening me with fiction. my daughters imaginary friend scares me more. make your comments about the content and quite with the typical christian threats about an after life. Your mental illness I can ignore, but threatening me personally I can not. I wish the rapture theory was true and all of you could leave tonight.... now in fact. sure would make the line at the DMV much easier.
@@williamcody3415 don t worry us Believers will be here to to shine a light in a dark place, Dan and other so called scholars think they have all the answers after denigrating, and butchering God s Word. They are reading with darkened minds not with Christ. Scripture is the only TRUTH, its going to be vindicated in the end. Ill pray for you.
The analysis of the book of Daniel is much more complex than this guy makes it out to be. The story of Darius and the stories involving Belshazzar and even the way the Bible calls someone's son are unknown to the author of the video. Terrible video.
Dan, it takes a special kind of lack of faith and lack of knowledge to make the types of videos that you make. I’ll pray for you, but you continually show that you’re guided by the enemy and not by GOD with these unintelligent videos that you make. Even your opening statement fails to recognize that the material itself is claiming to be in the court of the 6th century BCE in Babylon(not 5th and 4th) and archaeological evidence has consistently proven that Daniel knew things that no one living outside that timeframe could have possibly known. People used to argue about whether or not Babylon even existed, and then archaeologists used the Bible and went where it claimed Babylon existed and found it…. Then they argued that the Kings listed in Daniel were fictional and then that got proven wrong one by one. Now people just try to put the authorship past the majority of the prophecies they know came true and that still doesn’t help them because even after those late dates Daniel features prophecies that still came true and are still coming true in the modern age. At a certain point, you lack faith in the Living GOD when you try to subscribe to this nonsense that Daniel wasn’t written exactly when it claims to have been because it’s already proven itself as authentic to that time period
All due respect for the scholarship, debunking the Bible is in our time easy. Did not Daniel foretell the future of the land then ruled by Nebuchadnezzar II? Four kingdoms then God ends the days of man. History did not turn out anything like that. The Bathists, the British, the Ottomans... Great compilation of ancient stories? Yeah, sure. But were Daniel correct I could not today be writing this snide comment on my f'ing iPad. Ok it's actually a cheaper Samsung Galaxytab
Prophecy presents the plan of the work of the Messiah. It has nothing to do with being a 'seer' or seeing the future. Yahweh judged the heavens themselves. Christ judges the Earth. Adam wields the fiery sword. Noah tread the winepress. Joshua - enters the promised land. The wrath of the sacrificial lamb. Are they unjust to inflict wrath? Of course not. How else could they judge? Yahweh is given the sense of a beast. Christ is reduced to a worm. At the Transfiguration, the Ancient Serpent of Old (Yahweh) is revealed to be the Ancient One of Days. Adam wields the fiery sword as the Lawless One/ Beast, is Transfigured, and is revealed to be the Christ. The Christ, being presented before the Ancient One of Days, in a final gesture in his work of salvation, washes his feet. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves. (Luk 22:27 NABO) The question remains, is the Mount of Assembly in Christ's realm, where it is forever peaceful, beyond the heavens, or is it in these heavens? I can surmise that, since no one comes to Yahweh except through Christ, it is in his realm, where it is forever peaceful. I am the Root and Offspring, the only begotten Son of Yahweh. Yahweh and Christ/ Satan and Adam/ Jacob and Esau/ Behemoth and Leviathan/ David and the Son of David/ Peter and Jesus... are the same two individuals. David, your king, rides the Donkey and the Bride of David rides the foal of the Donkey.
@@FernLovebond Do you prefer wishy-washy to dogmatic? Dan can read the Bible like it is a history book if he wants to. I don't believe in talking donkeys or humans walking on water. I don't know how you categorize my statements as apologist rehtoric. I'm not a follower of Christianity or Judaiism. I don't see anything in common with my statements. I.e. who belives the Satr of Bethlehem is called "Wormwood". Here is what I have. The horse of many colors or, aspects or, perspectives. Verses can be added according to context. White - The wine press I have trodden alone (Isa 63:3 NABO) Red - Do not think that I have come to bring peace (Mat 10:34 NABO) Black - Scales of judgment Pale Green - Christ rising up from the Abyss - all of Hades is at his heel - to strike at the heel is to protect, guard, or watch over Do not say… 'Who will go down into the Abyss (nether world)?' (…to bring Christ up from the dead) (Rom 10:7 NABO) We saw his star (of Bethlehem) at its rising (Mat 2:2 NABO) Up from the Abyss (Rev 17:8 NABO) The star was called "Wormwood” (Rev 8:11 NABO) It was given the key for the passage to the Abyss. (Rev 9:1 NABO) I hold the keys to death and the netherworld (Abyss). (Rev 1:18 NABO) Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. (Rev 6:8 NABO)
So... what, put me in the column of "thinks @@quetzelmichaels1637 is a slightly different breed of whack job who wants to believe in myths" instead? Literalists aren't the only dogmatic people.
@@FernLovebond Are you here for support for your anger issues? Why are you lashing out and insulting people? I'm here because Dan is very knowledgable. If you are interested, go ahead and read it. If you have something intelligent to say, I'm listening. Otherwise, this is how I study. I research and write comment on topics I can relate to. Find something productive to do. Comment on the subject matter. Jesus laid down his life by judging the world, never returning to corruption. Yahweh laid down his life by the judging the Gods. I would say that is more than slighty different. On another site, my statment got a like. It started out with; The story of Jesus is not about Jesus.
Dan just had an example of a time where historians thought the Bible was wrong and then it was later proven right yet he still will point to his other pathetic arguments
"Pathetic arguments" like "Daniel was completely wrong about the names and relationships of the people he's talking about?" 🤣 Stop commenting on the internet, you just make yourself look like a buffoon.
there were people 200 years ago that were corrected by the discovery of more detailed information that still contradicts the Bible so we can extrapolate a normal feature of the process of learning about history to Dan probably being wrong about everything
@@Greyz174 That is a very amusing argument. Care to explain to me how the fact that people 200 years ago being mistaken means someone in a specific discussion today is wrong? I'm not seeing any logical proof supporting your conclusion.
What are you thoughts on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medo-Persian_conflict#:~:text=Part%20of%20the%20Median%20nobility,a%20continuation%20of%20Median%20history. If I have read this correctly, it seems at variance with the claim in the video at 3:15.
The fact that some writers saw the Persian empire as a continuation of the Medes doesn't make it true and doesn't make Daniel's statements any less false. Daniel distinguishes two different empires that governed Babylon and that's simply not true. Darius I also wasn't a Mede in any way whatsoever and he also didn't conquer Babylon.
@@maklelan There’s a set of documents outside of Arabia from land of Tema that explains Nabonidus was ill and couldn’t govern for 10 years so he appointed Belshazzar for 10 years. His name could have been Cyrus even Darius the mede. Taking two names one as a Persian the other name as a Median. We still have yet to excavate northern Median capital Ecbatana. It would connect the dots if we found a tablet’s explaining Darius was Cyrus. Medo-Persian Empire
The Book of Daniel in 168BCE: “This isn’t even my final form!”
‘Ladiessssszzzzzzzz you know you wanna … before I let myself go’
Oh the _book_ nvm carry on
Maybe Daniel and Jeremiah can use the Fusion Dance Technique to become Daniemiah.
The pretzel shapes their logic must contort into is amazing.
The argument from "people in the 1800s were wrong so that vindicates the entire traditional narrative" always wins
At the end of the video YT fed me an ad for a 'biblical' solution to toenail fungus 😂😂😂😂😂
Yup! I know the one, but click away so fast I can’t comment better.
You should consider getting an adblocker
@@HangrySaturn What if I enjoy ads about toe fungus? 😁
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Break out the popcorn and drink of choice
Daniel and Revelation have done more damage than major armies. They may cause much more suffering.
And all that, just because people are trying to escape from the fallacies of religion. It's not even built on sand, rather mud.
A couple thousand crazy American evangelicals take them out of context and that somehow causes more damage than armies 😂?
aaaaah... my whole life believing these text was a .,, i dont know how to say it
Two good books. I like Revelation better.
The books have done nothing to anybody.
The White Album did not murder people. A cult led by Charles Manson believed The White Album was about a race war and the apocalypse...and that the cult members needed to murder people to get these things started.
But that's not the fault of the White Album. It's the fault of Charles Manson.
Revelation is a book about comfort in a crazy world. If people choose to use the book to scare people or encourage violence, that's the fault of the people who use it that way.
Just because sexuall assault is bad, that doesn't mean all sex is bad.
@@AustGM a couple of thousand? You forgot wars of the past and current governments where he have Xtians who are driven by thst stuff. E.g. the blind support of Israel
Like many other parts of the Bible, there was an original story that got passed along orally or in a limited amount of texts now lost, which subsequent generations used and adapted for their own political and religious needs. Once a specific generation got many written copies into circulation, the text froze in that form.
Whether one believes the original author's version and/or subsequent ones were divinely inspired, in whole or in part, should be treated as a different question. But those who want perfect, inerrant scripture are simply out of luck.
One thing that I don’t think I’ve ever seen mentioned in this is the built in apologetic in the book of Daniel. It literally tells Daniel to keep it a secret and seal the book until the time of the end, so if anyone was asking why this supposedly 400 year old book of prophecies was just now showing up, it says right there in the book that it would only be released at the time of the end, and the current times for those people was exactly how the book described the end times would be. If you don’t believe it’s prophetic, it all but tells you exactly when the book was written. Or at least those portions I should say.
Its usually explained as it being "unsealed" in that people will understand what it means when the time of the end comes
Of course, thing is this book existed long before even Jesus. There’s the problem. The fact that it even says such a line is reason to say it’s inaccurate. Or even just wrong.
Funny how a book that was "sealed up" until the end times got revealed in the 160s BCE…but apologists want to interpret it as a book of prophecy about the Tribulation and Rapture 2200 years later.
2nd century BCE without watching the vid. Alright, let’s see it. 😉
Winner, winner, chicken dinner
Just as wrong as the presenter himself who willingly and intentionally withheld all the real evidence proving a 6th century BCE authorship
@@narrowistheway77 What evidence is that? If you have time, name the single best piece of evidence for a sixth-century dating.
Terima kasih.
Yeah, the last part of that discussion makes the point pretty clearly - you don't even have to assume prophecy isn't possible to make the argument here, you just have to critically read the text on its own merits to see that it's exactly what we'd expect from a text written in the 160s: Vague and error written for the early parts, more detailed and accurate as it gets closer to the time of composition, then completely wrong about what happens after that.
Even if we assume prophecy is possible, we could still tell that this isn't real prophecy.
Great video, thanks, Dan! I hope the dude in the video sees it!
Subscribed thank you for your work
I'm putting together a study right now that uses an argument on the dating of the book of Daniel so this is very helpful indeed. Thank you.
Their argument is designed to keep the faithful faithful. I remember from when I was religious. "Don't listen to the nay sayers, it's fine, just trust us.". Those who have guilt free access to good scholarship can find the truth easy enough.
Great respect for those who came out of religion, but why even humour the false dogma in our time? I respect the scholarship that can convincingly place the authorship of Daniel in the BCE 160's, but I've read that old story in both the 20'th and 21'st centuries CE. God was foretold to end the days of my ancestors long ago. Again, respect for you and our scholarly host, and for the ancients who compiled and passed down this literature, but today we know that the Bible is, to put it bluntly, false.
So glad you do what you do, Dan. Goodness we need it. Lol
One of the things that the book of Daniel gets wrong is that the world didn't end in 2nd century BCE as predicted in chapters 11 and 12. Now, if there's evidence it did, I'm ready to become a turbo-preterist
The real preterism is that the predicted resurrection of the dead found its fulfillment in the friends we made along the way
@@Greyz174 The real preterism is believing that God hasn't created yet
@@kamilgregor he's gonna do that after Jesus and Sophia clean up the current situation from Yahweh creating
@@Greyz174 I have since changed my position on turbo-preterism and I now believe that God hasn't begun to exist yet
@@kamilgregor how are both of these positions not turbo-futurism?
First! Love your work Doc
Killin' it, Dan ❤🤘🏻
Daniel 8:11 records Antiochus' defilement of the altar in Jerusalem which occured in 167 BCE. Daniel 11:40-43 predicts a war between the Syrians and Egyptians that never happens and Daniel 11:44-45 predicts that Antiochus will die in Palestine which he doesn't. Antiochus died in Persia in 164 BCE so Daniel was obviously composed in it's complete form between those two dates.
Slight correction, the prediction of a war in Daniel 11:40-41 between the north and the south was supposed to be between the two Macedonian dynasties, the Ptolemies of the South (not the Syrians) and the Seleucids of the North, this most definitely did not happened because of the Romans intervening and stopping Antiochus from advancing any further into Egypt.
Thank you Dan
Like A Gol-Durn HIPPIE" !! 🤣
There’s a set of documents outside of Arabia from land of Tema that explains Nabonidus was ill and couldn’t govern for 10 years so he appointed Belshazzar for 10 years. His name could have been Cyrus even Darius the mede. Taking two names one as a Persian the other name as a Median. We still have yet to excavate northern Median capital Ecbatana. It would connect the dots if we found a tablet’s explaining Darius was Cyrus. Medo-Persian Empire.
Add to this the book’s inability to get pre-Hellenic history correct, amongst so many other errors. Daniel is a schizophrenic mess. Of course you have Hebrew and Aramaic jumbled into it, combined with different writing styles that betray authorship dogmas. Yet another fail for inerrantist Christians.
This was a topic of discussion between evangelical literalists and scholars IN THE 1970's, for heaven's (?) sake! An excellent example of van Neeuwen's argument in the excellent "Religion as Make Believe ".
More historical evidentiary torpedoes broadsiding biblical inerrancy!
Prophecy is a double portion. Promise and fulfillment. Also the witnesses are directly contrasting. Kings say one person is righteous' Chronicles says that they may have been the worst. Consistent all through scripture. The story arc's have to be piecemealed together: with what little information we have. People abandoned to the wilderness were Lilith, Moses, Yeshu and so on. So with the double portion; all has been fulfilled. So its a matter of partaking in the fulfillment and looking forward to the unseen promise....
The critics should have read Maccabees, earliest extra Biblical source where Matthias speaks to his sons, " Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael were saved from the flames because they had faith. Daniel was a man of integrity, and the Lord rescued him from the mouth of the lions. Take each of these ancestors of ours as an example, and you will realise that no one who puts his trust in the Lord will ever lack strength". (1Maccabees 2 58-61).
Matthias speech was in 166BC, so Daniel was "supposedly" concocted in 167BC! So the Maccabees invented an entire book and passed it off as part of Scripture. Just a year or so earlier! NONSENSE. They were men who fought to death for their Scripture.
Mathematics in Daniel is a problem for the critics too, the dimensions for the plain of Dura image are in the sexagisimal system of 6th c BC, which Daniel uses, a later forger of 2ndC BC would be using the Greek or Persian decimal system we use today.
Another problem is Daniel's use of the name of the Hiddekel river. A later forger of Greek , Persian would have known the river as the Tigra or Tigris as we know it.
The Book of Daniel is correct ii showing facts like being burned alive fo blaspheming Chaldean gods was a known punishment. But not 400 years later. The Persians worshipped fire , they wouldnt have defiled sacred fire.
Ezekiel writing in the 6thC BC talks of Daniel who he would have known in Babylon. Daniel would have come there in the first wave.
Greek historian Xenophon (431 to 435)BC has plenty to say about Balshazzars feast.
Daniel gets the exact date of the feast also 12th October 539 BC. And much much more.
Most important of all Christ Himself refers to him.
1st Maccabees was written in 100BC and Matthias doesnt say that Daniel wrote a book
@@Greyz174 The evidence is overwhelming, Daniel wrote Daniel, in the 6thC BC. Even how the books structured by the chapters is unreal. No lying forger could have created this brilliant book 400 years later.
@@olivercromwell8688 chiasms arent miraculous, you just arrange the chapters topically, thats all
I once owned a very interesting book called Studies in the Book of Daniel. Great book but it was a bit misleading.
This was the book that led to my loss of faith in biblical Christianity. I stared at Daniel so hard i couldn't help but see the cracks. Unfortunately Jesus and the early church took it for granted that Daniel was a real prophet, so the whole belief structure starts to degrade after recognizing the problems.
Hey Dan, do you've a video on John 17:5?
I'm not sure how to make sense of "So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed."
Is this a later addition to the bible? What does it means?
Here are two big reasons to think Daniel was written after 200 BCE. 1) The book of Daniel is not included among the prophetic books in the Hebrew bible which was put together before 200 BCE. (Its in a group called the writings). If it had predicted all those things before that it would absolutely been included. And 2) There's a book called Sirach (part of Catholic bible not Protestant) written about 200 BCE. It has a section where it lists all the prophets of the bible (talks about great they were, etc.) It NEVER mentions Daniel. Again, if Daniel had made those predictions 200 some odd years earlier, there's no way he would have been excluded from that list.
Dude is doing the "British guy walking in nature on an overcast day" style of narrative that Monty Python mocked so often.
To clarify: this is not me mocking the guy. I actually find this presentation style compelling. Except if it's Python, of course. 😆
How do we interpret the visions from Daniel? Like Nebuchadnezzar's statue and Daniel's vision of beasts coming out of the sea?
Those are based on the way historiographers like Herodotus and Ctesius understood history as a series of three great empires: Assyria, Media, and Persia. Daniel, being written after Alexander's conquest, adds Greece as the fourth empire (the iron legs) and replaces Assyria with Babylon because the story begins in the Babylonian exile. The main historical problem with this is that Babylon and Media had their empires at the same time, so the sequence doesn't make sense any more.
Which Daniel's scripture is talking about at @3:39 ?
chapters 11 and 12
Can you do a video on how scholars accurately date these texts
I can't answer for Dan, but I'll have a video out on that very subject in a few weeks.
0:07-0:27 i think the whole thing was composed altogether in 164 BCE. The reliance on Menippus would seem to eliminate any date before 200 BCE and the account of Eleazar in 2 maccabees (150 BCE) probably serves as the backstory for “Daniel” and “nebuchadnezzar.”
It could be 165 BCE, but i lean closer to antiochus lV’s death.
The dimensions of the golden statue built by Nebuchadnezzer are 60 cubits high and 6 cubits wide. That's because until the Greek empire in the 4th century B.C. , a sexedecimal numerical system was employed, particularly by Babylon . Everything was based on the number six. It wasn't until the Greek empire that the numerical system became based on ten. That alone dates the writing of Daniel to the fifth century B.C. and that makes his prophecies predicting three world empires accurate and of DIVINE origin. There are several chapters of Daniel, starting with ch 5 that are written in Aramaic. But it's the formal kind of Aramaic used in the 5th century B.C., not what would come later. Words and numbers don't lie...but you sure are!
I gotta know, what is the deal with Song of Songs? Why was it included in the Bible?
Always nice to see a Brit participating in the nonsense
Dan isn't British though
@@soundmattersuk then by process of elimination you should be able to tell who I’m talking about…
@@sanguillotine 🤦 clearly I shouldn't be commenting when I've had less than an hour's sleep last night.
Funny ... in my several decades as an Evangelical Christian, these facts were never mentioned.
Lies of ommission are still lies.
Its the likes of Dan and so called scholars who are the liars and twisters. Gods Word is the only Truth in a fallen world.
What text informs us that Nabonidus "ran off into the wilderness like a hippie for a bunch of years"?
That's in the Nabonidus Chronicle, basically. A document called the Prayer of Nabonidus found among the Dead Sea Scrolls contains a fictionalized account of Nabonidus's sojourn.
@@InquisitiveBible It must be nice to have followers who answer any questions/objections that people raise in the comments section. Anyway, I suspected that this was the text he was referring to. It's numbered 4Q242. It has Nabonidus (נבני מלך א[רעא די בב]ל) say the following: [I, Nabonidus,] was afflicted [by a malignant inflammation] for seven years, and was banished far [from men, until I prayed to the God Most High], and an exorcist (גזר) forgave my sin. He was a Je[w] from the exiles, who said to me:] "Make a proclamation in writing..." Even if the reconstruction and translation (Martinez/Tigchelaar) here are correct - and that's a big IF because much of it is disputed - certain questions remain. For example, why does Dan prioritize this text over the book of Daniel? Why assume that this account is the historical one and the Danielic account isn't? Couldn't it just as well be argued that the story in Dan 4:31ff. about Nebuchadnezzar, the great king of Babylon, has colored and influenced this extra-biblical story about Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon?
Another question that I would ask is why Dan so confidently asserts that there was no genetic relationship between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar? There's a lot that we don't know about Nabonidus' ancestry. Even if he was unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar himself, it's entirely possible that he married into the family. This would plausibly explain his accession to the throne and would dovetail with the detail in Dan 5:2.
@@InquisitiveBible I had posted a response to you but now it's gone so I'm not sure what happened.
Well, the Nabonidus Chronicle, along with other texts from the time of Cyrus, were written with a certain slant. The Persians were trying to convince everyone who had been under Babylonian subservience that their previous king had been very bad. Like Americans in so many recent wars, the Persians saw themselves as liberators rather than conquerors (or at least that's how they wanted to be perceived). The Nabonidus Chronicle has therefore been interpreted as Persian propaganda. How does it qualify as propaganda? By suggesting that the gods allowed Babylon to fall because Nabonidus had been neglecting the annual festivals by taking long vacations. So I'm not sure why this should just be taken at face value, as if it were an reliable historical record.
The account from the the Prayer of Nabonidus talks about how the same king had been healed by a Jewish(?) soothsayer (גזר). I'm reluctant to draw connections between this work and the Nabonidus Chronicle. The Prayer may have been colored by the story of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4.
I think there's a lot about Nabonidus' reign that we don't know. So some of Dan's dogmatic pronouncements in this video strike me as sensationalistic and un-scholarly. For example, even if he was unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar by birth, he could have married into the family. That would explain how he - an apparent outsider - was able to accede to the throne in the first place. It would also explain why the book of Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's father (Dan 5:2).
@@MichaelVFlowers There’s also the Verse Account of Nabonidus, which dates to the end of Nabonidus’s reign. There is no doubt among historians that Nabonidus did go on a sojourn to Tayma, leaving behind his son as regent.
As for the strained argument about Belshazzar, Dan would call that a “sliver of plausibility”. There’s no evidence for the relationship that you’re proposing, but even so, when an ancient writer says X was the son of Y, is it really reasonable to think that the ancestry of X’s in-laws is intended? Is that what people normally mean by the word “son”? Your approach seems to be to find any possibility, however slight, filled with "could haves" and "might haves" to defend the inerrancy of Daniel.
Surely, whatever explanation you personally prefer, you can admit that the mainstream interpretation of scholars and historians is more plausible and straightforward compared to the gymnastics necessary to argue that Daniel wasn’t wrong about Belshazzar’s parentage.
@@InquisitiveBible Whether he spent time in Tayma/Teiman is a separate issue from whether he "ran off into the wilderness like a hippie for a bunch of years". Dan is conflating Nabonidus' time away from Babylon with the account Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4. He's doing that in order to suggest that the biblical author confused Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus. He's stating it as an established fact, which it's not. It's speculation that goes beyond "what the data indicate". Nabonidus was arguably staying away from Babylon for fear that it would be attacked. Or, I suppose it's possible that he was taking vacations and willfully neglecting the religious festivals, as the Nabonidus Chronicle suggests. Any number of other explanations could actually be proposed here. But we don't have to assume that he was living out in the wilderness like a hippie, as Nebuchadnezzar did in Dan 4.
A point that you and Dan don't seem to appreciate is that the mention of Belshazzar in Dan 5 dovetails nicely with what we're told in the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Prayer of Nabonidus. My guess is that if the book of Daniel had stated that the king's name in Dan 5 was "Nabonidus", you and Dan would have cited this as evidence that the biblical author had erred because Nabonidus was most likely not hanging out in Babylon at the time.
It's gratuitous to say there's "no evidence" of Nabonidus marrying into the royal family. There's no evidence that he didn't marry into the family as you maintain. And it strikes me as plausible that he did marry in because that would help to explain how he managed to accede to the throne even though he does not seem to have been of the same family as his predecessors. Kings would often marry their daughters off to nobles and Nabonidus was definitely a noble before he became king. So there's nothing inherently implausible about the theory and, as I said, it helps explain how Nabonidus became king. It also accords with what we're told in the book of Daniel (and yes, if you can count the Prayer of Nabonidus as evidence, I can count the book of Daniel as evidence).
There's no "gymnastics" going on here. I'm just being honest about what can or cannot be said from the sketchy evidence that exists. Unlike Dan, I don't state things as established facts when they're not. I state my views more carefully, recognizing that the evidence is sketch and only suggestive, and there are people who interpret the evidence in other ways. Being intellectually honest doesn't require a person to be as cynical and dismissive of the Bible as possible. But you can interpret that evidence as you choose. Don't complain, though, when people point out that you're stating things that go beyond the actual evidence.
Comment for the algorithm.
Neḅuchadneẓẓar is also a title of a king, like Pharaoh & Caesar. I know there was also at least Neḅuchadneẓẓar I & Neḅuchadneẓẓar II. If we consider Neḅuchadneẓẓar Nabonidus as the father of Belteshaẓẓar, then there is no Biblical contradiction. Additionally, Belteshaẓẓar might have been a GRANDSON [i.e. son - Heb., Aram.] of Neḅuchadneẓẓar II.
Nice tale if we don't know how and when the Egyptian start using Pharaoh and the Romans start using Caesar or we know? Hint if Moses was ever in the Egyptian court he will not know the King name? Pyramids were built during the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt, which dates back to around 2686-2181 BCE, while the events in the Old Testament are generally believed to have taken place later, starting around the second millennium BCE. So Egyptian gods are real by your logic?
Except that :
1. Nabonidus was Assyrian on his mother’s side (and likely on his father’s side too). He may have been descended from the Sargonid dynasty of Assyria.
2. Nebuchadnezzar’s direct line died out when his son Amel-Marduk was killed by Neriglissar, a general of Nebuchadnezzar’s who probably married one of Nebuchadnezzar’s daughters. His successor was his son, Labashi-Marduk, who was assassinated by unknown plotters (probably led by Belshazzar); in the power vacuum, Nabonidus was appointed king.
3. During Nabonidus’ time in Tayma, Belshazzar was the de facto ruler of Babylon, but he was never a co-regent. There seems to be a tradition that the king doesn’t hold lands or deal in commerce (for instance, when Neriglissar became king he gave all of his estates to his son Labashi-Marduk). When Labashi-Marduk was overthrown, his estates went to Belshazzar, not to Nabonidus. This suggests that, if Belshazzar had been officially co-regent, he would have had to give up his estates.
3. Belshazzar is never referred to by the title of “king” historically; he is always referred to by the title of “crown prince”. He was unable to perform any of the religious rituals reserved for the king. All of the building projects undertaken during his “regency” don’t name him at all , and instead name Nabonidus as the builder.
4. Belshazzar probably led the Babylonian army in the battle of Opis, and probably died there, during or after the battle. So, by the time of the writing on the wall narrative, Belshazzar was probably already dead, and was nowhere near Babylon, even if he was alive.
So, historically speaking, Belshazzar wasn’t the regent, he might have been descended from Nebuchadnezzar II (but this is a poorly-sourced idea), and he was not in Babylon (and probably quite dead) when the “writing on the wall” narrative is reputed to have occurred.
This is what Dan is talking about; the narrative is quite good as a folktale, pretty effective as a religious parable, but it is significantly inaccurate as a historical account.
There’s a set of documents outside of Arabia from land of Tema that explains Nabonidus was ill and couldn’t govern for 10 years so he appointed Belshazzar for 10 years. His name could have been Cyrus even Darius the mede. Taking two names one as a Persian the other name as a Median. We still have yet to excavate northern Median capital Ecbatana. It would connect the dots if we found a tablet’s explaining Darius was Cyrus. Medo-Persian Empire.
By scholar of the Bible, do you really mean average Joe sceptic?
The gospel writers and Paul must have gotten Daniel wrong, also?
Oh, wait, they didn't.
The "increase in knowledge" happened in the 19th century.
And how did they not get Daniel wrong? And arguably more importantly, what would that have to do with the dating of the text?
@@solidstorm6129 These people try so hard to cling to this mythology.
@@ancientfiction5244
It's all a myth, eh?
Why don't you pack your bags and go home?
@solidstorm6129
The prophesies in Daniel were central to Jewish religion. Jesus noted them and they are parallel with Revelation.
@cedward5718 No, it's what's called historical fiction. Why don't you actually try learning about it.
You would also know the Abrahamic god isn't real if you looked into his origins and how he evolved over time.
No matter how many times we try and tell you guys, you never listen because it will mean acknowledging you've been duped by Israelite fiction.
I am aware of many of the historical errors in Daniel, but is Nebuchadnezzer being named father a belshazzar a historical error? I've read that more as a "forefather" as opposed to biological father. Is there a grammatical or linguistic feature that makes that not the case?
I haven't even watched this video but I already know the contents. It is a matter of dogma that atheists claim Daniel was written in the Greek and not Babylonian era. If it was, then its remarkable prophecies would be proof of God's foreknowledge. But answer this: How did Daniel get the time of Jesus' baptism correct even from the Greek era? (Daniel 9) I suppose you have an excuse for that as well.
What verse in Daniel 9 do you think predicts Jesus' baptism?
@@InquisitiveBible Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens. Daniel 9:25 The decree to rebuild Jerusalem took place in 457BC. The sevens in this prophecy refer to weeks of years, that is 7 years. 483 years after 457BC is 27AD, the date of Jesus' baptism. He became the Christ (the Anointed One) at His baptism. (Acts 10:38)
Thanks for the reply. Here are the challenges to that interpretation.
1. In verse 23, the angel says “a word went out” and proceeds to relay that word to Daniel: a new interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years. In other words, the “word that went out” is how the text describe’s God’s revelation to Daniel. Because this is the immediate context, when verse 25 uses exactly the same language of “the word that went out”, most scholars think it implies a divine word - either Jeremiah’s prophecy of 605 BC (Jer. 25), or else the same word that has just been given to Daniel (522 BC).
2. If, despite the context, one insists that a human edict is intended, then the best fit is the edict of Cyrus which, according to Ezra 1, was given “to fulfill the word of YHWH from the mouth of Jeremiah”. That was in 538. Subtracting 483 results in 55 BC, which is not a particularly interesting date.
3. The only reason to favor the edict of Artaxerxes in 458 is because one is deliberately cherry-picking dates that get closer to Jesus’ time. This one makes the least sense in context, since Daniel suggests no knowledge of Artaxerxes or his edict, nor does the angel provide any such explanation. Furthermore, the edict of Artaxerxes was not the order to rebuild the temple. That was Cyrus's edict.
4. Subtracting 483 years from 458 BC takes you to 26 AD. The 69th week of Daniel’s vision marks when the “anointed one” is “cut off”, meaning murdered, but I don’t think many people would argue Jesus was killed in AD 26. The Gospels are hardly clear on this point, but Luke says Jesus began his ministry in AD 28 (the 15th year of Tiberius).
I think it’s safe to say (1) scholars are correct, and a divine word is intended, (2) the exact start date is unclear, (3) the time length is schematic based on the apocalyptic motif of sevens and not a precise number, and (4) the intended date is around 170 just prior to Antiochus’s banning of temple sacrifices, which is clearly alluded to in verse 27. This is concordant with all the other visions in Daniel 7 through 12.
So, you don't watch, and already know, but it's "atheists" with the dogma... Sure, neighbor. Whatever you wanna tell yourself.
@@FernLovebond I have read and seen similar. It has to be that way. If atheists give any concession to traditional Christian belief, they are on the path to defeat and that will never do. Deny everything.
Jesus is and always was the The Word of God. Man and their traditions.
You must stick your fingers in your ears and scream “la La La La” when evidence is presented against your mythology.
you can believe that and also believe that the book of Daniel was written in the 160s bc
Why are you here? Hoping to save some souls?
Are you guys this ignorant? The scholar is not an atheist, we share the same view in a lot of things. Jesus told the disciples the "Holy Spirit" will lead you to all knowledge, not the Bible.
@youngmarcio No one says he is. But your cooment is irrelevant to this video or his scholarship. So, let me be clear for you. What you said has nothing to do with this video, i5s content, or his scholarship's argument. So why say it, and if you aren't here to engage with that, then I ask again, why are you here? Cause to me, at least, it just looks like preaching.
He isn't talking about your personal faith (or his, for that matter) so why are you? Do you have something to say about Dan or the creator's video at all? I could come here and just post that "I believe the sky is blue today." Maybe it's true, maybe not, or maybe mine is, and your sky is grey. None of that has anything to do with the video. Perhaps you forgot a few paragraphs of context that would bring it together for us ignorant folk?
The change of language for me is strong evidence of the situation that Daniel went through: Jerusalem (Hebrew) and then Babylon (Aramaic).
The Aramaic in Daniel, as K.A. Kitchen argues, dates before the second century B.C.
Daniel 9 clearly points to Jesus; we are talking about various things that should have happened (end of sins, eternal justice,...) and clearly did not happen in those times. Nevertheless, the Jews continued to write; it doesn't make sense. Even if scholars argue that the book was a response to Antiochus Epiphanes, where is the eternal justice and the end of sins?
Doesn't the word translated "father" also mean "exalted ancestor". .If it does then you are in error. .
BUT BUT BUT the bible has to be inerrant, my fundamentalism tells me so. Dan is a big mean meany, and must be wrong about everything he says. snakes and donkeys do talk and humans can live in big fishes and and ....
Have your day of fun my friend. You ll be the fool when you stand before Christ as your Judge.
@@olivercromwell8688I have a metal chariot , your god is powerless , and I am real, It is not.. your god means nothing to me but thanks for the threat. all you got? lol threatening me with fiction. my daughters imaginary friend scares me more. make your comments about the content and quite with the typical christian threats about an after life. Your mental illness I can ignore, but threatening me personally I can not. I wish the rapture theory was true and all of you could leave tonight.... now in fact. sure would make the line at the DMV much easier.
@@williamcody3415 don t worry us Believers will be here to to shine a light in a dark place, Dan and other so called scholars think they have all the answers after denigrating, and butchering God s Word. They are reading with darkened minds not with Christ.
Scripture is the only TRUTH, its going to be vindicated in the end.
Ill pray for you.
The analysis of the book of Daniel is much more complex than this guy makes it out to be. The story of Darius and the stories involving Belshazzar and even the way the Bible calls someone's son are unknown to the author of the video. Terrible video.
The bible isn't ture now you can go back to your life
Dan, it takes a special kind of lack of faith and lack of knowledge to make the types of videos that you make. I’ll pray for you, but you continually show that you’re guided by the enemy and not by GOD with these unintelligent videos that you make. Even your opening statement fails to recognize that the material itself is claiming to be in the court of the 6th century BCE in Babylon(not 5th and 4th) and archaeological evidence has consistently proven that Daniel knew things that no one living outside that timeframe could have possibly known. People used to argue about whether or not Babylon even existed, and then archaeologists used the Bible and went where it claimed Babylon existed and found it…. Then they argued that the Kings listed in Daniel were fictional and then that got proven wrong one by one. Now people just try to put the authorship past the majority of the prophecies they know came true and that still doesn’t help them because even after those late dates Daniel features prophecies that still came true and are still coming true in the modern age. At a certain point, you lack faith in the Living GOD when you try to subscribe to this nonsense that Daniel wasn’t written exactly when it claims to have been because it’s already proven itself as authentic to that time period
All due respect for the scholarship, debunking the Bible is in our time easy. Did not Daniel foretell the future of the land then ruled by Nebuchadnezzar II? Four kingdoms then God ends the days of man. History did not turn out anything like that. The Bathists, the British, the Ottomans... Great compilation of ancient stories? Yeah, sure. But were Daniel correct I could not today be writing this snide comment on my f'ing iPad.
Ok it's actually a cheaper Samsung Galaxytab
Prophecy presents the plan of the work of the Messiah. It has nothing to do with being a 'seer' or seeing the future.
Yahweh judged the heavens themselves. Christ judges the Earth. Adam wields the fiery sword. Noah tread the winepress. Joshua - enters the promised land. The wrath of the sacrificial lamb. Are they unjust to inflict wrath? Of course not. How else could they judge?
Yahweh is given the sense of a beast. Christ is reduced to a worm. At the Transfiguration, the Ancient Serpent of Old (Yahweh) is revealed to be the Ancient One of Days. Adam wields the fiery sword as the Lawless One/ Beast, is Transfigured, and is revealed to be the Christ.
The Christ, being presented before the Ancient One of Days, in a final gesture in his work of salvation, washes his feet. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves. (Luk 22:27 NABO)
The question remains, is the Mount of Assembly in Christ's realm, where it is forever peaceful, beyond the heavens, or is it in these heavens? I can surmise that, since no one comes to Yahweh except through Christ, it is in his realm, where it is forever peaceful. I am the Root and Offspring, the only begotten Son of Yahweh.
Yahweh and Christ/ Satan and Adam/ Jacob and Esau/ Behemoth and Leviathan/ David and the Son of David/ Peter and Jesus... are the same two individuals. David, your king, rides the Donkey and the Bride of David rides the foal of the Donkey.
In case you're keeping score, I'm in the "people my preaching has not convinced" column. Good luck with that dogmatic apologist rhetoric of yours.
@@FernLovebondHave you ever seen them? The Red, Yellow, and Blue lights passing by in orbit on a clear night far from the city lights?
@@FernLovebond Do you prefer wishy-washy to dogmatic? Dan can read the Bible like it is a history book if he wants to. I don't believe in talking donkeys or humans walking on water. I don't know how you categorize my statements as apologist rehtoric. I'm not a follower of Christianity or Judaiism. I don't see anything in common with my statements. I.e. who belives the Satr of Bethlehem is called "Wormwood". Here is what I have.
The horse of many colors or, aspects or, perspectives. Verses can be added according to context.
White - The wine press I have trodden alone (Isa 63:3 NABO)
Red - Do not think that I have come to bring peace (Mat 10:34 NABO)
Black - Scales of judgment
Pale Green - Christ rising up from the Abyss - all of Hades is at his heel - to strike at the heel is to protect, guard, or watch over
Do not say… 'Who will go down into the Abyss (nether world)?' (…to bring Christ up from the dead) (Rom 10:7 NABO)
We saw his star (of Bethlehem) at its rising (Mat 2:2 NABO)
Up from the Abyss (Rev 17:8 NABO)
The star was called "Wormwood” (Rev 8:11 NABO)
It was given the key for the passage to the Abyss. (Rev 9:1 NABO)
I hold the keys to death and the netherworld (Abyss). (Rev 1:18 NABO)
Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. (Rev 6:8 NABO)
So... what, put me in the column of "thinks @@quetzelmichaels1637 is a slightly different breed of whack job who wants to believe in myths" instead? Literalists aren't the only dogmatic people.
@@FernLovebond Are you here for support for your anger issues? Why are you lashing out and insulting people? I'm here because Dan is very knowledgable. If you are interested, go ahead and read it. If you have something intelligent to say, I'm listening. Otherwise, this is how I study. I research and write comment on topics I can relate to. Find something productive to do. Comment on the subject matter.
Jesus laid down his life by judging the world, never returning to corruption. Yahweh laid down his life by the judging the Gods. I would say that is more than slighty different.
On another site, my statment got a like. It started out with; The story of Jesus is not about Jesus.
Dan just had an example of a time where historians thought the Bible was wrong and then it was later proven right yet he still will point to his other pathetic arguments
"Pathetic arguments" like "Daniel was completely wrong about the names and relationships of the people he's talking about?" 🤣 Stop commenting on the internet, you just make yourself look like a buffoon.
You should stick to playing Minecraft and pretending you are an Edgelord in your online conversations with others during your online gaming.
there were people 200 years ago that were corrected by the discovery of more detailed information that still contradicts the Bible
so we can extrapolate a normal feature of the process of learning about history to Dan probably being wrong about everything
@@Greyz174 That is a very amusing argument. Care to explain to me how the fact that people 200 years ago being mistaken means someone in a specific discussion today is wrong? I'm not seeing any logical proof supporting your conclusion.
Hey Aust. Do you have proof for your claim? Or are you trying to ignore what is presented here?
Ha ha! It was I, the Persians all along!
Lmao
And we killed Sparky too!
What are you thoughts on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medo-Persian_conflict#:~:text=Part%20of%20the%20Median%20nobility,a%20continuation%20of%20Median%20history. If I have read this correctly, it seems at variance with the claim in the video at 3:15.
The fact that some writers saw the Persian empire as a continuation of the Medes doesn't make it true and doesn't make Daniel's statements any less false. Daniel distinguishes two different empires that governed Babylon and that's simply not true. Darius I also wasn't a Mede in any way whatsoever and he also didn't conquer Babylon.
@@maklelan There’s a set of documents outside of Arabia from land of Tema that explains Nabonidus was ill and couldn’t govern for 10 years so he appointed Belshazzar for 10 years. His name could have been Cyrus even Darius the mede. Taking two names one as a Persian the other name as a Median. We still have yet to excavate northern Median capital Ecbatana. It would connect the dots if we found a tablet’s explaining Darius was Cyrus. Medo-Persian Empire