Doc's bishopric Sunday School (Noun or adjective? One word or two?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.22 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: OCD's neurotic Sunday School
(23-12-2014 01:04 PM)morondog Wrote:  Tell me something. Daniel's a fake right? I'm sure I've heard that before. So... was it faked after Jesus was born, is that why it includes this theo-whatsit? Is the theo-thingy in the Jewish text? Is there a Jewish text? I realise I could go look this stuff up... argh. I hate giving me homework Sad Will report back later.

Just to elaborate a bit further on this. The book of Daniel is full of errors. So much so that it is impossible to have been written by a first-hand witness of the events, viz. Daniel. More likely it was composed much later to explain the oppression of the Jews by the Seleucids.

Here's one example. In Daniel 5, King Belshazzar of Babylon has a dream and is frightened by it. His queen tells him not to be frightened but to call for Daniel to interpret the dream. She said, "In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners." At least two more times in chapter 5 is Nebuchadnezzar called Belshazzar's father and once Belshazzar is called Nebuchadnezzar's son, leading us to the reasonable assumption that Nebuchadnezzar is Belshazzar's father. Except... he wasn't.

In reality, Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son, Amal-Marduk (the Evil-Merodach of the Bible), who was assassinated by Nergal-sharezer, his brother-in-law, who became king (which tells us all why we should never trust our brothers-in-law). Nergal-sharezer was succeeded by his son, Labashi-Marduk who was murdered as a child by Nabonidus (a man of humble origins by his own admission, and probably not a Chaldean), who then became the king. Belshazzar was his son.

So, we see that Belshazzar was not related to Nebuchadnezzar by blood. Bible commentators recognize this problem and explain it away by saying that Nabonidus must have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar to cement his claim to the throne. There is, however, no documentation for this claim.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
06-01-2015, 01:02 AM
RE: OCD's neurotic Sunday School
(05-01-2015 09:57 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  In reality, Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son, Amal-Marduk (the Evil-Merodach of the Bible), who was assassinated by Nergal-sharezer, his brother-in-law, who became king (which tells us all why we should never trust our brothers-in-law). Nergal-sharezer was succeeded by his son, Labashi-Marduk who was murdered as a child by Nabonidus (a man of humble origins by his own admission, and probably not a Chaldean), who then became the king. Belshazzar was his son.

This stuff we know from Babylonian records?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: OCD's neurotic Sunday School
(06-01-2015 01:02 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-01-2015 09:57 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  In reality, Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son, Amal-Marduk (the Evil-Merodach of the Bible), who was assassinated by Nergal-sharezer, his brother-in-law, who became king (which tells us all why we should never trust our brothers-in-law). Nergal-sharezer was succeeded by his son, Labashi-Marduk who was murdered as a child by Nabonidus (a man of humble origins by his own admission, and probably not a Chaldean), who then became the king. Belshazzar was his son.

This stuff we know from Babylonian records?

Yes. Fortunately for us, Babylonian royalty was fond of recording stuff. Multiple king lists have been found, like this one. In addition, multiple other inscriptions including astronomical, botanical and financial such as those listed here help us to recreate the Babylonian king list to a fair degree of certainty.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
08-01-2015, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2015 09:30 AM by docskeptic.)
RE: Doc's pornographic Sunday School (titillating Bible students since 2013)
OK. Just a couple of thoughts more on Daniel, then I'll move on. Daniel calls the king of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar, but that's not his real name. His real name was Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nabu, preserve my heir), sometimes written out as Nebuchadrezzar. Interestingly both Jeremiah and Ezekiel give the correct name, but Daniel who was a direct witness, gives the name as Nebuchadnezzar, changing the "r" for an "n". Why should this be?

Bible scholars have struggled to explain what may be a simple spelling mistake by changing the meaning of "kudurri" to servant. In that case Nabu-kedina-usur would be the appropriate Aramaic translation. This brings up a couple of issues. For some strange reason, the book of Daniel is composed partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic. Even more bizarrely, chapter 1, 8-12 are written in Hebrew, while 2-7 are in Aramaic. Again, why should this be?

Interestingly, chapter 1, 8-12 have to do with the Seleucid oppression while 2-7 deal with Nebuchadnezzar and his dreams. Christian commentators say that chapters 1, 8-12 were written for the Hebrew remanant in Israel warning them of bad times to come while 2-7 were written for the Jewish captives and their masters in Babylon where Aramaic was spoken, telling them of contemporary events.

Now, that's a half-assed explanation if I ever heard one. What author composes a book in two languages to reach two separate audiences? Why not compose the whole book in Hebrew or Aramaic and then compose or translate the book into the other language? Why not write two separate books? Why break the narrative after chapter 1 and again after chapter 7? What do the non-readers of Hebrew or Aramaic (the scripts are entirely different) think is going on in the chapters they can't read?

There is a much easier explanation. The book of Daniel is a late composite pious fraud, composed by multiple authors and cobbled together by a lazy or incompetent editor.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
08-01-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: Doc's pornographic Sunday School (titillating Bible students since 2013)
(08-01-2015 09:26 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  OK. Just a couple of thoughts more on Daniel, then I'll move on. Daniel calls the king of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar, but that's not his real name. His real name was Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nabu, preserve my heir), sometimes written out as Nebuchadrezzar. Interestingly both Jeremiah and Ezekiel give the correct name, but Daniel who was a direct witness, gives the name as Nebuchadnezzar, changing the "r" for an "n". Why should this be?

Bible scholars have struggled to explain what may be a simple spelling mistake by changing the meaning of "kudurri" to servant. In that case Nabu-kedina-usur would be the appropriate Aramaic translation. This brings up a couple of issues. For some strange reason, the book of Daniel is composed partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic. Even more bizarrely, chapter 1, 8-12 are written in Hebrew, while 2-7 are in Aramaic. Again, why should this be?

Interestingly, chapter 1, 8-12 have to do with the Seleucid oppression while 2-7 deal with Nebuchadnezzar and his dreams. Christian commentators say that chapters 1, 8-12 were written for the Hebrew remanant in Israel warning them of bad times to come while 2-7 were written for the Jewish captives and their masters in Babylon where Aramaic was spoken, telling them of contemporary events.

Now, that's a half-assed explanation if I ever heard one. What author composes a book in two languages to reach two separate audiences? Why not compose the whole book in Hebrew or Aramaic and then compose or translate the book into the other language? Why not write two separate books? Why break the narrative after chapter 1 and again after chapter 7? What do the non-readers of Hebrew or Aramaic (the scripts are entirely different) think is going on in the chapters they can't read?

There is a much easier explanation. The book of Daniel is a late composite pious fraud, composed by multiple authors and cobbled together by a lazy or incompetent editor.

Doc

Question from the back of the room.

Is it possible that the two languages is an artifact of the copies we have? I'm sure we don't have anything that could be considered original.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: Doc's pornographic Sunday School (titillating Bible students since 2013)
Another question from the back of the room ... where's the paper kept ? I can't find any paper. How can I tear off and roll up paper to make spit-balls to throw if I can't find the paper ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: Doc's pornographic Sunday School (titillating Bible students since 2013)
(08-01-2015 09:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  Question from the back of the room.

Is it possible that the two languages is an artifact of the copies we have? I'm sure we don't have anything that could be considered original.

Chas,
Yes, that a very reasonable question and also a very reasonable hypothesis. The problem with that theory is the discovery in Qumran of fragments of Daniel which for linguistic reasons the experts date as being within 50-100 years of the original composition. At least four fragments of Daniel from two separate copies maintain this dual language schizophrenia indicating that the original final edited copy was also bi-lingual

There is another argument suggesting the late composition of Daniel. In Isaiah 36:11, when the Assyrians besieged the Jews, the captain of the Assyrian army, Rabshakeh by name, started to harangue the Jews into submission and he chose to speak in Hebrew. Then some of the Jewish officials said to him, “Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Aramaic language, for we understand it; and speak not to us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people who are on the wall", indicating that the common man at that time did not speak Aramaic. Why compose a book in Aramaic then if the target audience could not read it? This suggests a later composition date for parts of Daniel.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 03:37 PM
RE: Doc's pornographic Sunday School (titillating Bible students since 2013)
Doc, how the fuck do you know so much? This is so interesting...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: Doc's pornographic Sunday School (titillating Bible students since 2013)
(08-01-2015 03:37 PM)morondog Wrote:  Doc, how the fuck do you know so much?



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
12-01-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: Doc's Francophilic Sunday School (Nous sommes Charlie)
OK. One more observation about Daniel, then I'll try to move on. Daniel calls Belshazzar the king several times in his book, eg. Daniel 5:1. The only problem is that Belshazzar was never the king. All the king lists that we have explicitly exclude Belshazzar. His father Nabonidus is listed as a king, but he is followed by Kurras (the Cyrus the Great of the Bible), not Belshazzar.

Belshazzar was regent in place of his father who spent about 10 years in a place called Tayma. It's not clear why Nabonidus spent such a long time away from his capital. Maybe it had something to do with his health, who knows? Or it may have had something to do with his fascination for archeology (he is sometimes described as the world's first archeologist). In any case, here's another instance of Daniel getting it wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: