‘Ladiessssszzzzzzzz you know you wanna … before I let myself go’ Oh the _book_ nvm carry on

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Lmao

And we killed Sparky too!

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.

It could be 165 BCE, but i lean closer to antiochus lV’s death.

I can't answer for Dan, but I'll have a video out on that very subject in a few weeks.

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.

chapters 11 and 12

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.

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, I have always heard scholars pronounce it this way. I am not sure, but I assume the Greeks had his name transliterated, and this is where we would get the pronunciation? Though Farsi is a form of modern Persian so perhaps the pronunciation comes from there.

​@@lde-m8688Darayavaus is Darius in Old Persian.

@erichwentz2866 thank you for that. I assume Darius is probably the Greek version? I'll have to see what I can dig up. Regardless, I have always heard it like Dan said it.

@@lde-m8688 you're welcome. I think Darius is English from the Greek Dareios.

​ @erichwentz2866 Correct, Δαρεῖος Dareios is the Greek. So, Darius is the Latin for of the word. I see nothing about Dan saying it this way as incorrect. I have a history degree and studied ancient history and English medieval history. I've never heard it said another way. Edit: Dārīus (or Dārēus) is the common Latin form of Greek Dareîos. There we go and the pronunciation seems to be correct.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.