Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • randyk
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No, you have NOT ably explained WHY the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 MUST be Artaxerxes Longimanes.
    All you have done is ASSERT that it is the SAME but without providing ANYTHING WITHIN the CONTEXT to support that view.
    Contrary to your assertion I have shown how the very STATEMENTS WITHIN Ezra 4 show it is a DIFFERENT Artaxerxes, and you have summarily failed to actually deal with those points.
    Repeating the points I've made, there are 2 good reasons why the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 is the same Artaxerxes Longimanes as in Ezra 7.
    1) Ezra would not likely mention two rulers named Artaxerxes figuring so prominently in his book who were actually different kings! Both fit Artaxerxes 1 Longimanes, who many historians view as the king who stood behind Nehemiah's project.
    2) What made Artaxerxes L. so significant in both passages is that he presided over the restoration of the city, beyond the restoration of the temple. The Artaxerxes of both ch. 4 and ch. 7 presided over the restoration of the *city.*

    Ezra 4.21 Now issue an order to these men to stop work, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order.

    Ezra, in my opinion, blends together the restoration of the temple worship and the restoration of the city in which the temple dwelt. It's for this reason that Artaxerxes is mentioned earlier in the book, when the focus is largely on the restoration of the temple, although restoration of the temple also implies a restoration of the city.

    Artaxerxes also engaged in restoration of the temple worship, well after the temple had been completed as a building. And he not only saw after the priests of the temple, but also appointed city magistrates. Artaxerxes was thus part of the story of opposition to both the temple project and the city project mentioned in ch. 4.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Why I reject your view is the reason that I rejected the view I had previously held, and that is simply because it is an untenable view. It is actual a weird and nonsensical view, and that is why I held it lightly before, not having had time to consider it nor come up with a logical alternative. IOW every view being presented as a solution had issues which made them nonsensical and so it was a question of choosing the least bad of the alternatives. I no longer have to have a nonsensical view at all.

    All your "attempts" to explain do NOT deal with what is ACTUALLY stated. You divorce verse 23 from verse 24 YET without providing a SINGLE linguistic reason - your reasoning is based ENTIRELY on EXTERNAL presupposition AND NOT from WITHIN the text.
    Well, I think your stumbling block is the same most of us have had to face, and that is the fact a change takes place not in the transition from ch. 4 to ch. 5, but rather, from 4.23 to 4.24. Perhaps that wasn't the best place to insert chapters and verses?

    But I don't have the problem you have. It does make sense to me, as awkward as it appears to you. Ezra is dealing with 2 projects, which interrelate. And the history of Artaxerxes L. is injected into both accounts.

    Ch. 4 begins with an account of the initial opposition to the temple project, which began in the time of Zerubbabel, soon after Cyrus' decree was issued. But then the narrative digresses into opposition to the city project in the time of Artaxerxes.

    A return in 4.24 to the time of Darius is simply returning the narrative to a timeline that had begun with Cyrus and Zerubabbel. This was done to explain how the 1st project--the temple project--got finished.

    But before we are given the account of the completion of the temple project, under Darius (ch. 5-6), we are told that opposition to both projects continue from the time of Cyrus to the time of Artaxerxes (ch. 4). This meant that the temple project was completed in the middle of a continuing opposition, that would not stop until the city was completely built.

    Leave a comment:


  • ForHisglory
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    Artaxerxes L. *is* in fact the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4, as I've very ably explained. Why you don't get that I can't imagine.
    No, you have NOT ably explained WHY the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 MUST be Artaxerxes Longimanes.
    All you have done is ASSERT that it is the SAME but without providing ANYTHING WITHIN the CONTEXT to support that view.
    Contrary to your assertion I have shown how the very STATEMENTS WITHIN Ezra 4 show it is a DIFFERENT Artaxerxes, and you have summarily failed to actually deal with those points.

    You say you understand my view, and admit that others before me have held the same view. And then you call my view weird and nonsensical?
    Why I reject your view is the reason that I rejected the view I had previously held, and that is simply because it is an untenable view. It is actual a weird and nonsensical view, and that is why I held it lightly before, not having had time to consider it nor come up with a logical alternative. IOW every view being presented as a solution had issues which made them nonsensical and so it was a question of choosing the least bad of the alternatives. I no longer have to have a nonsensical view at all.

    All your "attempts" to explain do NOT deal with what is ACTUALLY stated. You divorce verse 23 from verse 24 YET without providing a SINGLE linguistic reason - your reasoning is based ENTIRELY on EXTERNAL presupposition AND NOT from WITHIN the text.

    If you understood my position, you wouldn't see the anomalies and inconsistencies in it. They aren't there.
    Actually understanding your view DOES mean I can see the anomalies and inconsistencies IN IT. I could also see them even IF I did not previously hold that view.

    Sorry, I just read all the commentaries and make my decision. The scholars have dignified a position I feel is worthwhile and sensible. Your changing names and titles is possible, but certainly not proven to be the case here. To separate the Artaxerxes, aka as Cambyses, with another Artaxerxes in ch. 7, is what is insensible to me. I can't see Ezra doing that!
    So you which commentaries are worth reading? How old do they have to be for them to be valid?
    The scholars HAD to make a decision based on what information and evidence they had and sort for the best of bad choices.
    What you also FAIL to do is actually consider what I have said and see IF by doing so it actually does NOT fit.
    I don't actually see the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 as separate to Artaxerxes in Ezra 4.
    But then you are DRIVEN by the narrative that this Ezra MUST be the SAME Ezra as mentioned in Nehemiah 8 even though that Ezra was NOT considered important enough to be a leader and put his seal on the agreement as recorded in Nehemiah 10. Yet you also reject that Ezra could be the Ezra mentioned in Nehemiah 12, which is a name missing from the Book of Ezra when the comparison is made between this list, and that in Ezra 2.

    The very simple language USED in Ezra 4 does NOT allow for verse 24 to be separated from verse 23. When you explain how it can with a similar example in English then you may have a reason for your alternative. However your view of Ezra 7 is DERIVED from Ezra 4 (even as mine is to a degree). Therefore whoever MUST be the Artaxerxes in Ezra 4, it then follows is most likely the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7.

    Leave a comment:


  • randyk
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Why do you make it about beating the other?
    You are definitely confused as you claim that Artaxerxes Longimanes is the Artaxerxes in Ezra 4
    Once again, I'm *not* confused! That's why I'm saying we should not try to *beat* our view into the other, because shaming or guilting or insulting doesn't work. Only reason works with reasonable people. Those who capitulate to insults are afraid--they don't reason.

    Artaxerxes L. *is* in fact the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4, as I've very ably explained. Why you don't get that I can't imagine.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    You can "believe" whatever you want. You can believe there are pink elephants. It is NOT a question of what you "believe" but about what is simply and succinctly stated.
    It does NOT take us from Cyrus to Artaxerxes Longimanes. It takes us from Cyrus to Darius AS EXPLICITLY stated.
    Another trip around the mountain then? Once again, this is the history of opposition to both projects--the temple project and the city project. This includes the time leading from Cyrus to Artaxerxes L. Your reference to what is "explicitly stated" is belied by the facts evident in Ezra 4. In vss 6 and 7 we read of Xerxes and Artaxerxes. This Artaxerxes is clearly Artaxerxes Longimanes.

    In vs 12 the problem during the reign of Artaxerxes is the rebuilding of the city. This is far beyond the temple project that was completed in the time of Darius. I suggest to you that this is most explicitly a reference to Artaxerxes L.! Your only argument is that this cannot be Artaxerxes L. because later, in vs. 24, a reference is made back to Darius. And this is easily explained as a return to the narrative of opposition to the temple project, which preexisted the opposition to the city project.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    IOW I choose to ACCEPT what the scripture states as the reality and NOT something else which is a fantasy.
    [sigh]

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, Ezra 4 speaks about the opposition to the TEMPLE rebuild. You are trying to divorce the letter to Artaxerxes from what is stated BEFORE and AFTER:
    Ezr 4:23* Then, when the copy of King Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe and their associates, they went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease.*Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.*
    As I told you, ch. 4 vs 24 is a return to the temple project, after the entire history of opposition had been recounted, from temple project to city project, and from Cyrus to Artaxerxes. Returning to the temple project was the main focus of the narrative at this point, and not just the entire history, from temple project to city project. And so, vs. 24 returns to Darius and to his completion of the temple project.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Notice it states WHEN the letter from Artaxerxes was read THEY went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and made them cease, and so it ceased UNTIL the second year of Darius.
    Vs. 23 has to do with opposing the city project during the reign of Artaxerxes. Then, in vs. 24, the narrative returns to the reign of Darius, and to the temple project, because the account of the temple's completion had not yet been treated.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    For your view to make sense it makes these sentences into nonsense!
    You CANNOT separate verse 24 from verse 23, the RESULT of work being STOPPED is due to them coming and stopping the work BASED UPON the letter from Artaxerxes. Thta remains the state UNTIL the second year of Darius.
    On the contrary, there is *every reason* to believe that vs 23 ends one part, and leads back to the temple building project in vs 24, because the narrative has not yet recounted the completion of the temple project. The opposition in general to both projects had been mentioned. Now mention was going to bring to closure the temple project under King Darius.

    In other words, the narrative is not linear. It is being driven by subjects--1st opposition to both projects, and then the completion of the temple under Darius. The opposition to both projects obviously extended beyond the reign of Darius, and included Artaxerxes.

    Naturally, the narrative had to go back, in vs 24, to cover the completion of the temple under Darius. This makes perfect sense to me. I don't know why it doesn't for you?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    You ALWAYS claim people can't understand your perspective because they state your perspective is illogical and nonsense.
    I 100% understand your claim. It is after all basically the view of certain commentators of old. It isn't a hard perspective to understand either.
    However it is a view which is trying to circle a square!
    This is why I say you don't understand it, because from my perspective it isn't squaring a circle. It makes perfect logical sense to me, particularly when the account is trying to introduce a number of documents, in whatever order they would make most sense.

    On the other hand, your view is easily comprehensible as well, but has more problems than mine. Why you chose your view over mine I can't fathom--mine makes more sense!

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    It COMPLETELY fails to deal with what is ACTUALLY stated, and it defies comprehension. Just about ANYONE reading Ezra 4 would NOT conclude that it is referring to a King who reigns 50 years AFTER Darius. That is a TOTALLY illogical jump. How you don;t see that is what is weird.
    You say you understand my view, and admit that others before me have held the same view. And then you call my view weird and nonsensical?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Further though, you NEVER bother to see IF an alternative view is possible. I bothered to check yours, and AFTER checking I note the anomalies and inconsistencies with it.
    Yet your best rebuttal is "Cambyses is not the Artaxerxes referred to."
    Why isn't it?
    If you understood my position, you wouldn't see the anomalies and inconsistencies in it. They aren't there.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    If you accept that Artaxerxes is a TITLE given to royalty, along the lines of Great Lord, Warrior King etc then you find that time wise Cambyses II fits as Artaxerxes, even down to why Artaxerxes initially STOPS the building of the temple and then later sends Ezra to finish things off.
    However you have NO connection with Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes.
    Sorry, I just read all the commentaries and make my decision. The scholars have dignified a position I feel is worthwhile and sensible. Your changing names and titles is possible, but certainly not proven to be the case here. To separate the Artaxerxes, aka as Cambyses, with another Artaxerxes in ch. 7, is what is insensible to me. I can't see Ezra doing that!

    Leave a comment:


  • ForHisglory
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not confused. We just disagree. And neither of us is going to be able to beat it into the other!
    Why do you make it about beating the other?
    You are definitely confused as you claim that Artaxerxes Longimanes is the Artaxerxes in Ezra 4

    I believe you have the wrong narrative. The narrative involves discussion of the *entire period* of opposition, to both the temple project and the city project. This takes us from Cyrus to Artaxerxes.
    You can "believe" whatever you want. You can believe there are pink elephants. It is NOT a question of what you "believe" but about what is simply and succinctly stated.
    It does NOT take us from Cyrus to Artaxerxes Longimanes. It takes us from Cyrus to Darius AS EXPLICITLY stated.

    IOW I choose to ACCEPT what the scripture states as the reality and NOT something else which is a fantasy.

    And so, in ch. 4 we have in the narrative both projects and the entire time period. But it begins with an emphasis on the temple project, which is completed in the reign of Darius.
    Nope, Ezra 4 speaks about the opposition to the TEMPLE rebuild. You are trying to divorce the letter to Artaxerxes from what is stated BEFORE and AFTER:
    Ezr 4:23* Then, when the copy of King Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe and their associates, they went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease.*Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.*

    Notice it states WHEN the letter from Artaxerxes was read THEY went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and made them cease, and so it ceased UNTIL the second year of Darius.
    For your view to make sense it makes these sentences into nonsense!
    You CANNOT separate verse 24 from verse 23, the RESULT of work being STOPPED is due to them coming and stopping the work BASED UPON the letter from Artaxerxes. Thta remains the state UNTIL the second year of Darius.

    Why you can't understand my perspective as logical here is mystifying? Are you going to say that no matter how logical my position is that it defies comprehension simply because I disagree with your position?
    Cambyses is not the Artaxerxes referred to in this discussion. I think there are as many holes in your position as you think there are in mine. Can we agree to disagree?
    You ALWAYS claim people can't understand your perspective because they state your perspective is illogical and nonsense.
    I 100% understand your claim. It is after all basically the view of certain commentators of old. It isn't a hard perspective to understand either.
    However it is a view which is trying to circle a square!
    It COMPLETELY fails to deal with what is ACTUALLY stated, and it defies comprehension. Just about ANYONE reading Ezra 4 would NOT conclude that it is referring to a King who reigns 50 years AFTER Darius. That is a TOTALLY illogical jump. How you don;t see that is what is weird.

    Further though, you NEVER bother to see IF an alternative view is possible. I bothered to check yours, and AFTER checking I note the anomalies and inconsistencies with it.
    Yet your best rebuttal is "Cambyses is not the Artaxerxes referred to."
    Why isn't it?
    If you accept that Artaxerxes is a TITLE given to royalty, along the lines of Great Lord, Warrior King etc then you find that time wise Cambyses II fits as Artaxerxes, even down to why Artaxerxes initially STOPS the building of the temple and then later sends Ezra to finish things off.
    However you have NO connection with Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes.

    Leave a comment:


  • randyk
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The problem is you are CONFUSED as to WHICH Artaxerxes is referenced. This is the SOURCE of your error.
    What you do is INSERT a period of 50 years with an ENTIRE rule of Xerxes missing with no opposition or mention of it AND more importantly you miss out the kings who cam eBETWEEN Cyrus and Darius.
    There is NO reference to ANYONE beyond Darius. It is a COMPLETE fictitious requirement to somehow insert someone who doesn't even figure in the narrative.
    The narrative states FROM Cyrus TO Darius. You have FROM Cyrus THEN Artaxerxes BACK to Darius without the narrative even hinting at such a bizarre idea.


    I am highlighting WHAT the chapters are speaking about.
    There is NO opposition in Ezra 1 - 6 to the building of the city EXCEPT within the claim in Ezra 4 which was made by the enemies to the building of the temple.. Actually you don't find it in Ezra 7 - 10 either.
    Why create fictitious claims?


    I did say that the ONLY claim was in Ezra 4, and this by those opposing the building of the temple.
    The SERIOUS problem for you is that the temple was COMPLETED in the reign of Darius therefore this complaint MUST be about that time:
    Ezr 4:1* Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the LORD, the God of Israel,*
    Ezr 4:2* they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers' houses and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here.”*
    Ezr 4:3* But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers' houses in Israel said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”*
    Ezr 4:4* Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build*
    Ezr 4:5* and bribed counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

    Very simple, it states unequivocally it is speaking about between Cyrus and Darius NOT AFTER Darius.


    The temple was COMPLETED first, the city later. It is NOT agreeing with scripture to try to say the city MUST be completed first and then the temple.


    Really? Based on what?


    See above. The opposition was not just to prevent the reconstruction of the temple, but more, to prevent the reconstruction of the city. The adversaries of Israel were concerned not just with the temple, but with the rising political power of the nation, with its infrastructure. They claimed it was a threat to Persian authorities and posed the risk of rebellion.


    Nope the narrative does NOT recite opposition AFTER the reign of Darius.
    It is you bringing things from OUTSIDE the passage which makes you claim this.
    There is a very clear, linear time sequence, and it is an absurdity to try to force an event 50+ years into this narrative. Take it as stated. There was an Artaxerxes between Cyrus and Darius and we know him as Cambyses II.
    As soon as you recognise and accept that THEN ALL of Ezra makes sense without weird insertions and flashbacks as if in a B-movie.
    I'm not confused. We just disagree. And neither of us is going to be able to beat it into the other!

    I believe you have the wrong narrative. The narrative involves discussion of the *entire period* of opposition, to both the temple project and the city project. This takes us from Cyrus to Artaxerxes.

    And so, in ch. 4 we have in the narrative both projects and the entire time period. But it begins with an emphasis on the temple project, which is completed in the reign of Darius.

    So even though Artaxerxes figures in the timeline of general opposition, throughout the entire time period, the narrative returns to Darius, because it is in his reign that the temple project is completed, and it is the temple project that comes before the city project.

    In my view this makes *perfect sense!* Ch. 4 is not inconsistent when it mentions 2 things here:
    1) There is the entire history of opposition, through both temple and city projects, and from Cyrus to Artaxerxes. Therefore, it is *not* inconsistent for ch. 4 to mention Artaxerxes.
    2) There is the focus, initially, on the the temple project. And so, a return is made, in ch. 4, to the reign of Darius, who finished the temple project before Artaxerxes arrived later to enable completion of the city project.

    Why you can't understand my perspective as logical here is mystifying? Are you going to say that no matter how logical my position is that it defies comprehension simply because I disagree with your position?

    Cambyses is not the Artaxerxes referred to in this discussion. I think there are as many holes in your position as you think there are in mine. Can we agree to disagree?

    Leave a comment:


  • ForHisglory
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    Most of what you said is precisely what I was saying. Reference to Artaxerxes extended the history of opposition to the rebuilding projects beyond the reign of Darius. Darius was the central figure, at this point in the narrative, because it was in his reign that the temple project got completed. Inasmuch as opposition continued past that project, in the matter of the city rebuilding project, the history of opposition was recounted beyond the reign of Darius.
    The problem is you are CONFUSED as to WHICH Artaxerxes is referenced. This is the SOURCE of your error.
    What you do is INSERT a period of 50 years with an ENTIRE rule of Xerxes missing with no opposition or mention of it AND more importantly you miss out the kings who cam eBETWEEN Cyrus and Darius.
    There is NO reference to ANYONE beyond Darius. It is a COMPLETE fictitious requirement to somehow insert someone who doesn't even figure in the narrative.
    The narrative states FROM Cyrus TO Darius. You have FROM Cyrus THEN Artaxerxes BACK to Darius without the narrative even hinting at such a bizarre idea.

    I don't know what you think you're refuting? This is what I've been saying, that emphasis is initially put on the completion of the temple in the time of Darius. However, opposition to the temple project also included opposition to the city project.
    I am highlighting WHAT the chapters are speaking about.
    There is NO opposition in Ezra 1 - 6 to the building of the city EXCEPT within the claim in Ezra 4 which was made by the enemies to the building of the temple.. Actually you don't find it in Ezra 7 - 10 either.
    Why create fictitious claims?

    That's false. The prophecy and the decree had to do with the dual aspect of temple restoration and city restoration.
    Ezra 4.11 To King Artaxerxes,
    From your servants in Trans-Euphrates:
    12 The king should know that the people who came up to us from you have gone to Jerusalem and are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are restoring the walls and repairing the foundations.
    13 Furthermore, the king should know that if this city is built and its walls are restored, no more taxes, tribute or duty will be paid, and eventually the royal revenues will suffer.


    This is completely inclusive of the city rebuilding project! The focus initially was on the reconstruction of the temple. But all along, the focus was on both the reconstruction of the temple and on the reconstruction of the city.
    I did say that the ONLY claim was in Ezra 4, and this by those opposing the building of the temple.
    The SERIOUS problem for you is that the temple was COMPLETED in the reign of Darius therefore this complaint MUST be about that time:
    Ezr 4:1* Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the LORD, the God of Israel,*
    Ezr 4:2* they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers' houses and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here.”*
    Ezr 4:3* But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers' houses in Israel said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”*
    Ezr 4:4* Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build*
    Ezr 4:5* and bribed counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

    Very simple, it states unequivocally it is speaking about between Cyrus and Darius NOT AFTER Darius.

    Isa 45.13 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.”
    In other places, eg 2 Chron 36.23 and Ezra 1.2, the emphasis is on the reconstruction of the temple. But the restoration of the temple obviously required restoration of the city, to protect and to defend, as well as to sustain, the temple.
    Dan 9.26 refers to a new destruction of the city and the temple together, indicating they are to be viewed together. This passage also indicates the decree in the time of Artaxerxes in which the completion of the temple/city project would be enabled, ie 457 BC.
    The temple was COMPLETED first, the city later. It is NOT agreeing with scripture to try to say the city MUST be completed first and then the temple.

    This was obviously a different Ezra.
    Really? Based on what?


    See above. The opposition was not just to prevent the reconstruction of the temple, but more, to prevent the reconstruction of the city. The adversaries of Israel were concerned not just with the temple, but with the rising political power of the nation, with its infrastructure. They claimed it was a threat to Persian authorities and posed the risk of rebellion.

    No, it doesn't. The narrative recites the opposition that began with the temple project and continuing through the city project. This requires an account from the time of Cyrus to Artaxerxes. Darius figures prominently because the temple project got finished during his reign. Artaxerxes figures prominently because he enabled the completion of the city project. The particular order in which kings are mentioned do not indicate a sequential timeline in their mention. There are different subjects to recount, requiring different timelines for each particular subject.

    Artaxerxes is mentioned, in the general timeframe from Cyrus to Artaxerxes, in the subject of opposition to both temple and city rebuilding projects. Then Darius is mentioned on the subject of opposition in his time to the temple rebuilding project. This does not constitute a linear time sequence in the mention of two different subjects. This is all the same basic timeframe, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes. The mention of general opposition throughout the whole time period, in Ezra 4, does not prohibit the zooming in on Darius time frame later, in Ezra 5.
    Nope the narrative does NOT recite opposition AFTER the reign of Darius.
    It is you bringing things from OUTSIDE the passage which makes you claim this.
    There is a very clear, linear time sequence, and it is an absurdity to try to force an event 50+ years into this narrative. Take it as stated. There was an Artaxerxes between Cyrus and Darius and we know him as Cambyses II.
    As soon as you recognise and accept that THEN ALL of Ezra makes sense without weird insertions and flashbacks as if in a B-movie.

    Leave a comment:


  • randyk
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, your initial starting point is wrong.
    Ezra 1 has what the whole book is about - the fulfillment of the Word of the Lord (as given to Jeremiah).
    Ezra 2 list those who returned after Cyrus' edict - who has made his edict in response to God's edict.
    Ezra 3 tells us about the STARt of the rebuilding of the temple, the altar, the restart of sacrifices and the laying of the foundation for the entire temple
    Ezra 4 then tells us about the opposition to that rebuilding of the temple and states the kings under whom this opposition to the rebuilding occurs as STIPULATED in Ezra 4:5 - Cyrus to Darius. Ezra 4 concludes with the work stopped UNTIL the 2nd year of Darius (v24)

    So for YOUR claim to be correct, that this includes Artaxerxes Longimanes, then this would be referring to the Darius who came AFTER that Artaxerxes. Yet clearly you are NOT agreeing that.
    Most of what you said is precisely what I was saying. Reference to Artaxerxes extended the history of opposition to the rebuilding projects beyond the reign of Darius. Darius was the central figure, at this point in the narrative, because it was in his reign that the temple project got completed. Inasmuch as opposition continued past that project, in the matter of the city rebuilding project, the history of opposition was recounted beyond the reign of Darius.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Ezra 5 focuses on the restart under Darius, but initially with Haggai and Zechariah prophesying to exhort them to complete the work, and this is clearly stated in verse 2 as being the work of Zerubbabel, which puts BOTH Haggai and Zechariah as prophesying at this time. It then looks at the fresh opposition.
    Ezra 6 then has that opposition defeated by Darius.
    I don't know what you think you're refuting? This is what I've been saying, that emphasis is initially put on the completion of the temple in the time of Darius. However, opposition to the temple project also included opposition to the city project.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Now IF you want to possibly consider a cit rebuilding, this doesn't come into any possible focus until Ezra 7.
    That's false. The prophecy and the decree had to do with the dual aspect of temple restoration and city restoration.

    Ezra 4.11 To King Artaxerxes,
    From your servants in Trans-Euphrates:
    12 The king should know that the people who came up to us from you have gone to Jerusalem and are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are restoring the walls and repairing the foundations.
    13 Furthermore, the king should know that if this city is built and its walls are restored, no more taxes, tribute or duty will be paid, and eventually the royal revenues will suffer.


    This is completely inclusive of the city rebuilding project! The focus initially was on the reconstruction of the temple. But all along, the focus was on both the reconstruction of the temple and on the reconstruction of the city.

    Isa 45.13 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.”

    In other places, eg 2 Chron 36.23 and Ezra 1.2, the emphasis is on the reconstruction of the temple. But the restoration of the temple obviously required restoration of the city, to protect and to defend, as well as to sustain, the temple.

    Dan 9.26 refers to a new destruction of the city and the temple together, indicating they are to be viewed together. This passage also indicates the decree in the time of Artaxerxes in which the completion of the temple/city project would be enabled, ie 457 BC.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    However this actually doesn't make sense to be about Artaxerxes Longimanes for the very specific reason that Ezra is seen as being a brother of Jehozadak and is now an old man.
    Nehemiah 12:1 has Ezra as returning with Zerubbabel, but Ezra himself has himself returning a few years later in the time of Cyus' son Cambyses II (called Artaxerxes).
    This was obviously a different Ezra.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Actually nowhere in Ezra 4 - 7 do we have mention of the rebuilding of the city EXCEPT in the ORIGINAL complaint in Ezra 4 where it is stated the work on the temple was stopped because of this complaint AND remained so UNTIL the 2nd year of Darius.
    See above. The opposition was not just to prevent the reconstruction of the temple, but more, to prevent the reconstruction of the city. The adversaries of Israel were concerned not just with the temple, but with the rising political power of the nation, with its infrastructure. They claimed it was a threat to Persian authorities and posed the risk of rebellion.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Actually Ezra 4 is VERY clear, and is the reason why the work on the TEMPLE stopped.
    What you are trying to do is MOVE Ezra 4 out of its relationship with everything stated and try to put it AFTER Ezra 6.
    The ONLY reason to do so is based on the name of the king as Artaxerxes.
    However the NARRATIVE puts this particular Artaxerxes as being in between Cyrus and Darius.
    No, it doesn't. The narrative recites the opposition that began with the temple project and continuing through the city project. This requires an account from the time of Cyrus to Artaxerxes. Darius figures prominently because the temple project got finished during his reign. Artaxerxes figures prominently because he enabled the completion of the city project. The particular order in which kings are mentioned do not indicate a sequential timeline in their mention. There are different subjects to recount, requiring different timelines for each particular subject.

    Artaxerxes is mentioned, in the general timeframe from Cyrus to Artaxerxes, in the subject of opposition to both temple and city rebuilding projects. Then Darius is mentioned on the subject of opposition in his time to the temple rebuilding project. This does not constitute a linear time sequence in the mention of two different subjects. This is all the same basic timeframe, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes. The mention of general opposition throughout the whole time period, in Ezra 4, does not prohibit the zooming in on Darius time frame later, in Ezra 5.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Furthermore, the name Artaxerxes is used for many kings as a TITLE.
    Basically you move away from what is actually stated, a very clear and simple narrative, to a made up narrative, because you have fixated on the name of Artaxerxes and determined which Artaxerxes this must be referring to.
    The language used throughout Ezra 4 though precludes such a possibility.
    No, the way I view it has been over-complicated by several different views. We simply disagree.

    Leave a comment:


  • ForHisglory
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    I'll try to explain to you the reason for the order given, which indeed is a little difficult. I think there are two main foci in this narrative--one, the rebuilding of the temple, and two, the rebuilding of the city.
    Nope, your initial starting point is wrong.
    Ezra 1 has what the whole book is about - the fulfillment of the Word of the Lord (as given to Jeremiah).
    Ezra 2 list those who returned after Cyrus' edict - who has made his edict in response to God's edict.
    Ezra 3 tells us about the STARt of the rebuilding of the temple, the altar, the restart of sacrifices and the laying of the foundation for the entire temple
    Ezra 4 then tells us about the opposition to that rebuilding of the temple and states the kings under whom this opposition to the rebuilding occurs as STIPULATED in Ezra 4:5 - Cyrus to Darius. Ezra 4 concludes with the work stopped UNTIL the 2nd year of Darius (v24)

    So for YOUR claim to be correct, that this includes Artaxerxes Longimanes, then this would be referring to the Darius who came AFTER that Artaxerxes. Yet clearly you are NOT agreeing that.

    The temple rebuilding project focuses on the reign of Darius, who completes the project. But the historical background provided includes the history from Zerubbabel and Cyrus up until the time of Darius. As such we have record of opposition both in the time of Zerubbabel and in the time of Darius. Again, the focus is on Darius, in whose reign opposition continued, but ultimately, was put to rest for the purpose of completing the temple project.
    Ezra 5 focuses on the restart under Darius, but initially with Haggai and Zechariah prophesying to exhort them to complete the work, and this is clearly stated in verse 2 as being the work of Zerubbabel, which puts BOTH Haggai and Zechariah as prophesying at this time. It then looks at the fresh opposition.
    Ezra 6 then has that opposition defeated by Darius.

    The city rebuilding project is focused on next, and recognizes the temple rebuilding project that underlay it. And so it refers back to the time of Zerubbabel, where the original vision began with the rebuilding of the temple. But then the emphasis comes to be not so much the temple rebuilding project as the city rebuilding project, and the opposition that preceded it.
    Now IF you want to possibly consider a cit rebuilding, this doesn't come into any possible focus until Ezra 7.
    However this actually doesn't make sense to be about Artaxerxes Longimanes for the very specific reason that Ezra is seen as being a brother of Jehozadak and is now an old man.
    Nehemiah 12:1 has Ezra as returning with Zerubbabel, but Ezra himself has himself returning a few years later in the time of Cyus' son Cambyses II (called Artaxerxes).

    Therefore, I think the focus in Ezra 4-7 is initially on the successful completion of the temple in the time of Darius, and on the history leading up to the completion of that project. And then the history generally shifts to the emphasis on completing the city project under Artaxerxes.
    Actually nowhere in Ezra 4 - 7 do we have mention of the rebuilding of the city EXCEPT in the ORIGINAL complaint in Ezra 4 where it is stated the work on the temple was stopped because of this complaint AND remained so UNTIL the 2nd year of Darius.

    It may be the different documents, involving 2 distinct projects--the temple and the city--that cause the timeline in the narrative to deviate somewhat. When documents are provided it can be necessary to lay the groundwork for explaining what they meant. The temple and the city projects sort of blend together. Opposition existed for both. But they were completed separately under different kings.
    Actually Ezra 4 is VERY clear, and is the reason why the work on the TEMPLE stopped.
    What you are trying to do is MOVE Ezra 4 out of its relationship with everything stated and try to put it AFTER Ezra 6.
    The ONLY reason to do so is based on the name of the king as Artaxerxes.
    However the NARRATIVE puts this particular Artaxerxes as being in between Cyrus and Darius.
    Furthermore, the name Artaxerxes is used for many kings as a TITLE.
    Basically you move away from what is actually stated, a very clear and simple narrative, to a made up narrative, because you have fixated on the name of Artaxerxes and determined which Artaxerxes this must be referring to.
    The language used throughout Ezra 4 though precludes such a possibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • randyk
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
    OK, here is where you have a problem. IN Ezra 4 he finishes in the time of Darius.
    Darius was Artaxerxes Longimanes grandfather. So you are introducing a 50 year gap into Ezra 4 without a SINGLE clue within Ezra 4 to suggest it.
    The ONLY reason to suggest the gap is because there was difficult finding out who the kings were. However in Ezra 4 there is ZRERO suggestion of a 50 year gap or some flashback like a modern movie.


    Does NOT include Artaxerxes Longimanes. That is an INSERTION made because they didn't know all the kings of that kingdom.


    It is PRESENTED as linear AND presented in DIRECT connection. To claim otherwise is to abuse the language most strongly AND to introduce someone COMPLETELY outside the framework of the chapter whihc is the COMPLETION of the building of the temple, which Ezra 4 clearly states is COMPLETED in the reign of Darius!
    I'll try to explain to you the reason for the order given, which indeed is a little difficult. I think there are two main foci in this narrative--one, the rebuilding of the temple, and two, the rebuilding of the city.

    The temple rebuilding project focuses on the reign of Darius, who completes the project. But the historical background provided includes the history from Zerubbabel and Cyrus up until the time of Darius. As such we have record of opposition both in the time of Zerubbabel and in the time of Darius. Again, the focus is on Darius, in whose reign opposition continued, but ultimately, was put to rest for the purpose of completing the temple project.

    The city rebuilding project is focused on next, and recognizes the temple rebuilding project that underlay it. And so it refers back to the time of Zerubbabel, where the original vision began with the rebuilding of the temple. But then the emphasis comes to be not so much the temple rebuilding project as the city rebuilding project, and the opposition that preceded it.

    Therefore, I think the focus in Ezra 4-7 is initially on the successful completion of the temple in the time of Darius, and on the history leading up to the completion of that project. And then the history generally shifts to the emphasis on completing the city project under Artaxerxes.

    However, in Ezra 4 we have both the temple opposition and the city opposition placed together, leading all the way from Zerubbabel to Artaxerxes. But in Ezra 5 we return to the temple project under Darius, before proceeding, once again, to the time of Artaxerxes. And although we initially hear of opposition to the city project under Artaxerxes, he released documents to eventually let the project continue to completion.

    It may be the different documents, involving 2 distinct projects--the temple and the city--that cause the timeline in the narrative to deviate somewhat. When documents are provided it can be necessary to lay the groundwork for explaining what they meant. The temple and the city projects sort of blend together. Opposition existed for both. But they were completed separately under different kings.

    Leave a comment:


  • ForHisglory
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    Sure, I *always* want to move beyond the "personal stuff." Thanks. My view of Ezra 4 is that it *isn't* strange or weird. We've dealt with this before. Rather than looking up that conversation, let me just say in a nutshell: Ezra is dealing with the same characters I've been talking about, Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. In the general time of Cyrus, or immediately afterwards, in Darius' reign, Zerubbabel and the associated prophets worked toward the rebuilding of the temple.
    OK, here is where you have a problem. IN Ezra 4 he finishes in the time of Darius.
    Darius was Artaxerxes Longimanes grandfather. So you are introducing a 50 year gap into Ezra 4 without a SINGLE clue within Ezra 4 to suggest it.
    The ONLY reason to suggest the gap is because there was difficult finding out who the kings were. However in Ezra 4 there is ZRERO suggestion of a 50 year gap or some flashback like a modern movie.

    Ezra 4 deals with the general subject of opposition to the temple project, which covers a period including all of these kings. Ezra 4.24 is placed at end of the chapter, in preparation for a different set of documents with a brand new time frame.
    Does NOT include Artaxerxes Longimanes. That is an INSERTION made because they didn't know all the kings of that kingdom.

    At any rate, documents placed as such together, to cover a particular subject, does not have to present a linear order. The 1st set of documents may cover a time frame from Darius to Artaxerxes. The next document may go back to retrace steps leading to Darius, in particular. Please notice that Ezra 4 compiles different documents with one time frame, and Ezra 4.25 - Ezra 6 compiles a set of documents with its own time frame, even if both time frames overlap.
    It is PRESENTED as linear AND presented in DIRECT connection. To claim otherwise is to abuse the language most strongly AND to introduce someone COMPLETELY outside the framework of the chapter whihc is the COMPLETION of the building of the temple, which Ezra 4 clearly states is COMPLETED in the reign of Darius!

    Leave a comment:


  • randyk
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It isn't only me who doesn't agree with their views.
    Nor do I treat my view as the ONLY possible view.
    What I note are the CLEAR errors in their view, which they may have noted but felt they had no other means to resolve.
    We NOW know they are wrong as we have more information than they did.


    I offer my view up to scrutiny and you can highlight where my view is wrong. However you don't actually do this. If you could THEN you could say I am wrong because... instead your ONLY response is - well someone from some time ago thought this, and therefore because they were a scholar I will accept it.
    You also choose to ignore what we DO know from those times, which these scholars did NOT know.
    You also choose to ignore the issues WITHIN scripture their view forces, such as their bizarre take on Ezra 4.
    One should be properly humble and NOT falsely humble.
    If there is something wrong with a view which means the way of interpreting a piece of scripture is INCONSISTENT and CONTEXTUALLY incorrect, and we have an alternative which does NOT have this issue, then a person should have the HUMILITY to consider the alternative. However you have no such humility, and then accuse others of not being humble.

    I have presented real evidence, but because it comes form me you reject it - just as you rejected real evidence in other threads, simply because it didn;t fit with what you had predetermined MUST be the truth regardless of the FACTS.

    Now instead of this becoming a slinging match between us, which ultimately edifies nobody, how about actually getting into what you claim is reasonable and note what is NOT reasonable - such as the weird distortion of time given by your "experts" rendering of Ezra 4.
    Sure, I *always* want to move beyond the "personal stuff." Thanks. My view of Ezra 4 is that it *isn't* strange or weird. We've dealt with this before. Rather than looking up that conversation, let me just say in a nutshell: Ezra is dealing with the same characters I've been talking about, Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. In the general time of Cyrus, or immediately afterwards, in Darius' reign, Zerubbabel and the associated prophets worked toward the rebuilding of the temple.

    Ezra 4 deals with the general subject of opposition to the temple project, which covers a period including all of these kings. Ezra 4.24 is placed at end of the chapter, in preparation for a different set of documents with a brand new time frame.

    At any rate, documents placed as such together, to cover a particular subject, does not have to present a linear order. The 1st set of documents may cover a time frame from Darius to Artaxerxes. The next document may go back to retrace steps leading to Darius, in particular. Please notice that Ezra 4 compiles different documents with one time frame, and Ezra 4.25 - Ezra 6 compiles a set of documents with its own time frame, even if both time frames overlap.

    Leave a comment:


  • ForHisglory
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    The only thing I don't like about your approach is that you seem to treat your own views as the only possible ones. So when you say their work does not agree with Scripture or History what you're actually saying is that *you* don't agree with those views.
    It isn't only me who doesn't agree with their views.
    Nor do I treat my view as the ONLY possible view.
    What I note are the CLEAR errors in their view, which they may have noted but felt they had no other means to resolve.
    We NOW know they are wrong as we have more information than they did.

    They may very well agree with both Scripture and History. It's just that *you* think that new evidence renders their old views outdated because in view of today's evidence *you* disagree with them.
    As you know I'm not going to agree with *your word,* which means nothing--absolutely nothing--to me, unless you present real evidence. So give me this new evidence that you claim outdates their work? Then I will consider not your *word,* but your *evidence?*
    I respect you to some degree. But you treat every subject the same way, with a complete lack of humility. And some of your positions just reek of personal bias, and a complete dismissal of objective criticism.
    I can't tell you which individual issue you have is the product of "over-confidence" on your part, because I'm subject to biases as well. However, in view of the fact that you tend to deal with *every issue* with complete self-assurance, I cannot think you've covered every subject so thoroughly that you're absolutely certain you're right.
    I don't think any scholar is so sure he's right on every position. And yet, that's how you seem to treat every issue.
    I offer my view up to scrutiny and you can highlight where my view is wrong. However you don't actually do this. If you could THEN you could say I am wrong because... instead your ONLY response is - well someone from some time ago thought this, and therefore because they were a scholar I will accept it.
    You also choose to ignore what we DO know from those times, which these scholars did NOT know.
    You also choose to ignore the issues WITHIN scripture their view forces, such as their bizarre take on Ezra 4.
    One should be properly humble and NOT falsely humble.
    If there is something wrong with a view which means the way of interpreting a piece of scripture is INCONSISTENT and CONTEXTUALLY incorrect, and we have an alternative which does NOT have this issue, then a person should have the HUMILITY to consider the alternative. However you have no such humility, and then accuse others of not being humble.

    I have presented real evidence, but because it comes form me you reject it - just as you rejected real evidence in other threads, simply because it didn;t fit with what you had predetermined MUST be the truth regardless of the FACTS.

    Now instead of this becoming a slinging match between us, which ultimately edifies nobody, how about actually getting into what you claim is reasonable and note what is NOT reasonable - such as the weird distortion of time given by your "experts" rendering of Ezra 4.

    Leave a comment:


  • randyk
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually we HAVE a lot of reasons to note their arguments are NOT reasonable.
    They don;t work as they do NOT agree with scripture NOR history. This means they were a best attempt, but now they need reviewing.
    The only thing I don't like about your approach is that you seem to treat your own views as the only possible ones. So when you say their work does not agree with Scripture or History what you're actually saying is that *you* don't agree with those views.

    They may very well agree with both Scripture and History. It's just that *you* think that new evidence renders their old views outdated because in view of today's evidence *you* disagree with them.

    As you know I'm not going to agree with *your word,* which means nothing--absolutely nothing--to me, unless you present real evidence. So give me this new evidence that you claim outdates their work? Then I will consider not your *word,* but your *evidence?*

    I respect you to some degree. But you treat every subject the same way, with a complete lack of humility. And some of your positions just reek of personal bias, and a complete dismissal of objective criticism.

    I can't tell you which individual issue you have is the product of "over-confidence" on your part, because I'm subject to biases as well. However, in view of the fact that you tend to deal with *every issue* with complete self-assurance, I cannot think you've covered every subject so thoroughly that you're absolutely certain you're right.

    I don't think any scholar is so sure he's right on every position. And yet, that's how you seem to treat every issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • ForHisglory
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    Point well taken--we do have more info today than many years ago. However, I think their arguments, in this case, are still reasonable. In any case, I don't have reason to upset what for me works. If you have major new info to share, I'm open...
    Actually we HAVE a lot of reasons to note their arguments are NOT reasonable.
    They don;t work as they do NOT agree with scripture NOR history. This means they were a best attempt, but now they need reviewing.

    Leave a comment:


  • randyk
    replied
    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Originally posted by ShinyGospelShoes View Post
    randyk said: "Sorry, I don't download files like that. ..."

    My reply, Then my apologies brother, then it must for now remain a mystery to you, though I have many wonderful things to say unto you from Him who sent me.

    The file is clean. You can test it, by copying the link location and by going to and plugging it in: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

    Thank you for your time. I am presently done with this thread.
    For sure. But I would warn you that in the future I'm here to discuss issues directly--not read websites. I've read plenty of books. Now it's time to get down to individual issues.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X