Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 64 of 64

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote 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.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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]

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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!

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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!

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote 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.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jun 13th 2019, 07:23 AM
  2. Replies: 117
    Last Post: Apr 22nd 2019, 08:53 PM
  3. Persian Period Timeline
    By Cyberseeker in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Apr 27th 2018, 10:57 PM
  4. Daniel 7 - visions of kings and kingdoms/leopard rises twice
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 28th 2011, 03:33 PM
  5. Daniel 7 - kings and kingdoms/visions/ had yet four heads
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sep 14th 2011, 03:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •