In the Book of Daniel, the Persian conquest of Babylon is dealt with. It is stated that the Persian king at the time of the conquest was Darius, but it was actually Cyrus. How do you explain an error like that?
2006-10-26
05:17:04
·
19 answers
·
asked by
tangerine
7
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Actually, I've never read or watched "The DaVinci Code". My source is "The Penguin History of the World" by J.M. Roberts. Call me crazy, but I'm inclined to trust the word of an Oxford-trained historian.
2006-10-26
05:21:38 ·
update #1
Darius and Cyrus were TWO different people.
2006-10-26
05:25:43 ·
update #2
It's easy. Take your pick.
1. All history books and historical data are wrong. If the Bible says Darius, it was Darius, dammit!
2. 'Darius' translates to 'Cyrus' in some long-dead Middle Eastern language.
3. It was put in there as a test of faith.
4. The Bible is inerrant, except where it's in error. Like the Pope is infallible, except when he's not.
2006-10-26 05:20:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by XYZ 7
·
5⤊
4⤋
In the Biblical record, the name is applied to three kings, one a Mede, the other two Persians. Some consider it possible that “Darius” may have been used, at least in the case of Darius the Mede, as a title or throne name rather than a personal name.
1. Darius the Mede, successor to the kingdom of the Chaldean king Belshazzar following the conquest of Babylon by the forces of Cyrus the Persian, at which time Darius was about 62 years of age. (Da 5:30, 31) He is further identified as “the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes.”
2006-10-26 12:33:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Abdijah 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
The identity of Darius the Mede, mentioned in Dan. 5:31, is not certain. Here are the prevailing thoughts:
1) Darius the Mede may have been Gubaru, a governor under Cyrus (where Cyrus was the King of Persia);
2) Darius the Mede may in fact have been another name for Cyrus; and,
3) Darius the Mede may have been Cambyses, who was the son of Cyrus and served as ruler of Babylon.
With this uncertainty, you cannot claim that an error exists with any certainty.
2006-10-26 12:28:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by BowtiePasta 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Cuneiform tablets have revealed that Cyrus the Persian did not assume the title "King of Babylon" immediately after the conquest. And another researcher suggests that perhaps whoever bore the title 'King of Babylon' was a vassal king under Cyrus. Many critics of the Bible have used these types of seeming-discrepancies to discredit the bible, only to eventually be proved wrong.
2006-10-26 12:53:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by nicky 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
you didnt mention what verse but i went and looked (IN THE BIBLE), this is what i found, it shows them as two seperate people. Daniel 6: 28 So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
i would say it is not wise to listen only to a man and not Gods word. Just because a man says it is so, does not make it true.
If we believe that the Bible is inspired by God, we must also believe that He is capable of revealing His will to us without error or contradiction.
There are many passages that seem to contradict each other, so it is up to us to study those passages and understand them in a way that harmonize with each other.
2006-10-26 12:35:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by K 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
The king of Persia, Darius, had a very short lived reign. Archeologists thought this was an error in the bible also until they unearthed evidence showing that there was a King Darius for a short time and it was during that time period of the conquest.
2006-10-26 12:21:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
11⤊
2⤋
Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Daniel 6:28
Does this help you?
2006-10-26 12:33:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
The Bible is inerrant in the message it was written to deliver. Minor discrepancies in historical or scientific matters are irrelevant to the message of the Bible. Nitpicking over such irrelevant discrepancies is no more valid than fundamentalists' attempts to discredit science through biblical interpretation. Both approaches do violence to the intended purpose of the Bible.
2006-10-26 12:23:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by PaulCyp 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
There is no error in the word of God. Darius was the Babylonian King.
2006-10-26 12:33:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by JAM 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
You mean that is the only error you could find there? I guess the "infallible" were just that after all. What about proven facts such as the dinosaurs? Where did Cains wife come from in the land of lot if Adam and Eve only had two sons? How is it that the Sun moved across the sky and not the Earth revolved? If God is all seeing all knowing and can see the future before it happens...., then he would also have to know who is going to hell and who isn't before they were ever born. Other wise he would not be all seeing and all knowing would he? And if he knows who is and isn't going to hell before they are born, then that would mean people were condemned to hell before they were born. Which means we shouldn't even worry about where we are going in the "after life" doesn't it. According to that concept it has already been decided.
2006-10-26 12:32:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by southwind 5
·
1⤊
3⤋