[Faith-talk] {Spam?} Baffling Bible Questions Answered for Monday, May 23, 2016

[Paul Smith]

Hello and greetings to my fellow Bible students.  Sorry to be a little 
late, but I woke up this morning with some irregularities with my old 
SAMNET settings, and after my senior citizens center activities for 
today I decided to join the Sero beta testers, and am I glad I did so.  
At least when the SAMNET browser goes byebye, I won't be left in the 
loop.  Hence the brief delay.

Today we continue with our look at a fascinating Old testament book, 
Daniel to be precise, so let's see what our unnamed Bible teacher has 
to say in the following questions and answers:



Daniel 2:2

Question:  The wise men of Babylon apparently were involved in many 
occult practices that the Old Testament forbids.  How could Daniel be 
faithful to God and still be one of this class of people?

Answer:  The text simply says that Daniel and his friends were trained 
in the language and literature of the Babylonians (1:4).  It is 
important to note that, when Nebuchadnezzar wanted his dream 
interpreted, he "summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and 
astrologers" (2:2), and Daniel did not come with them.  Only later was 
Daniel informed that the king had condemned all the wise men of Babylon 
(2:13).  The conclusion we draw is that, while practitioners of the 
occult were among the wise men of that era, not all wise men were 
involved in occult practices.  Actually, this is not at all surprising. 
Lists of college professors today include experts in engineering or 
psychology or education or whatever.  Modern wise men usually 
concentrate their attention in one field.  Apparently, Babylon's wise 
men did also.



Daniel 3:28; 4:36-37

Question:  Was Nebuchadnezzar really converted to faith in the Lord?

Answer:  This question cannot be answered.  However, it is significant 
that, unlike Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar did respond positively to God at 
each point of revelation (2:47; 3:28; 4:36-37).  In the Old Testament, 
as well as in the New Testament, such a response to God is typically 
associated with faith rather than with unbelief.



Daniel 4:28-37

Question:  There is no historical corroboration of any seven-year 
illness of King Nebuchadnezzar.  And it is most unlikely that a 
maddened king could have survived to recover his throne.

Answer:  There is no doubt it is unusual for any oriental monarch to 
have survived a period when his personal control of events was 
weakened.  But unusual does not mean impossible, particularly when the 
temporary madness was cast as discipline from God intended to humble a 
proud monarch without removing him.  It is also not certain that seven 
years were involved.  The Aramaic word used here means "time or 
season." A season was typically three months.  So, if the word was used 
in the sense of "season," a little less than two years rather than 
seven years was actually involved.



Daniel 5:31

Question:  Who was Darius the Mede? Was he the same person as Darius 
the Persian?

Answer:  There is, admittedly, great confusion over the identity of 
Darius the Mede who, Daniel says, "took over the kingdom, at the age of 
sixty-two" (5:31).  The critics have argued that this is evidence of 
invention:  Either the second-century writer did not know it was Cyrus 
the Persian who conquered Babylon, or he simply grabbed at a famous 
name to make his history sound more authentic.  In view of discovery 
after discovery that has proven Daniel to be accurate and the critics 
wrong, it would be foolish to argue from the absence of evidence that 
there is no explanation for Daniel's statement.  Arguments from a lack 
of evidence are always much weaker than arguments based on the 
existence of evidence.

It is quite evident from established dates and ages that Darius the 
Mede (Daniel 5:31) and Darius I could not be the same person.  Who then 
could he have been? The text's careful use of terms indicates that 
Darius received the kingship, that he was "made king" (_homlak) rather 
than "became king" (_malak, the usual word indicating conquest or 
inheritance of a kingdom), which means that, like Belshazzar, this 
Darius was a subordinate ruler appointed by Cyrus to govern Babylon.  
There is no conflict here either with the practice of the Persian 
rulers to work through similarly empowered subject kings, or with 
Darius' decree addressed to various nations and men within the land he 
governed.

While various identities for Darius the Mede have been suggested, more 
light on the actual identity of this individual and the reason for his 
title, Darius the Mede, must await fresh archaeological discoveries.

And there you have this week's baffling Bible questions answered 
column, which I hope you found interesting.  Until nex Monday when, 
Lord willing, the next in this series of articles will be posted, may 
the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob just keep us safe, individually and 
collectively, in these last days in which we live.  Your Christian 
friend and brother, Oil of Gladness