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

[Shikha]

Thanks it was interesting!

God bless!

Shikha.
BSW Georgia state university  

> On May 23, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Paul Smith via Faith-talk <faith-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Faith-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/desai1shikha%40gmail.com