Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
Either they both agree, or someone is lying. And in the case of Darius, the commentators LIE:Secular and pagan history does not trump Scripture. ...
Dan. 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasu-e′rus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chalde′ans
Darius was the LAST Babylonian King. When the nobles killed Belshazzar in the Feast, for not assembling an army to confront Cyrus; for not sending messengers out to hire mercenaries; for not preparing ANY defense, -- but instead holding a FEAST; they placed Darius as the new king. And when they sought to control him but were unable because Darius gave greater deference to Daniel, the nobles decided to get rid of Daniel. -- And we know how that turned out, when the nobles, their children, and their wives were thrown into the lions den.
Secondly, how is it that MacArthur had to be "strengthened" when the Japanese signed the surrender on the U.S.S. Missouri? And if not, they why did Darius have to be "strengthened" as the "Persian King" (not) who conquered the Babylonians (not)?!?
Daniel 11:1 And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.
Yeah, perhaps the commentators should have obeyed the angel's instructions:
Daniel 12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”
9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.
9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.
... but they didn't, and you believed their lies ...
Bobby Jo