Enoquin: @KDK, @Ihedinobi @image123 have answered in the same way and that is quite enlightening. It is worth channeling my thoughts to.

Still shouldn't Daniel's god status have stopped the King from even attempting to throw him in the Lion's den?

@Ihedinobi: No, you didn't scare me off. I don't scare that easily...just didn't have the time and didn't want to drop a one-liner either...

Actually KDK was slightly wrong. Daniel was a true Jew and as such would not have accepted Nebuchadnezzar's worship. I used to be stuck on that too.

V. 47 was my redemption there. If the king worshipped Daniel as a god then he would not have been acknowledging this god's God. It would have been enough for him that Daniel who was present and immediately accessible be the god. Different translations deal with v.46 differently, but the Amplified Bible did a lot to clarify the events of that verse. The homage Nebuchadnezzar paid Daniel was such as was due the prophet of a God that outstripped all the gods that the king recognized. He acknowledged by his "worship" of Daniel that the God Whose emissary Daniel was was unmatched by any other that he knew.

As for the lion's den issue, I think I need to warn you of a tendency that you display. You treat the book of Daniel like a story that happened event following event. You do not quite allow for it to be true history. For instance, your question spoke of the king that threw Daniel into the lion's den as though he were the same as Nebuchadnezzar which is not true.

It was Darius the Mede a warrior-king foreign to Babylon who attacked and conquered the Babylonian Empire under Belshazzar's rule a while after Nebuchadnezzar's demise that carried out that part of the story. Obviously, he knew nothing about Daniel. What he knew would have come from details of administrative documents of Nebuchadnezzar's era (even Belshazzar a son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzar's did not know Daniel until the "handwriting on the wall" on the wall incident) and having conquered Babylon, might not have cared much for her "superstitions".

Therefore, when the time came for the lion's den, Darius would have been experiencing his own first taste of the power of Daniel's God.

Ihedinobi:

Actually KDK was slightly wrong. Daniel was a true Jew and as such would not have accepted Nebuchadnezzar's worship. I used to be stuck on that too.

V. 47 was my redemption there. If the king worshipped Daniel as a god then he would not have been acknowledging this god's God. It would have been enough for him that Daniel who was present and immediately accessible be the god. Different translations deal with v.46 differently, but the Amplified Bible did a lot to clarify the events of that verse. The homage Nebuchadnezzar paid Daniel was such as was due the prophet of a God that outstripped all the gods that the king recognized. He acknowledged by his "worship" of Daniel that the God Whose emissary Daniel was was unmatched by any other that he knew.

As for the lion's den issue, I think I need to warn you of a tendency that you display. You treat the book of Daniel like a story that happened event following event. You do not quite allow for it to be true history. For instance, your question spoke of the king that threw Daniel into the lion's den as though he were the same as Nebuchadnezzar which is not true.

It was Darius the Mede a warrior-king foreign to Babylon who attacked and conquered the Babylonian Empire under Belshazzar's rule a while after Nebuchadnezzar's demise that carried out that part of the story. Obviously, he knew nothing about Daniel. What he knew would have come from details of administrative documents of Nebuchadnezzar's era (even Belshazzar a son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzar's did not know Daniel until the "handwriting on the wall" on the wall incident) and having conquered Babylon, might not have cared much for her "superstitions".

Therefore, when the time came for the lion's den, Darius would have been experiencing his own first taste of the power of Daniel's God.

I didn't say KDK was absolutely right...I said there was a 'similarity' in the three answers.
As of following the book of Daniel like a story, you caught me there even though not all the chapters are stories...some are visions and prophecies more like a mini book of Revelations.
This reminds me of a christian novel I had where Ezra and Esther's time was the same...I would like to know your take on Daniel 10: 13-21...
I appreciate your contributions...
Thank you once again.

Enoquin:

I didn't say KDK was absolutely right...I said there was a 'similarity' in the three answers.
As of following the book of Daniel like a story, you caught me there even though not all the chapters are stories...some are visions and prophecies more like a mini book of Revelations.
This reminds me of a christian novel I had where Ezra and Esther's time was the same...I would like to know your take on Daniel 10: 13-21...
I appreciate your contributions...
Thank you once again.

Basically, Daniel received a visit from a spiritual dignitary who was going to explain to him the meanings of the visions he had been receiving.

Interesting thread, and I suspect the OP is not entirely satisfied with the answers she got here. I always wondered about this question too when I was still in the faith; not a single person I asked had an answer. There are many interesting responses on this thread though. I found the following exchange quite interesting and just had to chip in. Hope you guys don't mind.

Ihedinobi:
It wasn't Daniel's being a ruler that exempted him, nor was it his seating arrangement. It was Nebuchadnezzar's recognition of his God and his appreciation of the superiority and super-excellence of that God over all the others that he recognized.

Enoquin:
No sir, because his recognition of Daniel's God would by as an extension have touched on Shedrach, Meshach and Abednago...but it didn't.

Ihedinobi:
Why? Did he know who they were?

Yes, he knew very well who they were. They had had a few encounters before then.

- In Dan 1:7, they were among those selected by the King to learn Babylonian language and literature
- In Dan 1:20, following a personal Q&A session with all four of them (including Daniel), the king himself found them ten times better than all the others in his whole kingdom
- In Dan 2:49, at the request of Daniel himself, the king had appointed these guys administrators over the province of Babylon

All these happened before the fiery furnace incidence, so Enoquin's logic here is very much valid.

How could the king have recognized only Daniel's God and refused to acknowledge the others, even though they practically rolled together and was apparent they all subscribed to the same beliefs? Remember that these were the same guys that had been found healthier and better nourished than any of the other young men who ate royal food (Dan 1:15), and the king himself had attested to their brilliance on all matters he tested them. Sure, they were not interpreting dreams like Daniel, but they were clearly on the same level as he, spirituality-wise. Heck, he even made them rulers in his kingdom.

So you say Daniel was exempted? And your reasons are. . ?

* It wasn't Daniel's being a ruler that exempted him. Agreed. The other three were rulers too.
* Nor was it his seating arrangement. Exactly. He was not "sitting" at the gate as some think.
* It was Nebuchadnezzar's recognition of his God and his appreciation of the superiority and super-excellence of that God over all the others that he recognized. Note quite. In the words of the OP, "his recognition of Daniel's God would by as an extension have touched on Shedrach, Meshach and Abednago...but it didn't."

Sir, your explanation still does not explain how or why Daniel was missing when the whole kingdom was bowing to the king's golden image.

Honestly, I don't want to answer you, but you aren't the only person who'll read this. So, I'll shut my eyes to what I know of you and give my answers.

Purist: Yes, he knew very well who they were. They had had a few encounters before then.

- In Dan 1:7, they were among those selected by the King to learn Babylonian language and literature

Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility - young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning . . .

That's an excerpt of an historical account. Does it in any way indicate physical contact or face-to-face encounter?

Then again, considering that the "village" Nebuchadnezzar was ruling would rival the United States in size, if he personally selected them, is it even reasonable to expect him to remember these guys?

Imagine that it's not the Bible you're reading but a history textbook or a novel before you answer those.

- In Dan 1:20, following a personal Q&A session with all four of them (including Daniel), the king himself found them ten times better than all the others in his whole kingdom

So what? How many dignitaries have you impressed who remembered you a week later, to say nothing of years?

- In Dan 2:49, at the request of Daniel himself, the king had appointed these guys administrators over the province of Babylon

There's no reason to expect that because of Daniel he took special notice of them to always remember them.

All these happened before the fiery furnace incidence, so Enoquin's logic here is very much valid.

Now, even with all the foregoing, with all the information we have there, what suggests that the king should associate these three with Daniel's God apart from their sameness of nationality? Even with that sameness, would it not amount to naivety for him to imagine that these three were of the same God as Daniel? Was he not man enough to doubt that their faith was anything but a convenient tag or label that they wore as Israelites? Daniel had proved that his faith was the very same as his life, on what grounds was the king to believe that this was the case with these three?

How could the king have recognized only Daniel's God and refused to acknowledge the others, even though they practically rolled together and was apparent they all subscribed to the same beliefs? Remember that these were the same guys that had been found healthier and better nourished than any of the other young men who ate royal food (Dan 1:15), and the king himself had attested to their brilliance on all matters he tested them. Sure, they were not interpreting dreams like Daniel, but they were clearly on the same level as he, spirituality-wise. Heck, he even made them rulers in his kingdom.

See my foregoing answers. @bolded, and he was to have known this how? As for the last question, on what recognition did he make them rulers? Their own personal merit or somebody else's?

So you say Daniel was exempted? And your reasons are. . ?

* It wasn't Daniel's being a ruler that exempted him. Agreed. The other three were rulers too.
* Nor was it his seating arrangement. Exactly. He was not "sitting" at the gate as some think.
* It was Nebuchadnezzar's recognition of his God and his appreciation of the superiority and super-excellence of that God over all the others that he recognized. Note quite. In the words of the OP, "his recognition of Daniel's God would by as an extension have touched on Shedrach, Meshach and Abednago...but it didn't."

Sir, your explanation still does not explain how or why Daniel was missing when the whole kingdom was bowing to the king's golden image.

Let's pray for the miracle of understanding for your mind. If we get it, we probably won't have to stretch this further.

Ihedinobi:
Honestly, I don't want to answer you, but you aren't the only person who'll read this. So, I'll shut my eyes to what I know of you and give my answers.

This is an unnecessary remark. Are you confusing me with someone else? If you're not, I'd advise that you do yourself a world of good by not projecting an image of yourself on me and kindly face the issues presented.

Ihedinobi:
Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility - young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning . . .

That's an excerpt of an historical account. Does it in any way indicate physical contact or face-to-face encounter?

Then again, considering that the "village" Nebuchadnezzar was ruling would rival the United States in size, if he personally selected them, is it even reasonable to expect him to remember these guys?

Imagine that it's not the Bible you're reading but a history textbook or a novel before you answer those.

Fair point. However, since we're talking of possibilities and probabilities here, it is also very possible that he actually DID encounter them face to face after Ashpenaz had brought them in, and also remembered them very well. Unless you're telling us flatly that he did NOT meet with them physically and/or did NOT remember any of them, of which you'd have to point us to the clear and unambiguous evidence backing that claim.

Ihedinobi:
So what? How many dignitaries have you impressed who remembered you a week later, to say nothing of years?

Considering the magnitude of the impression they formed on his mind when he met with them, I doubt he would have forgotten them - if at all - so easily. These men were TEN times better than any other in the land. No one fails to remember such men. No one! By the way, that is completely beside the point. Your initial claim was that the king did not know who they were (or at least that was what you implied), NOT whether he remembered them or not. You'd have to do more than conjecturing and "what ifs" to convince anyone here that the king did not remember these guys. Thankfully, you did not deny that he KNEW them at least, which is the main point I tackled in the first place.

Ihedinobi:
There's no reason to expect that because of Daniel he took special notice of them to always remember them.

Again, you're shifting the goalposts. The argument is NOT whether he "remembered" them or not. The argument is whether he KNEW them or not, which has been PROVEN already that he did. And let me even entertain your argument for a second: what reason do YOU have to expect that the king could not have had a photographic memory such that he could remember every single person he met, for example? You see, with "what ifs" and appeals to probability, we can always come up with all sorts of possible scenarios.

Ihedinobi:
Now, even with all the foregoing, with all the information we have there, what suggests that the king should associate these three with Daniel's God apart from their sameness of nationality? Even with that sameness, would it not amount to naivity for him to imagine that these three were of the same God as Daniel? Was he not man enough to doubt that their faith was anything but a convenient tag or label that they wore as Israelites?

"What ifs" and "what ifs" again. . . I can play the game too. First of all, these three men had previously formed so great an impression on the king's mind (TEN TIMES BETTER than any other person in the land) so much that it certainly would NOT have been out of place for the king to associate the same God with all of them. Now, let's employ your tactic here: what if Daniel whom the king supposedly knew better, constantly talked about his friends to the king? The very mere fact that the king did not hesitate to grant his request to honour his friends with political posts also tells a lot. Certainly, the king must have heard their gist as well (assuming he didn't even remember them as you're trying to paint).

Ihedinobi:
Daniel had proved that his faith was the very same as his life, on what grounds was the king to believe that this was the case with these three?

On account of Daniel's words and recommendation, perhaps?

Ihedinobi:
See my foregoing answers. @bolded, and he was to have known this how? As for the last question, on what recognition did he make them rulers? Their own personal merit or somebody else's?

Maybe he really could not have known, maybe. But borrowing your own logic of "what if" here, we can safely assume that since Daniel and these guys were very close friends, they most likely walked, worked and did things together and must have shared the same beliefs and ideals and by extension, believed in the same God. The king, surely, must have noticed this.

The other part of your statement is irrelevant here. The FACT, according to the bible, remains that the king appointed them rulers which means he KNEW them well BEFORE the fiery furnace incidence. And don't bring the "did he remember them" argument again because even in this case, it would fail. How can a king not remember his own officials? They were not even ordinary officials, they were ADMINISTRATORS (some versions refer to them as GOVERNORS) over the province of Babylon!

Ihedinobi:
Let's pray for the miracle of understanding for your mind. If we get it, we probably won't have to stretch this further.

Quit the condescending attitude already, old man. Address the issues and ignore the personality.

^^^ lol. Perhaps I have the advantage of you? I know you, Purist, and your response surprises me none. You may never have dealt with me substantially in argument but I have seen you. By the way, you remind me of another atheist who attempted to disarm me saying that I also had my doubts (just like you did with the op). Silly guys. None of you comes into any philosophical or religious argument with a desire to test what you know or what new knowledge is being offered so that you can know the truth. You're always trying to prove God dead or non-existent and/or the Bible wrong and falling flat on your face for your trouble.

I assure you, I do not meet people on different threads and deal with them differently on each thread. I deal with you according to the personality that I have come to associate with you wherever I find you. And the one with which I have associated you is not one I respect.

Anyway, I have only one thing to point out in your "wonderful" comeback: that you don't just throw "what if's" around You employ what if's that agree with given information unless you can provide superior information.

My question was: did the king know who they were? The question is necessary because his actions indicated a lack of cognizance for their persons. If you want to prove a case, you'll have to show, NOT that the king may have known them but that he DID in fact know them.

There is no doubt that the king knew Daniel. There is also no real question why Daniel is not featured in that part of the story. The question really is, "considering that these three men were associated with Daniel, should they not have enjoyed Daniel's exemption?" Again, my answer is the question, "did the king know them?" To say that he should have, may have or might have is really not enough. If he knew them, he would have associated their faith with Daniel's and considered their God one with his, therefore they would have also been exempted. It's that simple.

If you decide to make a case against Daniel's exemption, you'll be arguing from ignorance and silence, which atheists are pretty proficient at anyway. Daniel was exempt BECAUSE the king recognized his God as above every other god he acknowledged. His friends were not because the king did not associate them with Daniel's God. The proof lies in a side by side comparison of Daniel 2:47 and 3:28.

^^^ Is this all you can come up with? seriously smh. I'm disappointed. I'll be back later (will take several hours probably) to address all you wrote up there. I hope I'll still be in the mood by then.

Okay, I'm back.

Ihedinobi: ^^^ lol. Perhaps I have the advantage of you? I know you, Purist, and your response surprises me none. You may never have dealt with me substantially in argument but I have seen you. By the way, you remind me of another atheist who attempted to disarm me saying that I also had my doubts (just like you did with the op). Silly guys. None of you comes into any philosophical or religious argument with a desire to test what you know or what new knowledge is being offered so that you can know the truth. You're always trying to prove God dead or non-existent and/or the Bible wrong and falling flat on your face for your trouble.

Now, it's quite interesting to see that you're the only one here constantly focusing on personality. What are you insecure about? What exactly is your problem? You don't know me even if you think you do. I'll also advise that you do not make the common mistake of lumping every unbeliever together as the same. I know it's more convenient for you to unload prior assumptions and preconceived notions on other people, after all, "they" all wear similar theological tags, but try to avoid it. Once again kind sir, please focus on the issues presented or I may have to abandon this argument.

Ihedinobi:
I assure you, I do not meet people on different threads and deal with them differently on each thread. I deal with you according to the personality that I have come to associate with you wherever I find you. And the one with which I have associated you is not one I respect.

This is a really terrible way to engage in a discourse, and I'm quite frankly surprised that you'd even admit so publicly. I have engaged quite a number of people on this forum on different threads and different boards and I always try as much as possible to discuss issues on their own merit and not based on what I know or assume of the person previously unless the topics of discussion have similar contents, otherwise I may be missing out on more important things. I also believe that I made my intentions really clear from the beginning. It's a shame that you carry and transfer grudges from thread to thread. Very mature and Christ-like indeed.

Ihedinobi:
Anyway, I have only one thing to point out in your "wonderful" comeback: that you don't just throw "what if's" around You employ what if's that agree with given information unless you can provide superior information.

I agree, but it's quite ironical that you're the one failing to follow up on this point.

Ihedinobi:
My question was: did the king know who they were? The question is necessary because his actions indicated a lack of cognizance for their persons. If you want to prove a case, you'll have to show, NOT that the king may have known them but that he DID in fact know them.

It has been shown that the king DID know them. They were governors in his kingdom. What kind of king does not KNOW his own governors, especially considering the manner in which they got appointed to such position and the circumstances surrounding it?

Ihedinobi:
There is no doubt that the king knew Daniel. There is also no real question why Daniel is not featured in that part of the story. The question really is, "considering that these three men were associated with Daniel, should they not have enjoyed Daniel's exemption?" Again, my answer is the question, "did the king know them?" To say that he should have, may have or might have is really not enough. If he knew them, he would have associated their faith with Daniel's and considered their God one with his, therefore they would have also been exempted. It's that simple.

The problem with this point is that you're working with the assumption that your 'exemption' explanation is the correct one. You deduced - and which I must admit is logical (but not necessarily valid) - based on the information we have available to us, that Daniel WAS exempted. That is NOT a factual statement. Was Daniel exempted? That question has only two possible answers - (1) Yes (2) No. Unfortunately, we're provided with NEITHER in the whole story, hence, the reason for this discourse in the first place. The best we can therefore do is attempt to extrapolate based on what we know. The explanation that Daniel was probably not in town at the time is just as valid as your own deductions that he must have been exempted. So why are you trying to force your own viewpoint as the correct one? The best you can and should do is say, "this is what I think" and we won't even be here debating at all. Unless you can point to a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS evidence that clearly shows that Daniel was INDEED exempted by the king from participating in the image worship.

Also, even though the king knew and recognized Daniel's God, what makes you conclude that he MUST HAVE exempted Daniel based on this? It does sound logical and safe to assume so, but is it ACTUALLY so? Everybody knows Nebuchadnezzar was an egomaniacal douche bag, at least, as portrayed in the bible anyway. So what makes you give him so much credit?

Ihedinobi:
If you decide to make a case against Daniel's exemption, you'll be arguing from ignorance and silence, which atheists are pretty proficient at anyway. Daniel was exempt BECAUSE the king recognized his God as above every other god he acknowledged. His friends were not because the king did not associate them with Daniel's God. The proof lies in a side by side comparison of Daniel 2:47 and 3:28.

Ironically, you're the only one arguing from ignorance and silence here. What we DO know is that the king DID know Daniel's friends. You're the one ASSUMING that he must have failed to remember them, and so was not likely to grant them the same recognition as Daniel. This - based on logical deductions as well - has been shown to be unlikely because:

(1) These three guys along with Daniel were TEN TIMES BETTER than any other person in the land
(2) These three guys were GOVERNORS in his kingdom, thanks to Daniel's recommendation and endorsement

This should automatically make you realize that your exemption argument is quite faulty and is not likely to be the reason Daniel was conspicuously missing from the fiery furnace scene. These guys were close friends with Daniel who in turn was very well known to the king. Considering the fact that there's hardly any way that the king could have forgotten three STANDOUT men in his kingdom who he found to be exceptionally brilliant, in addition to the very likely possibility that Daniel must have constantly talked about his friends to the king assuming he spent a lot of time with him, I also assume that the king certainly must have taken special interest in these guys himself and must have endeavoured to know them personally and in the process, getting to know what they stand for.

Why then would he still go ahead to cast them in the furnace if he recognized that they served the same God as Daniel, you may ask? I'd say, perhaps he was just being the douche bag that he was.

Now, was Daniel even exempted by the king? We're not provided with that information anywhere in the bible. Thus, we can only make logical but not necessarily sound conclusions, so attempting to tell us WHY is completely moot.

@Enoquin, my apologies. Please, try to ignore the exchange here. I'm fully interested and ready to carry on the discussion on Daniel 10 when you're ready.

Purist:
It has been shown that the king DID know them. They were governors in his kingdom. What kind of king does not KNOW his own governors, especially considering the manner in which they got appointed to such position and the circumstances surrounding it?

lol. It has been shown? Please feel free to point me to where it has.

The problem with this point is that you're working with the assumption that your 'exemption' explanation is the correct one. You deduced - and which I must admit is logical (but not necessarily valid) - based on the information we have available to us, that Daniel WAS exempted. That is NOT a factual statement. Was Daniel exempted? That question has only two possible answers - (1) Yes (2) No. Unfortunately, we're provided with NEITHER in the whole story, hence, the reason for this discourse in the first place. The best we can therefore do is attempt to extrapolate based on what we know. The explanation that Daniel was probably not in town at the time is just as valid as your own deductions that he must have been exempted. So why are you trying to force your own viewpoint as the correct one? The best you can and should do is say, "this is what I think" and we won't even be here debating at all. Unless you can point to a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS evidence that clearly shows that Daniel was INDEED exempted by the king from participating in the image worship.

Wouldn't you just love for me to doubt things I know and join you in your foolishness? Sorry, no can do. Now, if you say that the information is neither yes nor no, how do you explain Daniel 2:47 and 3:26,28-29?

Also, even though the king knew and recognized Daniel's God, what makes you conclude that he MUST HAVE exempted Daniel based on this? It does sound logical and safe to assume so, but is it ACTUALLY so? Everybody knows Nebuchadnezzar was an egomaniacal douche bag, at least, as portrayed in the bible anyway. So what makes you give him so much credit?

Fair answer would be: is it actually not so?

Ironically, you're the only one arguing from ignorance and silence here. What we DO know is that the king DID know Daniel's friends. You're the one ASSUMING that he must have failed to remember them, and so was not likely to grant them the same recognition as Daniel. This - based on logical deductions as well - has been shown to be unlikely because:

(1) These three guys along with Daniel were TEN TIMES BETTER than any other person in the land
(2) These three guys were GOVERNORS in his kingdom, thanks to Daniel's recommendation and endorsement

Your argument reads: "the king should have remembered them because . . ." Now, explain his actions in the light of that argument. And if you dare to say you don't know, you lose the right to throw out my argument which, by the way, you yourself admit as logical.

This should automatically make you realize that your exemption argument is quite faulty and is not likely to be the reason Daniel was conspicuously missing from the fiery furnace scene. These guys were close friends with Daniel who in turn was very well known to the king. Considering the fact that there's hardly any way that the king could have forgotten three STANDOUT men in his kingdom who he found to be exceptionally brilliant, in addition to the very likely possibility that Daniel must have constantly talked about his friends to the king assuming he spent a lot of time with him, I also assume that the king certainly must have taken special interest in these guys himself and must have endeavoured to know them personally and in the process, getting to know what they stand for.

Why then would he still go ahead to cast them in the furnace if he recognized that they served the same God as Daniel, you may ask? I'd say, perhaps he was just being the douche bag that he was.

Like I said, I await your evidence that he did know them. Everything you have submitted here is speculation and baseless speculation too as I have previously shown.

Now, was Daniel even exempted by the king? We're not provided with that information anywhere in the bible. Thus, we can only make logical but not necessarily sound conclusions, so attempting to tell us WHY is completely moot.

lol. Explain the two bits of Scripture and we'll carry on from there.

Ihedinobi:
lol. It has been shown? Please feel free to point me to where it has.

Are you for real? lol. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you're only refusing to concede this point because you just cannot afford to lose an argument to a bloody heathen like myself. But I'll indulge you nonetheless.

Here's the answer you seek (for the third or fourth time now): Dan 1:20, Dan 2:49. Unless you can convince anyone here that:

(1) a king does not know/remember three standout men in his kingdom who were ten times better than any other person in the land (Ref: Daniel 1:20)
(2) a king does not know/remember governors in his own kingdom (Ref: Daniel 2:49)

I can't - for the life of me - understand why you're contesting this point at all.

Ihedinobi:
Wouldn't you just love for me to doubt things I know and join you in your foolishness? Sorry, no can do. Now, if you say that the information is neither yes nor no, how do you explain Daniel 2:47 and 3:26,28-29?

@bolded: You just can't help it, can you? One more personal attack from you and I'm done with you on this thread (and it doesn't make a difference if you insert a smiley face after your insult).

Now moving on, how did you arrive at what you claim to know? How did you reach that conclusion? I can also deduce and conclude LOGICALLY from the information we have in Dan 3:2 that Daniel certainly was not in town during the whole saga. EVERY SINGLE OFFICIAL of the kingdom was required to be present at the image worship and there was NO indication that any exception was made. If there was, please point it out. So how come Daniel was not there then? Answer: He probably traveled out at the time or something. Very very reasonable conclusion. Now, would that make make me right? Probably. But then, I would only be so honest to present it as what I THINK, and not what IS.

Now, how do I explain Daniel 2:47 and 3:26,28-29, you ask? My simple explanation is that king Nebuchadnezzar was an egoistical king who didn't pay much attention to the things he spewed at times. Be reminded that we're talking about the same king, who, despite Daniel's interpretation of his dream where he was adequately informed/warned that his pride would see him turn to an animal, he still went ahead anyway to do the same thing he was warned about. This was a stubborn king. So why do you assume/expect that despite his public declaration of his recognition of Daniel's God, he would automatically be so humble/reasonable to respect his beliefs later on?

Have you seen the movie, Last King of Scotland? I see Daniel's relationship with Nebuchadnezzar as somewhat similar to the kind Idi Amin had with the Scottish doctor. Despite constantly professing how much he valued their friendship and telling everyone about his doctor friend, Idi Amin still did not fail to completely disregard and even threaten the doctor whenever he felt like it.

Ihedinobi:
Fair answer would be: is it actually not so?

This doesn't make any sense. Why are you assuming a negative here? Your answer presupposes that we already know, and therefore, only questioning the possibility that we may be wrong. That is NOT the case here. We're trying to establish a fact so we cannot be assuming negatives. It's like someone coming to you claiming that there is water on Mars because of the presence of hydrogen and oxygen (hey, just an example), and you question that conclusion by asking "IS THAT REALLY SO?" And then the claimant retorts with, "IS IT REALLY NOT SO?". You don't establish truth claims with such tactics.

So my question still stands: even though the king knew and recognized Daniel's God, what makes you conclude that he DID exempt Daniel based on this? It does sound logical and safe to assume so (as in the case of the water on Mars claim), but is it ACTUALLY so? You keep appealing to commonsense^{(see #3 & #5 especially)} - the commonsense fallacy - which is a flawed way of reasoning.

Ihedinobi:
Your argument reads: "the king should have remembered them because . . ." Now, explain his actions in the light of that argument. And if you dare to say you don't know, you lose the right to throw out my argument which, by the way, you yourself admit as logical.

See above for my explanation.

Also, being logical does not automatically translate to being correct. Your premises are quite faulty but the conclusion follows quite logically. Valid, but not sound.

Ihedinobi:
Like I said, I await your evidence that he did know them. Everything you have submitted here is speculation and baseless speculation too as I have previously shown.

See above for the evidence. More so, I'm simply following your line of reasoning as you're the one mainly speculating here. I initially chose to stick to what we KNOW, but you chose to speculate about the king's memory among other things. Because he recognized Daniel's God means he MUST have exempted Daniel? Purely speculative conclusion.

Ihedinobi:
lol. Explain the two bits of Scripture and we'll carry on from there.

I already did.

^^^ I'm quite busy these days and can't respond in a timely manner. For that I'm sorry. But I'm not sorry that your arguments annoy me. Which is another reason I am reticent in responding. Had you been an honest argumentator, sparring with you would be a great deal of fun and I might learn a thing or two. But you're here only to give the lie to the Bible and addressing people like you is fun for me only when I can call you what you really are.

Anyhow, I will give you a response tonight and see what you will do with it. Suffice to say that you are the one guilty of the very fallacious argument you charge me with. But, we'll see, won't we?

Tonight then, senor.

Ihedinobi: ^^^ I'm quite busy these days and can't respond in a timely manner. For that I'm sorry. But I'm not sorry that your arguments annoy me. Which is another reason I am reticent in responding. Had you been an honest argumentator, sparring with you would be a great deal of fun and I might learn a thing or two. But you're here only to give the lie to the Bible and addressing people like you is fun for me only when I can call you what you really are.

Anyhow, I will give you a response tonight and see what you will do with it. Suffice to say that you are the one guilty of the very fallacious argument you charge me with. But, we'll see, won't we?

Tonight then, senor.

Take your time, Mister. And by the way, it's no use attempting to poison the well now. Anyone following this discourse can readily see the dishonest person here. Table out your argument, and for the umpteenth time, deal with the message and NOT the messenger.

Purist:

Take your time, Mister. And by the way, it's no use attempting to poison the well now. Anyone following this discourse can readily see the dishonest person here. Table out your argument, and for the umpteenth time, deal with the message and NOT the messenger.

The messenger is his message, friend

Anyhow, I can't copy the whole text that I would have loved to for two reasons: I'm on my phone currently and I don't want to paste a long, possibly boring, read here.

You insist that the king knew these Hebrews. Your reasons are that

1. They impressed him

and

2. They were government officials.

Now, my real contention is not whether the king knew that such people existed. It is that he did not associate them with Daniel's God or, at least, with the genuineness of Daniel's faith. I said as much before already, I believe. For the king, perhaps these were his most brilliant underlings, but they were his underlings nonetheless. As such, they were nothing special. Even Daniel in his office as ruler of the whole kingdom was not exempt on that count.

Daniel's exemption was because of his God. His friends' lack of exemption was because of the king's lack of appreciation/recognition of a link between them and Daniel's God or, at least, of a true faith in this God.

Suddenly I wish again that I could copy and paste the text, but I can't. Anyhow, I have my Bible and I expect that you will consult one. The text I'm submitting is Daniel 1:18-3:30. I will reproduce here from the NIV 1:18-20 (black), 2:14-16 (red), 25 (green), 46-49 (purple) and 28-30 (blue) as highlights.


At the end of the time set by the king to bring them in, the chief official presented them to Nebuchadnezzar. The king talked with them, and found none equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azasiah; so they entered the king's service. In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.

When Arioch, the commander of the king's guard, had gone out to put to death the wise men of Babylon, Daniel spoke to him with wisdom and tact. He asked the king's officer, "Why did the king issue such a harsh decree?" Arioch then explained the matter to Daniel. At this, Daniel went in to the king and asked for time, so that he might interpret the dream for him.

Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, "I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means."

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honour and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. The king said to Daniel, "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery."

Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel's request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court.

Then Nebuchadnezzar said, "Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king's command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way."
Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

Sigh. You just presented the same argument all over again and responding to your post would mean repeating myself yet again. This is getting boring. Have a good day, sire.

Purist: Sigh. You just presented the same argument all over again and responding to your post would mean repeating myself yet again. This is getting boring. Have a good day, sire.

Now you get a little where I'm coming from, don't you. Repeat yourself again in the light of those verses in the context of the whole text if you think your arguments will hold together.

@Purist, I think I owe you an apology. I realize that my antagonism probably surprised you. I assure you that it was not due to some direct hurt you meted out to me. It is uncharacteristic of me to not have given you benefit of the doubt. Please accept my unreserved apologies.

We can start over if you like. But I'll wait for your acknowledgment of this post first.

Cheers.

^^^^It's okay.

By the way, I fully understand your point and can easily see why you'd arrive at that conclusion. My main grouse however, is that we are not provided with enough information to make such a leap. While that may indeed be the best explanation one might possibly give for Daniel's absence, I maintain that it remains just so -- an explanation of what likely transpired, and not what actually happened.

There is no doubt that the king recognized Daniel's God. The bone of contention is whether he actually DID exempt Daniel based on this. Very likely? Yes. But is it, really? We don't have enough information to tell for sure. The case of the Pharaoh readily comes to mind here. He had fully acknowledged the Israelites as God's chosen people. He had seen all the signs and wonders. He had experienced the plagues. One would certainly expect that he'd happily let them go in peace. Yet, we all know how his story ended.

The thing is, I am usually too careful to conclude on things definitively, even when they seem "obvious" or "commonsense" or when we can "easily fill the gap", which probably explains why I'm a skeptic in the first place. Your explanation may very well turn out to be the correct one after all, if more information becomes available to us. But going by the limited accounts in the book of Daniel - which happens to be our current reference point - I'd say we hold back for now and not jump into clear-cut conclusions just yet, no matter how tempting.

Hope you get my drift.

Perhaps (just perhaps), the top notches were exempt from bowing before the idol. I can't recollect Nebuchadnezzar bowing before it so why would Daniel?

@Purist, please bear with the length of this post. I think that I might say a lot right now.

We disagree only on one thing, I think, and it is that we do not have enough information to tell whether or not Daniel had indeed been exempted and why. My explanations come across to you as surmises, perhaps good guesses but guesses no less. And I understand. I will first address your position of skepticism, please accommodate me.

Skepticism is not in itself something bad or unacceptable to Christ. In fact, an "unskeptical" Christian is one prone to arrogance. The nature of the Christian is the nature of a judge, as such he is constantly questioning and examining things to know how they agree with Truth. The difference between the Christian and every other person is that he does know Truth and is in no doubt about it. Therefore he has a standard by which to doubt or believe things and the standard is absolute. I'm explaining this to get across to you that when I say this or that, it is because I have examined the facts on hand and can see that they do relate and how.

Yes, it is not said anywhere in Daniel in so many words that Daniel was exempted from the worship of the golden image, but to demand that the Bible say exactly that even with all the information it gives is tantamount to demanding that a science textbook express exactly the implications of the principles it teaches. The human intellect exists to relate data and produce a coherent and sufficient answer to questions. This is why exams can be failed. The textbook may never express a principle in light of a problem, for instance, we may not read from textbooks that a device can extract energy from the interactions of microorganisms and organic waste and use it to power a home or a city, but we may read that energy is produced in those interactions and that if such energy could be harnessed, a whole city could be powered. We may also read that the sort of energy produced has certain peculiarities. The intellect will relate all that to produce the device that links the microorganisms/organic waste to the city's power needs simply because it appreciates the implication of those peculiarities. This is the same as the Bible.

It may not say "Daniel was not exempted and even if he was it wasn't because of his God", but it does say that Nebuchadnezzar "worshipped" Daniel acknowledging his God as THE God of gods and the Lord of kings. And if that is not enough, when God delivered Daniel's friends, the king testified thus, "I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way." In the first instance, it really is not very reasonable to have to argue that if Daniel was recognized as a prophet of a God who rules over every other god that he is automatically exempt from worshipping any other god. The exemption is self-evident in that statement. The only argument against it worthy of consideration to an extent is your position that Nebuchadnezzar was egotistical. I will address that later.

In the second instance, the king recognized the uniqueness of the God of Daniel's friends in the salvation that He wrought for them. If he said that no other god could save as theirs had, was he establishing that there was something that Daniel's God Whom he had recognized as above all gods could not do, something at which that God failed the test of "Godness" at? Barring the argument for Nebuchadnezzar's egotism, which I will address, it is not reasonable to say that he by that statement demoted Daniel's God. He could only have been recognizing that Daniel's friends shared the same God with Daniel.

Now about Nebuchadnezzar's egotism. This is actually a romantic concept. I will proceed now to copy and paste in another post the whole of Daniel chapter four to explain some things. Please bear with me.

Daniel 4

New International Version (NIV)
Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of a Tree

4 [a]King Nebuchadnezzar,

To the nations and peoples of every language, who live in all the earth:

May you prosper greatly!

2 It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me.

3 How great are his signs,
how mighty his wonders!
His kingdom is an eternal kingdom;
his dominion endures from generation to generation.

4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at home in my palace, contented and prosperous. 5 I had a dream that made me afraid. As I was lying in bed, the images and visions that passed through my mind terrified me. 6 So I commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be brought before me to interpret the dream for me. 7 When the magicians, enchanters, astrologers[b] and diviners came, I told them the dream, but they could not interpret it for me. 8 Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him.)

9 I said, “Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and no mystery is too difficult for you. Here is my dream; interpret it for me. 10 These are the visions I saw while lying in bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. 12 Its leaves were beautiful, its fruit abundant, and on it was food for all. Under it the wild animals found shelter, and the birds lived in its branches; from it every creature was fed.

13 “In the visions I saw while lying in bed, I looked, and there before me was a holy one, a messenger,[c] coming down from heaven. 14 He called in a loud voice: ‘Cut down the tree and trim off its branches; strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit. Let the animals flee from under it and the birds from its branches. 15 But let the stump and its roots, bound with iron and bronze, remain in the ground, in the grass of the field.

“‘Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, and let him live with the animals among the plants of the earth. 16 Let his mind be changed from that of a man and let him be given the mind of an animal, till seven times[d] pass by for him.

17 “‘The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.’

18 “This is the dream that I, King Nebuchadnezzar, had. Now, Belteshazzar, tell me what it means, for none of the wise men in my kingdom can interpret it for me. But you can, because the spirit of the holy gods is in you.”
Daniel Interprets the Dream

19 Then Daniel (also called Belteshazzar) was greatly perplexed for a time, and his thoughts terrified him. So the king said, “Belteshazzar, do not let the dream or its meaning alarm you.”

Belteshazzar answered, “My lord, if only the dream applied to your enemies and its meaning to your adversaries! 20 The tree you saw, which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky, visible to the whole earth, 21 with beautiful leaves and abundant fruit, providing food for all, giving shelter to the wild animals, and having nesting places in its branches for the birds— 22 Your Majesty, you are that tree! You have become great and strong; your greatness has grown until it reaches the sky, and your dominion extends to distant parts of the earth.

23 “Your Majesty saw a holy one, a messenger, coming down from heaven and saying, ‘Cut down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump, bound with iron and bronze, in the grass of the field, while its roots remain in the ground. Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven; let him live with the wild animals, until seven times pass by for him.’

24 “This is the interpretation, Your Majesty, and this is the decree the Most High has issued against my lord the king: 25 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes. 26 The command to leave the stump of the tree with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you acknowledge that Heaven rules. 27 Therefore, Your Majesty, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.”
The Dream Is Fulfilled

28 All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 TWELVE MONTHS later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?”

31 Even as the words were on his lips, a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.”

The thing of greatest importance to note in that chapter is the bolded and capitalized "twelve months". I have already alluded to the greatness of Nebuchadnezzar. History sometimes leaves us feeling that Alexander was the greatest ever ruler, but this is untrue. It is more accurate to say that he was a very great conqueror, arguably the greatest ever even, but as for the greatest ever empire, Alexander did not create it. That would be Nebuchadnezzar and he did it at against the flow of his times.

An oversized ego accompanies a despot. My question is: was Nebuchadnezzar one? If we use just the Bible as the historical authority here, then, I think the answer would be no. He was a great and very powerful ruler. Even his rival empire was uneasy about him. But he seemed given to fairness and second chances, which very ideologies are alien to despots. Were he a despot he would not have paused his order to massacre the wise men of Babylon upon the request of one of them. Were he a despot he would not have offered Daniel's friends a second chance to obey him. Were he a despot his chief of staff Ashpenaz would not have dared to accommodate Daniel's request. Were he a despot, his proclamations throughout his dominions would have carried a more uncompromising tone. He was powerful, he was great, he was truly the greatest ruler ever, but he was not a despot.

What most likely happened was that he forgot the warning he'd been given. Why did he defy the warning TWELVE MONTHS LATER? Why not the very next minute if he didn't give a damn. As to how he could have forgotten, he was a great king. He had to have had things on his mind. It is also possible that he only half-believed it, after all, for all his proclamations for Daniel's God, Yahweh was not yet his God. But it is not fair to compare him to egomaniacal Pharaoh of Moses's time who was vacillating because he had zero respect for Yahweh.

For this reason, I hold that Nebuchadnezzar cannot be judged as an egotistical monster.

@Ihedinobi:

Two points -

1) Daniel's exemption: I didn't exactly demand that the bible should categorically state, "And Daniel was exempted" or something similar. No, that's not what I seek, although it certainly would make things far easier to grasp. My worry is the conclusion you arrived at based on the limited text provided -- your claim that the "exemption is self-evident." I have read all you wrote (and I appreciate the effort), but I'm still not convinced. Yes, the king worshiped Daniel. Yes, he recognized Daniel's God as far superior. Therefore, based on these facts, Daniel was exempted. Not necessarily. He could have as well wanted Daniel killed and I'd be able to argue it.

2) Nebuchadnezzar's egotism: I hope you realise that all you have done here is speculate (again) about his person (and memory. What if he had an eidetic memory?). For someone who had had dreams interpreted for him in the past by a man with an apparent gift for such and who the king himself held in very high esteem, I seriously doubt that he would have forgotten something as crucial as a warning about him turning to an animal, even if it was 5 years after, no matter his preoccupations as king. This was his life at stake. He was, as you say, the greatest conqueror presiding over the greatest empire. All his life achievement -- imagine the shame, the ridicule. He wouldn't risk it that he would forget. It would certainly always be on his mind.

Why did he defy the warning 12 months later, you ask? I say, why did he defy the warning AT ALL? Perhaps, it was all just meant to be so that God's glory would be made manifest.

Anyway, it's becoming more and more obvious that we are hardly going to reach a common ground on this issue. You're right when you say your explanations come across to me as surmises. So I guess we have reached that point where we say, let's just agree to disagree.


---
By the way, I've been following the other thread in the family section on abuse victims that got out, and I must say that you're doing a wonderful job there. It's quite ironic that I find you similar to me in many ways, but it's a pity that it's our religious differences that has created an unnecessary divide. Anyways, keep up the good work!

^^^ I can respect that

LogicMind:


because he was a liar and a fraud.
just like the so called xtians: always twisting the truth to fit their narrative.

DANIEL IS NOT A FRAUD AND NOT A LIAR BEWARE!

Enoquin:
I was reading the book of Daniel and I saw that when Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were cast into the furnace for not bowing down to the golden image, Daniel or rather Belteshazzar was not with them. My question is: was he not in the city or if he was, did he bow with the others?
Another question: Is Nebuchadnezzar, the first mad man in the bible?
And finally, the handwriting on the wall during the reign of King Belshazzar read MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN, why then did Daniel interprete MENE MENE TEKEL 'PERES'?
I would be grateful if I have the inputs from the regulars...

Quite thoughtful of you. I've wondered myself where Daniel was while the three Hebrew brothers were daring the King's command. I wish to get a more plausible and logical explanation than Eloquin's attempt.