Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

King Nebuchadnezzar, Ishtar gate & Prophet Daniyal

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Bismillah

Salam 

I visited the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Germany this week and saw the Ishtaar gate, which was discovered in Hillah, Iraq during 1930s. This was one of the gates to the ancient 2500 years old city of Babylon constructed by King Nebuchadnezzar. The gate is magnificent and beautiful. 

Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned in Bible in the book of Daniel. But Daniel is not mentioned in the Qur'an. Is anyone aware of the Islamic perspective of the story of how Nubechandnezzar threw Daniel in front of the lions? Is Daniel same as Hazrat Daniyal?

Lions are depicted on the Ishtar gate and many of the ancient sculptures of Nebuchadnezzar show him with lions.

 https://youtu.be/U2iZ83oIZH0

Edited by Aale Mohammad
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
49 minutes ago, notme said:

Yes, the same, though I don't remember details. 

6th lmam Jafar -al-Sidiq  was reportedly asked about Daniels dreams and he reportedly replied that Daniel did have dreams and was a Prophet.

Daniel is not is Qur'an.

The Book of Daniel was popular religion story. The people there in are now known to live hundreads of years apart (over nearly 3 centuries as l remember off-hand) and two who lived close togather were about 70-80 years aprt in age. The Boook of Ester is the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
50 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

The people there in are now known to live hundreads of years apart

Yes, many of the stories in the Bible are believed to be mixtures from many different stories and events. Even the Biblical rendition of Noah's flood is believed to include details from several different catastrophic flood histories. 

I wonder what true events led to the tale of the sun standing still in the sky, but that's another discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
11 hours ago, Aale Mohammed said:

Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned in Bible in the book of Daniel.

salams,

You must understand that the Book of Daniel isn't a historical work and mustn't be understood as history. It's an apocalyptic religious written likely sometime in the Seleucid period in the second century or so. It might've been based off a real person but the story is certainly not contemporaneous to its main character. Apocalyptic literature, a Greek noun derived from the compound word ἀποκαλύπτω, to unveil or reveal, is a name given by scholars to a genre of literature dealing with a main character receiving information from God in a sort of unveiling of secrets (مكاشفة perhaps in Islamic Arabic terms). It tends to deal with a crisis and reveal predictions about future crises with a message of hope if faith in God is observed. It grows out of earlier Biblical prophetic literature. What you'd have is writers in a crisis period of the present (termed P) writing about a character in a past period (termed M), often also a crisis, who is predicting a future crisis (termed F) which seems to apply to the situation of people living in period P, so the author intends that the character in M is saying that the F crisis period is his P and that they are to follow the advice this character leaves them. So if you imagine a timeline, it's someone writing a story about a person in the past who is predicting the suffering people in the author's own time as a future crisis period and there's a message given in it of hope -- this is how Daniel is structured and meant to be read. Additionally, the sections of this text which are in Hebrew, as opposed to the few middle portions in Aramaic, are in a form of Late Biblical Hebrew, so it isn't a text of early composition. You can find more information on the book of Daniel in its introduction in the Oxford Annotated Bible or the Jewish Study Bible. Effectively though, you shouldn't look at the Book of Daniel as history since it isn't good history, it's written centuries later with a specific agenda in mind and makes anachronistic errors -- e.g. about the Persian conquests of the Babylonian empire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@notme 

Genesis 6 is where the biblical version is. The "sons of g.od" part l always found questionable -apart from the blasphemy. Personally, l figure these are Neanderthals --unusually strong humanoids-- as a kufr will so describe them. Which is anthropologically and genetically correct. 

As for the ark, l do not believe it would be "covered in pitch, inside and out" as that is a fire hazard.

And the "pairs" includes animals -not physically possible- and in Qur'an it uses shoj form as in spouses.[ l do not know about the Hebrew.] Like the God of Noah -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). could not recreate the animals He -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). wanted to. Ayat 30:27

Personally, l think the Biblical version is jazzed-up in a way to promote unbelief. Cf Ayat 69:12.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
14 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Genesis 6 is where the biblical version is. The "sons of g.od" part l always found questionable -apart from the blasphemy. Personally, l figure these are Neanderthals --unusually strong humanoids-- as a kufr will so describe them. Which is anthropologically and genetically correct. 

There's good reason to think that Biblical authors intended "sons of God" to be a giant race from primordial times. The word used for them "nephilim" is argued by some to be a fallen soldier. In Hebrew the lemma N-P-L means "to fall" in its verbal form and in participle form this was used to refer to fallen soldiers:

וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיָּבֹאוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים לְפַשֵּׁט אֶת-הַחֲלָלִים וַיִּמְצְאוּ אֶת-שָׁאוּל וְאֶת-שְׁלֹשֶׁת בָּנָיו נֹפְלִים בְּהַר הַגִּלְבֹּעַ

And on the next day the Philistines came to strip the dead and found Saul and three of his sons fallen (Nophelim) by the mountain of Gilbo3ah.

1 Samuel 31:8

The word is similar to the word used for what the sons of God are called, Nephilim, and the concept of falling in battle is similar with what they are described as having done, having been the ancient heroes. The verse from Genesis 6 discussing the sons of the Angels and human women are described in Genesis 6:4 as:

ד  הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם:  הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם.  {פ}    

The Nephilim were on the Earth in those days and also after that. Those for whom the sons of God came to the daughters of man and they bore to them [sons]. They were the heroes (Gibbōrīm) of yore, men of name.

One might expect the Nephilim to also be just normal men who were heroic warriors who fell in battle (Nophelim) as the verse says, but they are already supernatural in nature due to their angelic pedigree. Especially since its the same lemma but just slightly different in terms of vowelization, the verse from Samuel is a typical active participle inflected in masculine plural (Pōʿəlīm) while the one in Genesis is strange, CəCiCīm, looking more like an Aramaic passive participle than any Hebrew one. In might be an Aramaism in Genesis, though. The Aramaic word for giant is נְפִיל, npyl pronounced nəφīl, it's been attested in Jewish Aramaic works including documents found in Qumran and the Targum to Isaiah. Refer to CAL's (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) entry to a full list of definitions, dialects and caches, and some example attestations. There are additional indications in Jewish works indicating these are supernatural beings and giants. The Targum (translation of Hebrew Bible into a vernacular, often Aramaic) translates this word as giant:

גִּבָּרַיָּא הֲווֹ בְאַרְעָא בְּיוֹמַיָּא הָאִנּוּן וְאַף בָּתַר כֵּן דִּי יַעֲלוּן בְּנֵי רַבְרְבַיָּא לְוַת בְּנַת אֱנָשָׁא וִילִידָן לְהוֹן אִנוּן גִּבָּרַיָּא דִּמֵעָלְמָא אֱנָשִׁין דִּשְׁמָא:

Gibbārayyā, the word here used for giant, could be said to be used to evoke the Hebrew word used for heroes, Gibbōrīm, but it is the same word used for "giant" in the book of Enoch 4 (Book of the Watchers) found at the Qumran site, e.g. in the passage דחלו כל גבריא, "all of the giants were afraid". The word "giant" is also used in the Septuagint:

οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῗς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ μετ᾽ ἐκεῗνο ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῗς ἐκεῗνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί.

http://cal.huc.edu/searching/targumsearch.html -- Explore the targum module on the CAL website, other Aramaic translations, Jewish/Samaritan and Christian (the Pe[Edited Out]ta) translate this using the word for "giant".

The Nephilim appear in the book of Numbers 13:33 and there is again indication that the authors intended for them to be a giant race:

וְשָׁ֣ם רָאִ֗ינוּ אֶת־הַנְּפִילִ֛ים בְּנֵ֥י עֲנָ֖ק מִן־הַנְּפִלִ֑ים וַנְּהִ֤י בְעֵינֵ֙ינוּ֙ כַּֽחֲגָבִ֔ים וְכֵ֥ן הָיִ֖ינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶֽם׃

And there we saw the Nephilim*, the sons of Anaaq from the Nephilim*, and we were in our eyes like grasshoppers, and thus we were in their eyes.

*This time it is npyl with the yodh just as the Aramaic word is
*Back to spelling as npl

Perhaps a reference to their inferior height especially since this group is said to be very tall in other verses mentioning them. Nevertheless, the same word for giant (Gibbārayyā) is used in place of Nephilim in the Targum Onkelos, the Aramaic translation previously quoted, here as well:

וְתַמָּן חֲזֵינָא יָת גִּבָּרַיָּא בְּנֵי עֲנָק מִן גִּבָּרַיָּא וַהֲוֵינָא בְּעֵינֵי נַפְשָׁנָא כְּקַמְצִין וְכֵן הֲוֵינָא בְּעֵינֵיהוֹן:

And there we saw the giants (Gibbārayyā), the sons of of Anaaq from the giants (Gibbārayyā), and we saw ourselves like locusts in our eyes and thus we were in their eyes.

http://cal.huc.edu/searching/targumsearch.html -- Explore the targum module on the CAL website, other Aramaic translations, Jewish/Samaritan and Christian (the Pe[Edited Out]ta) translate this using the word for "giant".

The word giant is also used once again in the Septuagint:

καὶ ἐκεῗ ἑωράκαμεν τοὺς γίγαντας καὶ ἦμεν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν ὡσεὶ ἀκρίδες ἀλλὰ καὶ οὕτως ἦμεν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν

Beyond translations, the second temple Jewish books Enoch and Jubilees these beings are connected with giant fallen angels and the watchers. I recommend you watch this video:

The maker of it is also literate in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew, and talks about the Nephilim as they appear in Enoch and Jubilees, with reference to scholarly literature, as well as general grammar and translation points mentioned above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

The Nephilim appear in the book of Numbers 13:33 and there is again indication that the authors intended for them to be a giant race:

וְשָׁ֣ם רָאִ֗ינוּ אֶת־הַנְּפִילִ֛ים בְּנֵ֥י עֲנָ֖ק מִן־הַנְּפִלִ֑ים וַנְּהִ֤י בְעֵינֵ֙ינוּ֙ כַּֽחֲגָבִ֔ים וְכֵ֥ן הָיִ֖ינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶֽם׃

Thank you very much for the exegesis, @Ibn Al-Ja'abi. S.C. can often use such explanations.

My comment: using my textbook Douay-Rheims the passage indicates that the men who went with Caleb started telling exaggerations because they didn't want to militarily move into an area.

Looking up some factoids: Radiocarbon dating is only good up to 50k years. The youngest Neanderthal remains are now dated 32k to 34k years old. (older than the 30k before on the same samples). Well within the likely time span of Noah -(عليه السلام).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
31 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

My comment: using my textbook Douay-Rheims the passage indicates that the men who went with Caleb started telling exaggerations because they didn't want to militarily move into an area.

In the video at 8:11 there's other instances of the members of Anaaq and other Amorites being described as unusually tall, e.g. Deut.2:10-11 and Deut.2:20 (Anakim being plural of Anaaq, that is to say, those members of Anaaq).

By the way, you use the Douay Rheims translation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Just now, hasanhh said:

This was my first textbook bible. Now with internet and access to Young, the rabbinicals and all, it saves on a lot of shelf-to-shelf looking.

That's fair, I became a bit interested in it some years back but since studying Biblical languages I tend to look at the NRSV and a couple of other ones since they tend to be more accurate in rendering the language, and that can be helpful when you're stuck on a passage and want more or less at what it's literally trying to say than a good stylistic interpretation of it -- which isn't to say Douay Rheims is inaccurate, just working off the Vulgate so its a bit more removed from the Biblical languages than I'd hope, though great if you're working on your Latin.

40 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Looking up some factoids: Radiocarbon dating is only good up to 50k years. The youngest Neanderthal remains are now dated 32k to 34k years old. (older than the 30k before on the same samples). Well within the likely time span of Noah -(عليه السلام).

By the way, meant to say that while God knows if Noah ever saw a Neanderthal in his life -- I suppose if he lived before their extinction then perhaps -- the authors of Genesis were likely talking about a supernatural race of giants based off (I) the linguistic evidence including in Numbers when the Hebraized Aramaic word "giant" appears exactly in the Hebrew Nephilim as it does in Aramaic (with the extra yodh) and usually pronounced similarly (without it but still with an I-class vowel), (ii) how the nephilim are talked about within the Torah, and (iii) extra-Biblical (or at least extra-canonical) references to them as a giant supernatural race both in scriptures like Enoch and Jubilees and Aramaic and Greek translations by Jews and Christians. I think it's likely the case they intended that it was some race of giants for those reasons rather than Neanderthals.

والله أعلم

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
34 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

-- which isn't to say Douay Rheims is inaccurate, just working off the Vulgate so its a bit more removed from the Biblical languages than I'd hope, though great if you're working on your Latin.

D-R is quite different than the KJV, some places in translation and in some places additional passages. The reason l like mine is that it has cross references, continuity notes and some general history footnotes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
8 hours ago, hasanhh said:

D-R is quite different than the KJV, some places in translation and in some places additional passages. The reason l like mine is that it has cross references, continuity notes and some general history footnotes.

Is it a Dr. study Bible? That's interesting didn't know it was still in print. I suppose the reason it would differ is because of the different sources the translators would've worked from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
26 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Is it a Dr.. study Bible? That's interesting didn't know it was still in print. I suppose the reason it would differ is because of the different sources the translators would've worked from.

My D-R is the St.Joseph textbook editon, which according to the prefacing chapters is in conformance with the Confraternity Edition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
  • Moderators
10 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi

I recently came across this information. Are there any Islamic narrations that allude to the Nephilim, giant human–angel hybrids?

I'm not sure, I've never checked. It's likely, especially in light of Islamic angelology and how these qisas al-anbiya accounts tend to be, that if on the off chance something like this does exist, it's likely just among the isra'iliyat. That being said, I've never checked myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I'm not sure, I've never checked. It's likely, especially in light of Islamic angelology and how these qisas al-anbiya accounts tend to be, that if on the off chance something like this does exist, it's likely just among the isra'iliyat. That being said, I've never checked myself.

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi @AbdusSibtayn @Allah Seeker

Since angels apparently have free will, and may be able to mate with human beings, how may I know if my DNA is “tainted” like that of the Nephilim?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Northwest said:

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi @AbdusSibtayn @Allah Seeker

Since angels apparently have free will, and may be able to mate with human beings, how may I know if my DNA is “tainted” like that of the Nephilim?

There are certain known tribes and some less known that are now being revealed more and more. All of us are mixed and jinn blood in itself is not necessarily something bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
10 hours ago, Northwest said:

Since angels apparently have free will, and may be able to mate with human beings, how may I know if my DNA is “tainted” like that of the Nephilim?

I haven't given much thought to angelology, it's not something which interests me at all. What I had written last year was more historical research into the Bible than talking about my own personal beliefs. I don't think angels can mate with humans, this was a story from a period in Israelite history when the Jewish religion was much less sophisticated than its second temple, rabbinic, medieval, or modern forms. The philological research was what appealed to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...