Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

Is there a "gap" in the 70 weeks of Daniel 9"


  • Total voters
    63

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
Daniel 8 is not entirely different. It is includes at the start two of the kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7, Persian and Greece. The vision of the transgression by the little horn jumps to the end times.

It is,as it does not give a description of the four world ruling kingdoms as does Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.It has in its entirety,only two of the kingdoms which are Greece and Persia as you state above.Note as I wrote before:

"There is no other kingdom mentioned after Grecia.The four divisions are divisions of Grecia.The king of fierce countenance is a king still in Grecia. Notice the pattern:"

The pattern of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 is that of;four metals(with a variation in one) and four beasts representing four kingdoms.Daniel 8 has no such pattern and hence is entirely different.The first kingdom and the last kingdom are absent from the description in Daniel 8.

There is nothing in the passage which warrants any, "jumps to the end times",as you claim.This would necessitate another animal to represent another kingdom after the kingdom of Grecia.

Just as the horns of Daniel 7 represent kings within the fourth kingdom,all being on the fourth beast, so it is that the horns of Daniel 8,which are all on the he goat,are kings in the kingdom of Grecia.

Dan 7:
7After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things........
24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

Compare:

Dan 8:
21And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

If we follow this clear and simple pattern we will not fall in errors where this passage is concerned.




Start from the end of Daniel 8 and work back.

My method is a little different.I start with reading the description given and then match the interpretation subsequently given with the initial description of the vision.I then accept the clear and simple interpretation given and attempt to look into history to find the persons/events which match what was clearly interpreted.Whatever is not clear,like the, "time of the end", statement the 2300 mornings and evenings or the 70 weeks, is either left without an explanation or an explanation given about which I cannot be dogmatic even though they may be very reasonable.

What cannot be compromised however are the very clear interpretations given in the vision.While one may not be able to fully explain the,"time of the end",statement or the 2300 mornings and evenings or the 70 weeks,enough is known from the rest of the vision to know that certain other interpretations of the vision proffered by various persons are erroneous.One simple one involves the theory of a gap in the 70 weeks which would involve stretching the vision beyond that which the clear interpretation of the vision reveals,which is that,these events occur in the time of the Grecian kingdom.

Daniel 8:25
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Doesn't fit Antiochus. Antiochus also backed down from the Romans, the fourth kingdom, the famous line in the sand incident.

Antiochus, prior to his becoming king, was a political hostage to the Romans, due to a treaty forced on his father in order to keep his father in line.

It does fit Antiochus IV if we consider carefully the interpretation of the vision:

By the time Antiochus IV came to power out of one of the four kingdoms he was in control off areas to the east as far as to the Caspian sea (Parthia and Armenia) and even to India. He controlled Syria and Palestine, the pleasant land, and was able gain ascendancy of parts of Egypt in the south. Hence he waxed great (or increased influence) towards the south, east and the pleasant land as he sought to Hellenize these areas. [Daniel 8: 9, 23]

Also,Rome was exerting influence in these areas and from 190 BC, Antiochus IV was held hostage by Rome until his release in 175 BC when he ascended the throne. Rome also was in alliance with the Ptolemy dynasty of the south and hence he came into power at the latter time of the four kingdoms which were in decline in contrast to the Roman power which had control of the Mediterranean area.[Daniel 8:22,23]

Because he was in power through Rome's favour in releasing him, and he also had to answer to Rome about his excursions in Egypt and pay indemnity to them, then he was not mighty by his own power. [Daniel 8: 24].

Antiochus IV was considered to be brilliant and enterprising but also was cruel and prone to fury bordering on madness.Hence
his titles "Epiphanes" ["brilliant"/"manifest (god)"] "and
Epimanes" ["madman."]. Hence he is the king of fierce countenance and understanding dark sentences. [Daniel 8: 23].

He magnified himself to the prince of the host and magnified himself in his heart as he took titles, Epiphanes etc. and placed them on coins which gave the impression, that he considered himself to be a god. [Daniel 8: 11,25]

In scripture the people of Israel have been likened to the stars of the heavens. [Genesis 15:5; Deuteronomy 1: 10]. Hence the casting down of the stars and the destruction of the mighty and holy people is the tremendous slaughter which took place when, Apollonius, Antiochus' IV general, invaded and destroyed parts of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. [Daniel 8:10, 24]

He had attempted to introduce his Hellenistic ideas through deceit, (craft) by using the high priests Jason and Menelaus to encourage the Jews into Pagan practices (i.e. Peacefully). Many therefore did not expect his furious onslaught against them and many of their laws. [Daniel 8: 12, 25]

Antiochus IV was not killed in battle nor put to death by anyone, but
became insane and apparently died of "natural causes," and hence he was broken without hand. No man's hand was involved in his death. [Daniel 8:25]



The Lord had not entered the world to be born of Mary, back in Antiochus's day. Jesus is the Prince of princes. Antiochus doesn't fit. And even so, his kingdom was subject to the Romans, the fourth kingdom.

Daniel 8:23 is end times. Daniel 8:22 is historic (to us).
The kingdom in Daniel 8:23 is the kingdom of the transgressors...as it says the latter time of "their" kingdom. The EU started out as the common market, then evolved into European Economic Community, then the EU.

The vision of the transgression of desolation is time of the end.

This is not possible.There is no break,no transition between the two verses(22,23)and hence your interpretation is unwarranted.The passage is one continuous description of the Grecian kingdom descending from the great power of Alexander the Great to the division of Greece into four kingdoms out of which came another king who is a Grecian and was Antiochus IV.

Also there is nothing in the passage which indicates that the "prince of the host"/ "the prince of princes", refers to the Lord Jesus.

The latter time of the kingdoms refer to the time of the waning or end of the power of the four horns in the kingdom of Greece and not to kingdoms in later times.Notice it says, 'latter time of their kingdom",not just latter time.This refers to the same kingdoms in Grecia.For it to refer to these times or future times,there would have to be another animal introduced in the vision to represent the fourth kingdom as was depicted in Daniel 7 and Daniel 2 with the 4 metals.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: klutedavid
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The latter time of the kingdoms refer to the time of the waning or end of the power of the four horns in the kingdom of Greece and not to kingdoms in later times.Notice it says, 'latter time of their kingdom",not just latter time.
It does not say latter time of the kingdoms - plural, in Daniel 8:23.

It says latter time of their kingdom - singular, in Daniel 8:23.

What you have to determine is who is the "their". And what is their kingdom.

There is nothing in the passage which warrants any, "jumps to the end times",as you claim.This would necessitate another animal to represent another kingdom after the kingdom of Grecia.
No it would not necessitate another animal. You are claiming Antiohcus. But the facts are that Antiochus was subject to the Romans. Regardless if there is not a animal in Daniel 8 to represent the Romans. It is just a fact of history.

In the text it says...

13: Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be

So the angel starts giving Daniel the breakdown meaning. First addressing the ram and goat....

20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power

....then the angel gives the explanation of the time of the end vision, that the little horn person commits, plus a lot more information about him, in verses 23 to 26.


The kingdom in verse 23 - called "their" kingdom, is the kingdom of the transgressors. And from the information in Daniel 7, it is easy to see the transgressors are the ten kings and the little horn of Daniel
7:23-24 is the same little horn of Daniel 8.

The biggest mistake people make in interpreting Daniel 8:23 is that they try to read the four kingdoms in Daniel 8:22 into the text of Daniel 8:23 - completely missing that the angel in Daniel 8:23 is talking about the kingdom of the transgressors and little horn, time of the end of that vision...

19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

"the last end of the indignation' is the time of the end vision, explanation in 23 to 26.

_________________________________________________________________________
Antiochus IV was not killed in battle nor put to death by anyone, but
became insane and apparently died of "natural causes," and hence he was broken without hand. No man's hand was involved in his death. [Daniel 8:25]
That's not what it means. It means no human being can defeat him. Antiochus was not that powerful and had to back down when confronted by the Romans. From wikipedia...

In 168 BC, Antiochus led a second attack on Egypt and also sent a fleet to capture Cyprus. Before he reached Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single elderly Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas who delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus or consider himself in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around Antiochus and said: "Before you leave this circle, give me a reply that I can take back to the Roman Senate." This implied Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.[11]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
It is,as it does not give a description of the four world ruling kingdoms as does Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.It has in its entirety,only two of the kingdoms which are Greece and Persia as you state above.Note as I wrote before:

"There is no other kingdom mentioned after Grecia.The four divisions are divisions of Grecia.The king of fierce countenance is a king still in Grecia. Notice the pattern:"

The pattern of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 is that of;four metals(with a variation in one) and four beasts representing four kingdoms.Daniel 8 has no such pattern and hence is entirely different.The first kingdom and the last kingdom are absent from the description in Daniel 8.

There is nothing in the passage which warrants any, "jumps to the end times",as you claim.This would necessitate another animal to represent another kingdom after the kingdom of Grecia.

Just as the horns of Daniel 7 represent kings within the fourth kingdom,all being on the fourth beast, so it is that the horns of Daniel 8,which are all on the he goat,are kings in the kingdom of Grecia.

Dan 7:
7After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things........
24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

Compare:

Dan 8:
21And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

If we follow this clear and simple pattern we will not fall in errors where this passage is concerned.






My method is a little different.I start with reading the description given and then match the interpretation subsequently given with the initial description of the vision.I then accept the clear and simple interpretation given and attempt to look into history to find the persons/events which match what was clearly interpreted.Whatever is not clear,like the, "time of the end", statement the 2300 mornings and evenings or the 70 weeks, is either left without an explanation or an explanation given about which I cannot be dogmatic even though they may be very reasonable.

What cannot be compromised however are the very clear interpretations given in the vision.While one may not be able to fully explain the,"time of the end",statement or the 2300 mornings and evenings or the 70 weeks,enough is known from the rest of the vision to know that certain other interpretations of the vision proffered by various persons are erroneous.One simple one involves the theory of a gap in the 70 weeks which would involve stretching the vision beyond that which the clear interpretation of the vision reveals,which is that,these events occur in the time of the Grecian kingdom.


It does fit Antiochus IV if we consider carefully the interpretation of the vision:

By the time Antiochus IV came to power out of one of the four kingdoms he was in control off areas to the east as far as to the Caspian sea (Parthia and Armenia) and even to India. He controlled Syria and Palestine, the pleasant land, and was able gain ascendancy of parts of Egypt in the south. Hence he waxed great (or increased influence) towards the south, east and the pleasant land as he sought to Hellenize these areas. [Daniel 8: 9, 23]

Also,Rome was exerting influence in these areas and from 190 BC, Antiochus IV was held hostage by Rome until his release in 175 BC when he ascended the throne. Rome also was in alliance with the Ptolemy dynasty of the south and hence he came into power at the latter time of the four kingdoms which were in decline in contrast to the Roman power which had control of the Mediterranean area.[Daniel 8:22,23]

Because he was in power through Rome's favour in releasing him, and he also had to answer to Rome about his excursions in Egypt and pay indemnity to them, then he was not mighty by his own power. [Daniel 8: 24].

Antiochus IV was considered to be brilliant and enterprising but also was cruel and prone to fury bordering on madness.Hence
his titles "Epiphanes" ["brilliant"/"manifest (god)"] "and
Epimanes" ["madman."]. Hence he is the king of fierce countenance and understanding dark sentences. [Daniel 8: 23].

He magnified himself to the prince of the host and magnified himself in his heart as he took titles, Epiphanes etc. and placed them on coins which gave the impression, that he considered himself to be a god. [Daniel 8: 11,25]

In scripture the people of Israel have been likened to the stars of the heavens. [Genesis 15:5; Deuteronomy 1: 10]. Hence the casting down of the stars and the destruction of the mighty and holy people is the tremendous slaughter which took place when, Apollonius, Antiochus' IV general, invaded and destroyed parts of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. [Daniel 8:10, 24]

He had attempted to introduce his Hellenistic ideas through deceit, (craft) by using the high priests Jason and Menelaus to encourage the Jews into Pagan practices (i.e. Peacefully). Many therefore did not expect his furious onslaught against them and many of their laws. [Daniel 8: 12, 25]

Antiochus IV was not killed in battle nor put to death by anyone, but
became insane and apparently died of "natural causes," and hence he was broken without hand. No man's hand was involved in his death. [Daniel 8:25]





This is not possible.There is no break,no transition between the two verses(22,23)and hence your interpretation is unwarranted.The passage is one continuous description of the Grecian kingdom descending from the great power of Alexander the Great to the division of Greece into four kingdoms out of which came another king who is a Grecian and was Antiochus IV.

Also there is nothing in the passage which indicates that the "prince of the host"/ "the prince of princes", refers to the Lord Jesus.

The latter time of the kingdoms refer to the time of the waning or end of the power of the four horns in the kingdom of Greece and not to kingdoms in later times.Notice it says, 'latter time of their kingdom",not just latter time.This refers to the same kingdoms in Grecia.For it to refer to these times or future times,there would have to be another animal introduced in the vision to represent the fourth kingdom as was depicted in Daniel 7 and Daniel 2 with the 4 metals.
In verse 17, Danial 8 is explicitly stated to be about "the time of the end." So your entire argument is erroneous at its very root.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
In verse 17, Danial 8 is explicitly stated to be about "the time of the end." So your entire argument is erroneous at its very root.
In verse 23 Daniel tells us WHICH "end" this is about: " And in the latter time of their kingdom." Therefore, IN CONTEXT it can only be talking about the end of the Grecian kingdom.
So your entire argument is erroneous at its very root.

Anyone can make a bible verse say most anything if they are willing to take it out of its context. The context of this entire chapter is Medo-Persia vs. Greece.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
It does not say latter time of the kingdoms - plural, in Daniel 8:23.

It says latter time of their kingdom - singular, in Daniel 8:23.

What you have to determine is who is the "their". And what is their kingdom.


No it would not necessitate another animal. You are claiming Antiohcus. But the facts are that Antiochus was subject to the Romans. Regardless if there is not a animal in Daniel 8 to represent the Romans. It is just a fact of history.

In the text it says...

13: Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be

So the angel starts giving Daniel the breakdown meaning. First addressing the ram and goat....

20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power

....then the angel gives the explanation of the time of the end vision, that the little horn person commits, plus a lot more information about him, in verses 23 to 26.


The kingdom in verse 23 - called "their" kingdom, is the kingdom of the transgressors. And from the information in Daniel 7, it is easy to see the transgressors are the ten kings and the little horn of Daniel
7:23-24 is the same little horn of Daniel 8.

The biggest mistake people make in interpreting Daniel 8:23 is that they try to read the four kingdoms in Daniel 8:22 into the text of Daniel 8:23 - completely missing that the angel in Daniel 8:23 is talking about the kingdom of the transgressors and little horn, time of the end of that vision...

19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

"the last end of the indignation' is the time of the end vision, explanation in 23 to 26.

_________________________________________________________________________
readers: This is a great example of ignoring context and making a verse say what you want it to say.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
It is,as it does not give a description of the four world ruling kingdoms as does Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.It has in its entirety,only two of the kingdoms which are Greece and Persia as you state above.Note as I wrote before:

"There is no other kingdom mentioned after Grecia.The four divisions are divisions of Grecia.The king of fierce countenance is a king still in Grecia. Notice the pattern:"

The pattern of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 is that of;four metals(with a variation in one) and four beasts representing four kingdoms.Daniel 8 has no such pattern and hence is entirely different.The first kingdom and the last kingdom are absent from the description in Daniel 8.

There is nothing in the passage which warrants any, "jumps to the end times",as you claim.This would necessitate another animal to represent another kingdom after the kingdom of Grecia.

Just as the horns of Daniel 7 represent kings within the fourth kingdom,all being on the fourth beast, so it is that the horns of Daniel 8,which are all on the he goat,are kings in the kingdom of Grecia.

Dan 7:
7After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things........
24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

Compare:

Dan 8:
21And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

If we follow this clear and simple pattern we will not fall in errors where this passage is concerned.






My method is a little different.I start with reading the description given and then match the interpretation subsequently given with the initial description of the vision.I then accept the clear and simple interpretation given and attempt to look into history to find the persons/events which match what was clearly interpreted.Whatever is not clear,like the, "time of the end", statement the 2300 mornings and evenings or the 70 weeks, is either left without an explanation or an explanation given about which I cannot be dogmatic even though they may be very reasonable.

What cannot be compromised however are the very clear interpretations given in the vision.While one may not be able to fully explain the,"time of the end",statement or the 2300 mornings and evenings or the 70 weeks,enough is known from the rest of the vision to know that certain other interpretations of the vision proffered by various persons are erroneous.One simple one involves the theory of a gap in the 70 weeks which would involve stretching the vision beyond that which the clear interpretation of the vision reveals,which is that,these events occur in the time of the Grecian kingdom.


It does fit Antiochus IV if we consider carefully the interpretation of the vision:

By the time Antiochus IV came to power out of one of the four kingdoms he was in control off areas to the east as far as to the Caspian sea (Parthia and Armenia) and even to India. He controlled Syria and Palestine, the pleasant land, and was able gain ascendancy of parts of Egypt in the south. Hence he waxed great (or increased influence) towards the south, east and the pleasant land as he sought to Hellenize these areas. [Daniel 8: 9, 23]

Also,Rome was exerting influence in these areas and from 190 BC, Antiochus IV was held hostage by Rome until his release in 175 BC when he ascended the throne. Rome also was in alliance with the Ptolemy dynasty of the south and hence he came into power at the latter time of the four kingdoms which were in decline in contrast to the Roman power which had control of the Mediterranean area.[Daniel 8:22,23]

Because he was in power through Rome's favour in releasing him, and he also had to answer to Rome about his excursions in Egypt and pay indemnity to them, then he was not mighty by his own power. [Daniel 8: 24].

Antiochus IV was considered to be brilliant and enterprising but also was cruel and prone to fury bordering on madness.Hence
his titles "Epiphanes" ["brilliant"/"manifest (god)"] "and
Epimanes" ["madman."]. Hence he is the king of fierce countenance and understanding dark sentences. [Daniel 8: 23].

He magnified himself to the prince of the host and magnified himself in his heart as he took titles, Epiphanes etc. and placed them on coins which gave the impression, that he considered himself to be a god. [Daniel 8: 11,25]

In scripture the people of Israel have been likened to the stars of the heavens. [Genesis 15:5; Deuteronomy 1: 10]. Hence the casting down of the stars and the destruction of the mighty and holy people is the tremendous slaughter which took place when, Apollonius, Antiochus' IV general, invaded and destroyed parts of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. [Daniel 8:10, 24]

He had attempted to introduce his Hellenistic ideas through deceit, (craft) by using the high priests Jason and Menelaus to encourage the Jews into Pagan practices (i.e. Peacefully). Many therefore did not expect his furious onslaught against them and many of their laws. [Daniel 8: 12, 25]

Antiochus IV was not killed in battle nor put to death by anyone, but
became insane and apparently died of "natural causes," and hence he was broken without hand. No man's hand was involved in his death. [Daniel 8:25]





This is not possible.There is no break,no transition between the two verses(22,23)and hence your interpretation is unwarranted.The passage is one continuous description of the Grecian kingdom descending from the great power of Alexander the Great to the division of Greece into four kingdoms out of which came another king who is a Grecian and was Antiochus IV.

Also there is nothing in the passage which indicates that the "prince of the host"/ "the prince of princes", refers to the Lord Jesus.

The latter time of the kingdoms refer to the time of the waning or end of the power of the four horns in the kingdom of Greece and not to kingdoms in later times.Notice it says, 'latter time of their kingdom",not just latter time.This refers to the same kingdoms in Grecia.For it to refer to these times or future times,there would have to be another animal introduced in the vision to represent the fourth kingdom as was depicted in Daniel 7 and Daniel 2 with the 4 metals.
Safswan is dead on. Anyone can make a verse say what they want if they are willing to ignore the context. The context if this entire chapter is Greece vs. Persia. Yet people continually ignore the context and try and make it an end time passage.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
In verse 23 Daniel tells us WHICH "end" this is about: " And in the latter time of their kingdom." Therefore, IN CONTEXT it can only be talking about the end of the Grecian kingdom.
So your entire argument is erroneous at its very root.

Anyone can make a bible verse say most anything if they are willing to take it out of its context. The context of this entire chapter is Medo-Persia vs. Greece.
Actually there are MANY prophecies about the latter end of this kingdom which have clearly not been fulfilled, even to this day. So we are forced to conclude that one of two things is true.

Either:

These prophecies speak of a day that is still future.

or:

The prophecies are incorrect.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Actually there are MANY prophecies about the latter end of this kingdom which have clearly not been fulfilled, even to this day. So we are forced to conclude that one of two things is true.

Either:

These prophecies speak of a day that is still future.

or:

The prophecies are incorrect.
All the prophecies in Daniel 8 have been fulfilled. God never fails.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
All the prophecies in Daniel 8 have been fulfilled. God never fails.
Transgressors have not yet reached their fullness, as is stated in verse 23, and no Greek prince has yet arisen against the Prince of princes, which is Jesus himself, as is clearly stated in verse 25. And the two thousand three hundred desolation of verse 14 has not yet occurred.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Safswan is dead on. Anyone can make a verse say what they want if they are willing to ignore the context. The context if this entire chapter is Greece vs. Persia. Yet people continually ignore the context and try and make it an end time passage.
lamad, not just about Greece vs. Persia. If you say the little horn was Antiochus, which I think you claim, then you must admit that Rome, not Greece, was the Kingdom in charge. Antiochus was under Roman domination.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
safswan said:
The latter time of the kingdoms refer to the time of the waning or end of the power of the four horns in the kingdom of Greece and not to kingdoms in later times.Notice it says, 'latter time of their kingdom",not just latter time.
It does not say latter of the kingdoms - plural, in Daniel 8:23.

It says latter time of their kingdom - singular, in Daniel 8:23.

What you have to determine is who is the "their". And what is their kingdom.


You are correct as that was a paraphrase by me.The fact that,"their", is used means it refers to more than one,hence my paraphrase.The passage clearly supports this as it previously refers to kingdoms and is the antecedent of the phrase, "latter time of their kingdom".Read it here:

Daniel 8:
22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

To whom this refers is clear.It refers to the four horns which replaced the great horn and who are rulers of four kingdoms in the divided kingdom of Grecia.Any other interpretation is erroneous as it would ignore the context of the passage.



safswan said:
There is nothing in the passage which warrants any, "jumps to the end times",as you claim.This would necessitate another animal to represent another kingdom after the kingdom of Grecia.
No it would not necessitate another animal. You are claiming Antiohcus. But the facts are that Antiochus was subject to the Romans. Regardless if there is not a animal in Daniel 8 to represent the Romans. It is just a fact of history.

The interpretation of the vision is what determines the facts not our opinions.I have clearly shown that the animals represent the world ruling kingdoms while the horns represent kings within the same.You would be adding to scripture to claim another world ruling kingdom is depicted in the passage without the introduction of another animal.You are forcing your opinions upon the passage.

Rome is nowhere present in the depiction of world ruling kingdoms in this passage.Yes I have shown that Rome did influence the actions of Antiochus and also that the Grecian kingdom was on the decline at the rise of Antiochus.Rome was ruling in many areas of the known world then, but Antiochus still had autonomy in certain areas.



In the text it says...

13: Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be

So the angel starts giving Daniel the breakdown meaning. First addressing the ram and goat....

20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power

....then the angel gives the explanation of the time of the end vision, that the little horn person commits, plus a lot more information about him, in verses 23 to 26.


The kingdom in verse 23 - called "their" kingdom, is the kingdom of the transgressors. And from the information in Daniel 7, it is easy to see the transgressors are the ten kings and the little horn of Daniel
7:23-24 is the same little horn of Daniel 8.


You are distorting the plain statement of scripture.The description moves from the ram with the two horns to the goat with the great horn to the four horns replacing the great horn.It continues in vs. 23 to further describe the rise and actions of the little horn (Antiochus) and also gives the reason for his actions.Read:


Daniel 8:
22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

"And in the latter time of their kingdom" depicts the,when,of the activity being described and the,"their', can only be a reference back to,"four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation".The,"transgressors are come to the full",refers to the reason for the rise of , "a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences," who will be used by God to punish the transgressors.The transgressors are neither here nor any where else depicted as having any kingdom.It is they who are the subject of the little horn's onslaught.






The biggest mistake people make in interpreting Daniel 8:23 is that they try to read the four kingdoms in Daniel 8:22 into the text of Daniel 8:23 - completely missing that the angel in Daniel 8:23 is talking about the kingdom of the transgressors and little horn, time of the end of that vision...

19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

"the last end of the indignation' is the time of the end visio, explanation in 23 to 26.


No,No.The transgressors have not been shown to have any kingdom. The statement, " And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be", is the start of the angel's interpretation of the vision and he gives the subject which will be described in the interpretation. What follows is the interpretation of the vision as was described in vs.3-14.There is no transition to any end time event but a description/interpretation of the activities of the little horn until the time comes when this period of punishment comes to its appointed end.




safswan said:
Antiochus IV was not killed in battle nor put to death by anyone, but
became insane and apparently died of "natural causes," and hence he was broken without hand. No man's hand was involved in his death. [Daniel 8:25]
That's not what it means. It means no human being can defeat him. Antiochus was not that powerful and had to back down when confronted by the Romans. From wikipedia...


This has nothing to do with Antiochus being powerful and was not intended to show anything of the sort but shows simply that he died without being slain or afflicted by a human being which suggests that he was destroyed by God similar to the demise of Herod.(Acts 12:21-23)

The phrase, "broken without hand", denotes something that is broken/defeated and not something that, "no human being can defeat", as you claim.Your interpretation is a twist of the passage and is contrary to the context which describes the restoration and cleansing of the sanctuary which is accomplished by the defeat and demise of the little horn and his forces.(Daniel 8:13,14,24,25)
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
In verse 17, Danial 8 is explicitly stated to be about "the time of the end." So your entire argument is erroneous at its very root.

Here is another example of someone using the scriptures as the devil did with Jesus.(Luke 4:9-12)Is that all the passage says?Is this how you were taught to study and interpret the scriptures?Is there nothing in the passage which could cause you to take another look at that phrase and reconsider your interpretation?Is there any other phrase which could shed light on what,"the time of the end",could mean rather than the spin you have put on it?

Can you show how,a vision,interpreted to involve Medo-Persia and Greece and the kings therein,becomes a vision of things outside of that context?
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
In verse 23 Daniel tells us WHICH "end" this is about: " And in the latter time of their kingdom." Therefore, IN CONTEXT it can only be talking about the end of the Grecian kingdom.
So your entire argument is erroneous at its very root.

Anyone can make a bible verse say most anything if they are willing to take it out of its context. The context of this entire chapter is Medo-Persia vs. Greece.

It is so simple and clear that this is so.I am mystified how anyone could see anything else.This is where it starts and all interpretations of the passage must be in this context or if not understood then left unexplained.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Here is another example of someone using the scriptures as the devil did with Jesus.(Luke 4:9-12)Is that all the passage says?Is this how you were taught to study and interpret the scriptures?Is there nothing in the passage which could cause you to take another look at that phrase and reconsider your interpretation?Is there any other phrase which could shed light on what,"the time of the end",could mean rather than the spin you have put on it?

Can you show how,a vision,interpreted to involve Medo-Persia and Greece and the kings therein,becomes a vision of things outside of that context?

The vision does not include things "outside of that context." But you are ignoring the fact that the visions of Daniel go far beyond ancient times, and extend to the time which the scriptures call "the time of the end." Two powers are identified by their ancient histories, and then their activities in "the time of the end" are taken up. One of these is the Roman power, which the scriptures clearly reveal will be revived, and the other is the Greek power, concerning which there are numerous prophecies which have unquestionably not been fulfilled, even to this day.

Daniel 11 takes this up in detail, identifying "the king of the south" and "the king of the north" with a detailed prophecy of their multi-generational war. Every detail of verses 1-35 was fulfilled exactly as stated. But then verse 35 describes a condition that it says will continue "even to the time of the end." Then, verse 36 takes up the account again, but none of the rest of this chapter has happened. It all remains to be fulfilled in the future.

I know that there are some who falsely claim that the lat portion of this chapter has also been fulfilled. But the "fulfillment" they claim is only a few incidents that very approximately match a portion of the text, not the precise fulfillment of every detail found in verses 1-35.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
The vision does not include things "outside of that context." But you are ignoring the fact that the visions of Daniel go far beyond ancient times, and extend to the time which the scriptures call "the time of the end." Two powers are identified by their ancient histories, and then their activities in "the time of the end" are taken up. One of these is the Roman power, which the scriptures clearly reveal will be revived, and the other is the Greek power, concerning which there are numerous prophecies which have unquestionably not been fulfilled, even to this day.

Daniel 11 takes this up in detail, identifying "the king of the south" and "the king of the north" with a detailed prophecy of their multi-generational war. Every detail of verses 1-35 was fulfilled exactly as stated. But then verse 35 describes a condition that it says will continue "even to the time of the end." Then, verse 36 takes up the account again, but none of the rest of this chapter has happened. It all remains to be fulfilled in the future.

I know that there are some who falsely claim that the lat portion of this chapter has also been fulfilled. But the "fulfillment" they claim is only a few incidents that very approximately match a portion of the text, not the precise fulfillment of every detail found in verses 1-35.
You can imagine there are things there not fulfilled, but we can imagine they WERE fulfilled. None of us were around then, so no one knows for sure, except by the entire chapter: every verse in the chapter.

8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


This is CLEARLY about Alexander the Great, his death, his four generals, then out of one of the generals came Antiochus: a little horn. He desecrated the temple and it took 2300 days before it could be cleansed and the daily sacrifices started again.
Daniel did not understand. And angel tells Daniel again:

Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

This is just a rehash of the previous verses, covering the same thing at the same time. Some people imagine that Antiochus did not come against the Prince of all Princes, Jesus Christ. They are mistaken: when anyone messed with the daily sacrifices that GOD HIMSELF started, they were coming again the Prince of Princes.

Conclusion: NOTHING here for the future: it was all completed in History.

HOWEVER, Antiochus was a TYPE of the Beast of Rev. 13, and he will do very similar things.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You can imagine there are things there not fulfilled, but we can imagine they WERE fulfilled. None of us were around then, so no one knows for sure, except by the entire chapter: every verse in the chapter.

8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


This is CLEARLY about Alexander the Great, his death, his four generals, then out of one of the generals came Antiochus: a little horn. He desecrated the temple and it took 2300 days before it could be cleansed and the daily sacrifices started again.
Daniel did not understand. And angel tells Daniel again:

Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

This is just a rehash of the previous verses, covering the same thing at the same time. Some people imagine that Antiochus did not come against the Prince of all Princes, Jesus Christ. They are mistaken: when anyone messed with the daily sacrifices that GOD HIMSELF started, they were coming again the Prince of Princes.

Conclusion: NOTHING here for the future: it was all completed in History.

HOWEVER, Antiochus was a TYPE of the Beast of Rev. 13, and he will do very similar things.
If you had even bothered to actually read what I said, instead of simply reacting to it emotionally you would realize that I explicitly said that all of what you have quoted here was fulfilled, exactly as written, down to the tiniest detail. What I said was then nothing after verse 36 has been fulfilled. And what I said about both parts of this prophecy is not imagination, but hard fact.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
If you had even bothered to actually read what I said, instead of simply reacting to it emotionally you would realize that I explicitly said that all of what you have quoted here was fulfilled, exactly as written, down to the tiniest detail. What I said was then nothing after verse 36 has been fulfilled. And what I said about both parts of this prophecy is not imagination, but hard fact.
Sorry, I read it but did not catch that you jumped to chapter 11 and your last comments were about chapter 11, not about chapter 8. I was mistaken. I agree that the Beast of Revelation comes into focus in verse 36.

You wrote, "I know that there are some who falsely claim that the lat portion of this chapter..." since you started with chapter 8, I assumed that your "this" was for chapter 8. I did not follow the rules of pronouns. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
iamlamad said:
Safswan is dead on. Anyone can make a verse say what they want if they are willing to ignore the context. The context if this entire chapter is Greece vs. Persia. Yet people continually ignore the context and try and make it an end time passage.
lamad, not just about Greece vs. Persia. If you say the little horn was Antiochus, which I think you claim, then you must admit that Rome, not Greece, was the Kingdom in charge. Antiochus was under Roman domination.
The sign above Jesus was in Hebrew, Roman/Latin and Greek

John 19:20 Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.

John 19:20

English Standard Version
Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin/Roman, and in Greek.

New American Standard Bible
Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin/Roman<4515> and in Greek.

King James Bible
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin/Roman.

Young's Literal Translation
this title, therefore, read many of the Jews, because the place was nigh to the city where Jesus was crucified, and it was having been written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Roman
================================
In Revelation 9, the destroyer is in the Grecian language:

Reve 9:11
and they are having of them a king the Messenger of the Abyss, name to him to Hebrew abaddwn <3>, and in the Greecian name is having destroyer<623>

In Reve 6, the Roman denari is mentioned. Any significance to this?

Reve 6:5
And when it up-opens the third seal , I hear of the third living one saying: "Be you coming"! And I am looking and I see and Behold! A horse, black and the one-sitting-down upon it/him having a Yoke/zugon <2218> in the hand of him. [Deut 28:18/Acts 15:10]
6 And I hear a voice in midst of the four living-ones saying: "a measure of grain/wheat a denari and three measures of barleys a denari, and the oil and the wine no you should be injuring"."
 
Upvote 0