70th Week - It Is Still Pending

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has undergone a small cleanup. Please remember to address the content of the thread and not address a member personally.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[DaDad]

Daniel 11 is about Alexander of the Greek/Macedonian Empire. He had princes and one was above the other. Seleucus above - Ptolemy of Egypt.

You have no context, no Scripture, and no History. None of these line up to support your premise.
Thanks,
DaDad

 

[BobRyan]

There really should not be any confusion about the Daniel 9 70 weeks prophecy events. They were clearly given

I fully agree.

Daniel 9 starts with the 70 years of Jeremiah.

It ends with the 70 weeks (490 years) that point to the first coming of Christ.

1. The 70 years of Jeremiah end in 538 B.C. with the decree of Cyrus.
2. The 70 weeks (490 year timeline) began in 457 and ended 490 years later in 34 A.D.

The first 483 years of that 490 year timeline take us to 27 A.D. the baptism of Christ
The "midst" of that final 7 years takes us to 31 A.D. when the Messiah is "cut off" - crucified.
The end of that final 7 years takes us to 34 A.D. Stoning of Stephen which ends the 490 year probationary time given for the Jews to decide up or down on their role in the Gospel plan to evangelize the world with the good news about Christ.


In both cases (as with all Bible timelines) each timeline is contiguous.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Daniel 11 is about Alexander of the Greek/Macedonian Empire. He had princes and one was above the other. Seleucus above - Ptolemy of Egypt.

Really? Show us the verse where God specifically said that.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You have no context, no Scripture, and no History. None of these line up to support your premise.
Thanks,
DaDad

Same applied to you. You still haven't answered my Daniel 11 questions. And you did NOT have Scripture support as well.

 

[DaDad]

Same applied to you. You still haven't answered my Daniel 11 questions. And you did NOT have Scripture support as well.

Why do you continue to ask me things you ALREADY KNOW? -- I don't know noth'in. It's ALL YOU.
Thanks,
DaDad

 

[TribulationSigns]

Why do you continue to ask me things you ALREADY KNOW? -- I don't know noth'in. It's ALL YOU.
Thanks,
DaDad

To show the errors of your doctrine which you obviously afraid to answer. To claim that you know nothing is foolish after you have posted some of your faulty doctrines before I ask you.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Daniel 9 starts with the 70 years of Jeremiah.

It ends with the 70 weeks (490 years) that point to the first coming of Christ.

1. The 70 years of Jeremiah end in 538 B.C. with the decree of Cyrus.
2. The 70 weeks (490 year timeline) began in 457 and ended 490 years later in 34 A.D.

Not disagreeing, but as an aside, have you any thoughts on why 81 years elapsed between Cyrus decree and Artaxerxes decree?

 

[iamlamad]

You have no context, no Scripture, and no History. None of these line up to support your premise.
Thanks,
DaDad

How funny when He was right in what he wrote!

 

[DaDad]

How funny when He was right in what he wrote!

Hey, lets start at the BEGINNING, and see where we end up.
I'm game, are you?

The Chapter 11 prophecy starts in Chapter 10. To solve 10:1 we have to address 1:21:

Daniel 1:21 says that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. Per Calvin:

Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word היה, haiah, by to be “broken;” but this is by no means in accordance with the history. ...
​

Here we find that Calvin deferred to "history" to discount 1:12, and accept 10:1. And where "history" can't account for Darius the Mede being in the Medo/Persian Empire, we can only conclude it wasn't "history" after all. It was really only believing 10:1 at the expense of 1:21.

But if we look closely at 10:1, we will not find the 1:21 reference to Cyrus as being "king":

1:21 And Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.
​

Instead 10:1 only presents Cyrus as "king" over the "Persians", -- not "king" over Daniel:

10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia ...
​

So now we should conclude that 10:1 pre-dates 1:21, and predates the conquest of Babylon. After the conquest of Babylon per verse 21, Cyrus became KING over all, and then Daniel DIED.​

And in a broader concept, Chapter 1 covers the span of Daniel's life. So of course 1:21 accounts for his DEATH.​

And I'm not "right". Scripture is. I merely cite what Scripture says.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[iamlamad]

Hey, lets start at the BEGINNING, and see where we end up.
I'm game, are you?

The Chapter 11 prophecy starts in Chapter 10. To solve 10:1 we have to address 1:21:

Daniel 1:21 says that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. Per Calvin:

Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word היה, haiah, by to be “broken;” but this is by no means in accordance with the history. ...
​

Here we find that Calvin deferred to "history" to discount 1:12, and accept 10:1. And where "history" can't account for Darius the Mede being in the Medo/Persian Empire, we can only conclude it wasn't "history" after all. It was really only believing 10:1 at the expense of 1:21.

But if we look closely at 10:1, we will not find the 1:21 reference to Cyrus as being "king":

1:21 And Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.
​

Instead 10:1 only presents Cyrus as "king" over the "Persians", -- not "king" over Daniel:

10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia ...
​

So now we should conclude that 10:1 pre-dates 1:21, and predates the conquest of Babylon. After the conquest of Babylon per verse 21, Cyrus became KING over all, and then Daniel DIED.​

And in a broader concept, Chapter 1 covers the span of Daniel's life. So of course 1:21 accounts for his DEATH.​

And I'm not "right". Scripture is. I merely cite what Scripture says.

Thanks,
DaDad

Say what you want; Daniel walks straight through history in chapter 11, ending up with the future Antichrist beast of Rev. 13. And before Him, it was Antiochus Epiphanes.

 

[DaDad]

Say what you want; Daniel walks straight through history in chapter 11, ending up with the future Antichrist beast of Rev. 13. And before Him, it was Antiochus Epiphanes.

Ppppppppppp, -- whatever you say, and PLEASE DON'T PROVE ANYTHING. Just make it up as you go, and you will be fine, -- except that "teachers" are held to a higher accountability. Wait, what was I thinking?!? Just make up an excuse for THAT, and I'm quite confident that GOD will turn a blind eye.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[iamlamad]

Ppppppppppp, -- whatever you say, and PLEASE DON'T PROVE ANYTHING. Just make it up as you go, and you will be fine, -- except that "teachers" are held to a higher accountability. Wait, what was I thinking?!? Just make up an excuse for THAT, and I'm quite confident that GOD will turn a blind eye.

Thanks,
DaDad

DaDad, you can be wrong if you want to be! The rest of us will just smile.

It would take a BOOK to cover the many years of history Daniel covered in chapter 11. I once read a Doctor's Thesis on it. It was very well done, with historical proof that matched Daniel's narrative.

I guess you also feel free to rearrange John's amazing book too?

 

[iamlamad]

Hey, lets start at the BEGINNING, and see where we end up.
I'm game, are you?

The Chapter 11 prophecy starts in Chapter 10. To solve 10:1 we have to address 1:21:

Daniel 1:21 says that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. Per Calvin:

Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word היה, haiah, by to be “broken;” but this is by no means in accordance with the history. ...
​

Here we find that Calvin deferred to "history" to discount 1:12, and accept 10:1. And where "history" can't account for Darius the Mede being in the Medo/Persian Empire, we can only conclude it wasn't "history" after all. It was really only believing 10:1 at the expense of 1:21.

But if we look closely at 10:1, we will not find the 1:21 reference to Cyrus as being "king":

1:21 And Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.
​

Instead 10:1 only presents Cyrus as "king" over the "Persians", -- not "king" over Daniel:

10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia ...
​

So now we should conclude that 10:1 pre-dates 1:21, and predates the conquest of Babylon. After the conquest of Babylon per verse 21, Cyrus became KING over all, and then Daniel DIED.​

And in a broader concept, Chapter 1 covers the span of Daniel's life. So of course 1:21 accounts for his DEATH.​

And I'm not "right". Scripture is. I merely cite what Scripture says.

Thanks,
DaDad

We all know that Daniel, as a complete book, is NOT in chronological order. No need to argue that. My point was that chapter 11 was chronological.

 

[DaDad]

Say what you want; Daniel walks straight through history in chapter 11, ending up with the future Antichrist beast of Rev. 13. And before Him, it was Antiochus Epiphanes.

We all know that Daniel, as a complete book, is NOT in chronological order. No need to argue that. My point was that chapter 11 was chronological.

I fully agree that Daniel 11 is in PERFECT Chronological Order (with the exception where concurrent events are presented consecutively). No problem there. The only issue is: for which period of history?

The angel says "the time of the end", but you say ~200BC. So if you and I go through each verse, starting at 10:1 (reconciling 1:21), then you can't get to your ~300BC premise, but I can get to the angel's ~1948 end-time fulfillments.


And of course, you declined my 10:1/1:21 invitation and analysis. So to use your words: you can be wrong if you want to be!

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[iamlamad]

I fully agree that Daniel 11 is in PERFECT Chronological Order (with the exception where concurrent events are presented consecutively). No problem there. The only issue is: for which period of history?

The angel says "the time of the end", but you say ~200BC. So if you and I go through each verse, starting at 10:1 (reconciling 1:21), then you can't get to your ~300BC premise, but I can get to the angel's ~1948 end-time fulfillments.


And of course, you declined my 10:1/1:21 invitation and analysis. So to use your words: you can be wrong if you want to be!

Thanks,
DaDad

Daniel 11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

What time is it here? I say around 539 BC.

2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

“The Persian king who invaded Greece was, of course, Xerxes, who reigned 485-464 B.C.” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary)

17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

"Hoping to gain advantage over Egypt, Antiochus the Great gave his daughter, Cleopatra, in marriage to Ptolemy V in 195 B.C. But Antiochus’ daughter sided with her husband and no advantage was gained. Antiochus then lost a battle against Roman forces." (David Treybig)

Verses 21 through 34 are Antiochus Epiphanes

"Verses 21-34: These verses document the tyrannical oppression of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes, who by force tried to make the Jewish people forgo their religion in favor of all things Greek. This was the time of the Maccabees, who resisted this Hellenistic influence." (David Treybig)

40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Here it is the Antichrist Beast of Rev. 13. Future to us.

 

[DaDad]

Daniel 11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

What time is it here? I say around 539 BC.

It appears the date is closer to 530 BC, but I would presume that your starting premise is incorrect.

1. Darius the Mede is NOT a Medo/Persian

Historians assert that the Medo/Persian administrative records are complete, but there is no provision for a “King Darius”. The commentators errantly presume that because Darius is a Mede, that he must be a Medo/Persian, presumably General Gobryas, who was in charge of the military operation at Babylon. Unfortunately, this contradicts simple logic where any conqueror would either command the existing king to pay homage and taxes, or he might simply have his staff take over the management of the newly captured city. And where Gobryas was never a King, he was only a General and possibly Governor, it doesn’t make sense that General Gobryas planned to appoint an untested castrated Jewish slave “over the whole kingdom”.

Daniel 5:30 “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.”

Daniel 9:1 “first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans--”

Daniel 6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, to be throughout the whole kingdom; 2 and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss. 3 Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.
​

In addition, where Gobryas died within two weeks of conquering Babylon, one might pause to consider how a Medo/Persian General could develop such a close bond with this Jewish slave, that he was distressed, tried to rescue Daniel, exhorted Daniel, and spent the night fasting and went without sleep. And upon daybreak this purported General Gobryas hasted to Daniel and called to Daniel in anguish to see if he had perished.

Daniel 6:18 Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him. 19 Then, at break of day, the king arose and went in haste to the den of lions. 20 When he came near to the den where Daniel was, he cried out in a tone of anguish and said to Daniel, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?” 21 Then Daniel said to the king, “O king, live for ever! ​

All this for a castrated Jewish slave that he had only known for two weeks?​

2. Conquerors don't need "strengthening"

Daniel 11:1 And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.​

When General MacArthur signed the WWII Japanese surrender document on the Battleship U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, did he need strengthening? Certainly the Japanese did. After the war ended more than 900 Japanese were executed for war crimes, including Tojo “along with six other top Japanese leaders”.[1]

Perhaps this last Babylonian King Darius needed strengthening with the prospect of Cyrus at the gates.
​

3. Darius was the last Babylonian King

Daniel 6:28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.​

How is it that neither Scripture nor History account for a dual reign in the Medo/Persian Empire during Cyrus the Great? Could it be that Darius WAS the last Babylonian King, but is lost to history because the city was surrounded and the announcements never made it to the world's libraries and kingdoms? And should we expect that the Medo/Persians would have retained Babylonian records when they entered the city?

​

And once again, 1:21 says that Daniel died in the FIRST year of KING Cyrus, so 10:1 MUST have a different chronology that you've presumed.. But I've already presented what you've already ignored.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This Day In History, “Dec. 23 1948 Japanese War Criminals Hanged In Tokyo”, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/japanese-war-criminals-hanged-in-tokyo


Thanks,
DaDad

 

[iamlamad]

It appears the date is closer to 530 BC, but I would presume that your starting premise is incorrect.

1. Darius the Mede is NOT a Medo/Persian

Historians assert that the Medo/Persian administrative records are complete, but there is no provision for a “King Darius”. The commentators errantly presume that because Darius is a Mede, that he must be a Medo/Persian, presumably General Gobryas, who was in charge of the military operation at Babylon. Unfortunately, this contradicts simple logic where any conqueror would either command the existing king to pay homage and taxes, or he might simply have his staff take over the management of the newly captured city. And where Gobryas was never a King, he was only a General and possibly Governor, it doesn’t make sense that General Gobryas planned to appoint an untested castrated Jewish slave “over the whole kingdom”.

Daniel 5:30 “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.”

Daniel 9:1 “first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans--”

Daniel 6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, to be throughout the whole kingdom; 2 and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss. 3 Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.
​

In addition, where Gobryas died within two weeks of conquering Babylon, one might pause to consider how a Medo/Persian General could develop such a close bond with this Jewish slave, that he was distressed, tried to rescue Daniel, exhorted Daniel, and spent the night fasting and went without sleep. And upon daybreak this purported General Gobryas hasted to Daniel and called to Daniel in anguish to see if he had perished.

Daniel 6:18 Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him. 19 Then, at break of day, the king arose and went in haste to the den of lions. 20 When he came near to the den where Daniel was, he cried out in a tone of anguish and said to Daniel, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?” 21 Then Daniel said to the king, “O king, live for ever! ​

All this for a castrated Jewish slave that he had only known for two weeks?​

2. Conquerors don't need "strengthening"

Daniel 11:1 And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.​

When General MacArthur signed the WWII Japanese surrender document on the Battleship U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, did he need strengthening? Certainly the Japanese did. After the war ended more than 900 Japanese were executed for war crimes, including Tojo “along with six other top Japanese leaders”.[1]

Perhaps this last Babylonian King Darius needed strengthening with the prospect of Cyrus at the gates.
​

3. Darius was the last Babylonian King

Daniel 6:28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.​

How is it that neither Scripture nor History account for a dual reign in the Medo/Persian Empire during Cyrus the Great? Could it be that Darius WAS the last Babylonian King, but is lost to history because the city was surrounded and the announcements never made it to the world's libraries and kingdoms? And should we expect that the Medo/Persians would have retained Babylonian records when they entered the city?​

And once again, 1:21 says that Daniel died in the FIRST year of KING Cyrus, so 10:1 MUST have a different chronology that you've presumed.. But I've already presented what you've already ignored.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This Day In History, “Dec. 23 1948 Japanese War Criminals Hanged In Tokyo”, Japanese war criminals hanged in Tokyo


Thanks,
DaDad

First, I was talking about chapter 11, stating that it was chronological. I still say that.
I already know that history does not seem to match what Daniel wrote. But since Daniel was THERE, I will take His words over what we know of the history of that time. It does seem like Darius was a favorite name during that time in history.

What real difference will it make to us today if we KNEW the exact date Daniel was cast into the lion's den? Let's not strain at gnats.

I think I know the problem here: when you wrote, "The angel says "the time of the end" can you show us the verse you had in mind?

 

[DaDad]

I already know that history does not seem to match what Daniel wrote.

Then why do you misrepresent the fulfillment of Scripture? You just said an ancient account is false, and apparently you're not interested in an end-time fulfillment as specified by the angel (12:4 & 9). So I can only presume that you're content with the "fact" that the Bible's not true. Otherwise you'd find the truth.

Thanks,
DaDad