Daniel 2, 7, & 8 Illustration - how does one support that Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes

[Adventist Heretic]

Trying one more way to look at it. Each clause that refers to one or the other categorized:

Chazon

Dan 8:1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a chazon appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.

Dan 8:2 And I saw in the chazon and when I saw, I was in Susa the citadel, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the chazon and I was at the Ulai canal.

Dan 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the chazon concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”

Dan 8:15 When I, Daniel, had seen the chazon I sought to understand it.

Dan 8:17 So he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face. But he said to me, “Understand, O son of man, that the chazon is for the time of the end.”

Daniel 8:26b but seal up the chazon for it refers to many days from now.”

Dan 9:21 while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the chazon at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice.


Dan 9:24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both chazon and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.


Mareh:

Dan 8:15b And behold, there stood before me one having the mareh of a man.

Dan 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, “Gabriel, make this man understand the mareh

Dan 8:26 The mareh of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true

Dan 8:27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king's business, but I was appalled by the mareh and did not understand it.

Dan 9:23 At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the mareh

i like the grouping but would like to seen the specific of each reference or part of the prophecy. in other more detail on each of these.

 

[tall73]

i like the grouping but would like to seen the specific of each reference or part of the prophecy. in other more detail on each of these.

Read the whole chapter a few times and then read the list above again. You will remember most of what connects to it. And it may help jog some thoughts.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

ok,

Off Topic, have you seen "Patterns of Evidence" ? and the New Chronology of David Rohl?

 

[tall73]

ok,

Off Topic, have you seen "Patterns of Evidence" ? and the New Chronology of David Rohl?

No, what is it?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I want to look at the topic of the horn and the winds. Pastor Oxentenko talks about the gender agreement problem. with the horns being feminine and the winds being feminine or masculine. I would like to look at the possible that they are both feminine, where would masculine antecedent be?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

No, what is it?

it is a series on Biblical Archeaology. that is looking for evidence of Joseph and Moses and the Exodus. it is a serious must if you are going to talk about biblical history. it is a 3 part series. It Is premise is that the standard chronology is wrong and uses the bible to dismiss the bible as a fairy tale.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

 

[Adventist Heretic]

 

[Adventist Heretic]

 

[Adventist Heretic]

 

[tall73]

I want to look at the topic of the horn and the winds. Pastor Oxentenko talks about the gender agreement problem. with the horns being feminine and the winds being feminine or masculine. I would like to look at the possible that they are both feminine, where would masculine antecedent be?

I think the usual reason they note that is to indicate that the masculine one of them must then tie to the wind, not the horn. So they wouldn't necessarily see both as being feminine. This part of the view goes back quite some ways.

Hasel's DARCOM article goes into the details. I tried to take photos of that part of the text but they didn't come out well. But if you have access to academic Adventist libraries I am sure they have several sources that discuss it.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I think the usual reason they note that is to indicate that the masculine one of them must then tie to the wind, not the horn. So they wouldn't necessarily see both as being feminine. This part of the view goes back quite some ways.

Hasel's DARCOM article goes into the details. I tried to take photos of that part of the text but they didn't come out well. But if you have access to academic Adventist libraries I am sure they have several sources that discuss it.

the point that i am trying to clarify is does it need to be 1. masuline and 1. feminine or can the both be feminine. the reason is that if they are then the the masculine would have to tie to somehing else, my question is what is that something else. there would have to be something else to make sense.

 

[tall73]

the point that i am trying to clarify is does it need to be 1. masuline and 1. feminine or can the both be feminine. the reason is that if they are then the the masculine would have to tie to somehing else, my question is what is that something else. there would have to be something else to make sense.

I understood that to be the question, but there seems to be a scarcity of antecedents.

However, given that horns is assumed in the text you could posit something else there. But then you would have to explain how it made sense from the context. I have seen no other possibilities on that.

 

[tall73]

i think there is something there with the Mareh, but it is beyond me. I am not sure what the connection is between the appereance and vision. but there is no Mareh in daniel 2,3,4,5,,6,7, only in daniel 1,8,9 10,11 so there is something there

I have looked at it from a variety of angles.

I think one of the sticking points on the view is essentially acknowledged by them.

Dan 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

The mareh cannot be both the 70 weeks AND the 2,300 days per their view. This is why they have to supply, "which is part of the 2,300 days".

I think for the view to have any chance they have to explain that aspect better. Perhaps the book you referenced will have more information on how they get that.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I have looked at it from a variety of angles.

I think one of the sticking points on the view is essentially acknowledged by them.

Dan 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

The mareh cannot be both the 70 weeks AND the 2,300 days per their view. This is why they have to supply, "which is part of the 2,300 days".

I think for the view to have any chance they have to explain that aspect better. Perhaps the book you referenced will have more information on how they get that.

I talked to Oxentenko today, he explained that they could be both.he is still of the view that one is part of the other. he had his points, but I have to digest it more. He said the Mareh the vision of the mighty man, and the things pretaining to him. I would call him if you want to know more. he has done 500 pages of this stuff and I cannot due him justice.