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

[Adventist Heretic]

i am not attempting to deny anything. I have watch a number of video on the subject of AtG and as of today his where about is a mystery. Now, maybe it was known at that time and has since been lost, so to clarify the issue I would like a source. that is all. no need to be upset about a simple fair request.

 

[BobRyan]

In each of the prior 2 Prophecies we have a pattern established that is violated in 8, using your interpretation. In Daniel 2 we see that each metal represents a kingdom. In Daniel 7 each beast represents a Nation and a horn represent a king. In Daniel 8 you have a 2 beast that represent a Nations, the you have a horn that represents the first king of 2nd beast. .

In Dan 7 the 11 horn (the little horn of Dan 7) that persecutes the saints for 1260 years is the papacy (I think this was the claim even of some Protestant reformers), and in Dan 8 the "little horn" that also persecutes the saints and then far exceeds the scope and power of Greece itself - is also the Papacy.

The "template" model that you see in Dan 2, 7,8,9 shown in many study bibles also points out that these chapters are overlays of each other - with more detail being added in subsequent chapters.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you taking Hasel's view that the masculine indicates it comes from one of the four winds?

Four winds - as a synonymn for four points of the compass so then instead of pagan Rome (and later papal Rome) arising from one of the four divisions

"out of one of them". A little horn comes out of one of the "four winds" symbolizing one of the four directions of the compass.

"The grammatical structure of the original Hebrew indicates that the word "them" does not refer to the four horns because the word is masculine. The grammar requires that the pronoun have the same gender as the word to which it refers.
Horns is feminine and winds is a masculine word. Therefore the pronoun "them" must refer to the winds. "

====================

Arguments for Antiochus ignore that gender-argument as if Hebrew were a genderless language like English instead being more like Latin. So that antiochus argument tries to make Antiochus epimanese (the mad man) as he was called by is peers, the great descendant from the Seleucid branch of Greece (the 8th not the 11th as in Dan 7's 11th horn) that was greater than all of Persia and all of Greece - "exceedingly great" as Dan 8 says.

 

[BobRyan]

Moreover, the connection we were referring to in the other thread is that between chapters 8 and 9, which you have not addressed in this thread at all. And it is not just a thematic link that is needed, but a very specific link regarding the starting point of the vision of 9 being applied to chapter 8.

Easy -

1. Dan 8 ends with Daniel highly conflicted and anxious about the vision in Dan 8 - which has no start date other than we know it starts some time when Persia is dominant and Greece has not yet taken over as per the text itself.

2. The vision in Dan 9 of Gabriel starts off promising to "explain the vision" - to provide information missing from the vision about which Daniel was so distressed.

Dan 8:
15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, “Gabriel, explain the vision to this man.” 17 So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; and he said to me, “Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end.”

27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. Then I got up and carried on the king’s business; but I was astounded at the vision, and there was no one to explain it.

Dan 9:
21 while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. 22 He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. 23 At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision.

 

[tall73]

Easy -

1. Dan 8 ends with Daniel highly conflicted and anxious about the vision in Dan 8

We agree he doesn't understand it, and he is disturbed by it.

- which has no start date other than we know it starts some time when Persia is dominant and Greece has not yet taken over as per the text itself.

That is your allegation. But the question addresses the start date.

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 vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”
Dan 8:14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”

2. The vision in Dan 9 of Gabriel starts off promising to "explain the vision" - to provide information missing from the vision about which Daniel was so distressed.

There was no missing information from the vision of Chapter 8. But there was missing understanding on the part of Daniel regarding how the temple, which was not rebuilt yet, could again go through such activities.

Dan 8:
15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, “Gabriel, explain the vision to this man.” 17 So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; and he said to me, “Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end.”

27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. Then I got up and carried on the king’s business; but I was astounded at the vision, and there was no one to explain it.

Yes, Gabriel was told to explain the vision. But you skipped a lot. He DID explain the vision. Daniel was not understanding all the implications. But it was not unfinished. Daniel did explain it. And the verse right before 27 demonstrates that.

26 “And the vision of the evenings and mornings
Which was told is true;
Therefore seal up the vision,
For it refers to many days in the future.”

When he finished relating the vision he asserted that it was true. He said to seal it up, because it refers to many days in the future. There is no indication that it was unfinished.

You wouldn't seal up the vision if there were still more to relate, because sealing it up is to preserve it unchanged, or un-tampered with for a later time. For instance, if a king sent a letter and put the signet ring impression in the wax it would allow the recipient to know the letter was legitimate. In this case it is sealed up for many days in the future. If the vision was yet to be completed it would not have been sealed.

For instance, Jeremiah bought a field and sealed the record of it to be preserved for many days. This was despite land not being worth much since the city was under siege, because the Lord said that they would again buy land.

Jer 39:9 And I bought the field of Anameel the son of my father's brother, and I weighed him seventeen shekels of silver.
Jer 39:10 And I wrote it in a book, and sealed it, and took the testimony of witnesses, and weighed the money in the balance.
Jer 39:11 And I took the book of the purchase that was sealed;
Jer 39:12 and I gave it to Baruch son of Nerias, son of Maasaeas, in the sight of Anameel my father's brother's son, and in the sight of the men that stood by and wrote in the book of the purchase, and in the sight of the Jews that were in the court of the prison.
Jer 39:13 And I charged Baruch in their presence, saying, Thus saith the Lord Almighty;
Jer 39:14 Take this book of the purchase, and the book that has been read; and thou shalt put it into an earthen vessel, that it may remain many days.
Jer 39:15 For thus saith the Lord; There shall yet be bought fields and houses and vineyards in this land.

The angel finished explaining, said it was true, and told him to seal it up. There was no indication that the vision was incomplete.

 

[BobRyan]

That is your allegation. But the question addresses the start date.

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 vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”
Dan 8:14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”

1. I don't see a start date there or an event for a start date there.
2. The question is not "here is the start date for vision... now how long is the vision?".
3. "How long is the vision" is the question and clearly it starts before the rise of the Greek empire while Persia is in dominance - but no specific historic event is given for that period to use "as a date".

There was no missing information from the vision of Chapter 8.

The start point is missing.

Yes, Gabriel was told to explain the vision. But you skipped a lot. He DID explain the vision. Daniel was not understanding all the implications. But it was not unfinished.

He never gave the starting event. (along with other details also included in that 2300 year timeline - that we find in Dan 9)

Daniel did explain it. And the verse right before 27 demonstrates that.

26 “And the vision of the evenings and mornings
Which was told is true;
Therefore seal up the vision,
For it refers to many days in the future.”

Also does not identify a historic event to use as a start point.

When he finished relating the vision he asserted that it was true.

The fact that it ends without having a historic event as a start point - does not make the vision "untrue".

You wouldn't seal up the vision if there were still more to relate

1. your inference noted. you can infer that if you wish.
2. The vision is printed in the book as published. That fact does not create a historic date for a starting event.

For instance, Jeremiah bought a field and sealed the record of it to be preserved for many days. This was despite land not being worth much

Daniel does not hide or bury the book to "seal it" rather it is published for all to read - the sealing of the book is in the fact that it is not understood.

 

[tall73]

1. I don't see a start date there or an event for a start date there.
2. The question is not "here is the start date for vision... now how long is the vision?".
3. "How long is the vision" is the question and clearly it starts before the rise of the Greek empire while Persia is in dominance - but no specific historic event is given for that period to use "as a date".

Sure there is.

For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”

The activities described happen until the restoration of the sanctuary. So when they start is the start, and the end is when the sanctuary is restored.

There is a start and finish.

He never gave the starting event. (along with other details also included in that 2300 year timeline - that we find in Dan 9)

Daniel 9 consists of sabbatical years. This is not sabbatical years. So they are not the same prophecy.

The fact that it ends without having a historic event as a start point - does not make the vision "untrue".

It does have a start point. And it is true.

1. your inference noted. you can infer that if you wish.
2. The vision is printed in the book as published. That fact does not create a historic date for a starting event.

Sealing up is hardly my inference. It was something done with documents, etc. They didn't add to it once they sealed it. It was already related in full.

Daniel does not hide or bury the book to "seal it" rather it is published for all to read - the sealing of the book is in the fact that it is not understood.

Who said he buried or hid it? Jeremiah didn't either. He presented it before witnesses. But he preserved it as evidence, and it was sealed to show it wasn't tampered with.

You have constructed the notion that the vision was incomplete. But you have not demonstrated that at all. It was completed, and true, and to be sealed up.

You suggest it was cut short because of Daniel. But that is not said in the text, and instead it is said that the vision was to be sealed up.

 

[BobRyan]

Sure there is.

For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”

The activities described happen until the restoration of the sanctuary.

No historic event is given in Dan 8 for the start of the vision which in Dan 8 - is during the primary period for the Persian empire before Greece comes to power. And no event at all during that time is given as "a start" event.

You are taking "vision ABOUT" and using that as the start - but no such assumption is justified since the vision actually begins with Persia as Dan 8 states.

"Vision concerning" / "Vision about" includes Activity mentioned IN the vision but does not specify a start date for the vision that begins with the Persian empire.

Dan 8:
In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one which appeared to me previously. 2 I looked in the vision, and while I was looking, I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I looked in the vision, and I myself was beside the Ulai Canal. 3 Then I raised my eyes and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. 4 I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward, and no other beasts could stand against him nor was there anyone to rescue from his power, but he did as he pleased and made himself great.

So that is the start of the vision --

20 The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia.

And we are given zero historic events for that period in Dan 8 to use as a start point.

So then Gabriel comes to give understanding of that vision in Dan 9 - and there we get the 457 B.C. historic start point - that is in fact during the time of the dominant period for the Persian Empire and before the rise of the Greek Empire.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

 

[tall73]

No historic event is given in Dan 8 for the start of the vision which in Dan 8 - is during the primary period for the Persian empire before Greece comes to power. And no event at all during that time is given as "a start" event.

You are taking "vision ABOUT" and using that as the start - but no such assumption is justified since the vision actually begins with Persia as Dan 8 states.

Dan 8:
In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one which appeared to me previously. 2 I looked in the vision, and while I was looking, I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I looked in the vision, and I myself was beside the Ulai Canal. 3 Then I raised my eyes and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. 4 I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward, and no other beasts could stand against him nor was there anyone to rescue from his power, but he did as he pleased and made himself great.

So that is the start of the vision --

20 The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia.

And we are given zero historic events for that period in Dan 8 to use as a start point.

You either have

a. the start of the trampling, if you take the vision only as the trampling.

b. the start of the whole vision, which does indeed have historic timing, when the ram (Persia) began expansion in those directions from Elam.

So if you define the vision as the whole thing, you have your starting point. If you define the vision as only the part dealing with the trampling, etc. in the vision, you have your starting point.

What you don't have is 457. It is never mentioned at all, or anything like it. And the vision is related as true and to be sealed up, with no indication it is incomplete.

 

[tall73]

So then Gabriel comes to give understanding of that vision in Dan 8 - and there we get the 457 B.C. historic start point - that is in fact during the time of the dominant period for the Persian Empire and before the rise of the Greek Empire.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

I assume you mean in chapter 9. The vision was already related in 8 and was finished. Miller pulling a different date out of chapter 9 is not warranted since Gabriel explained no such thing in chapter 8.

Miller pulled a date from a different prophecy after this one was sealed up already. I did notice that.

And 457 is not at the same time the Ram begins expanding from Elam. It is just a date pulled from a different chapter.

 

[BobRyan]

You either have

a. the start of the trampling, if you take the vision only as the trampling.

hmmm - let's see if Daniel 8 shows us that the vision actually starts with the "trampling of the sanctuary"

Dan 8:
In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one which appeared to me previously. 2 I looked in the vision, and while I was looking, I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I looked in the vision, and I myself was beside the Ulai Canal. 3 Then I raised my eyes and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. 4 I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward, and no other beasts could stand against him nor was there anyone to rescue from his power, but he did as he pleased and made himself great.

So that is the start of the vision --

20 The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia.

And we are given zero historic events for that period in Dan 8 to use as a start point. And no mention of trampling the Sanctuary at the start.

 

[BobRyan]

b. the start of the whole vision, which does indeed have historic timing, when the ram (Persia) began expansion in those directions from Elam.

So if you define the vision as the whole thing, you have your starting point.

It says the Ram was "already standing" and it was already expanding in all directions. It is some point during the Ram's dominant period.. no specific date given.

But 457 B.C. points to a singular event during that dominant period for Medo-Persia.

What you don't have is 457. It is never mentioned at all, or anything like it. .

True - no start point in Dan 8

 

[tall73]

hmmm - let's see if Daniel 8 shows us that the vision actually starts with the "trampling of the sanctuary"

Dan 8:
In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one which appeared to me previously. 2 I looked in the vision, and while I was looking, I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I looked in the vision, and I myself was beside the Ulai Canal. 3 Then I raised my eyes and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. 4 I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward, and no other beasts could stand against him nor was there anyone to rescue from his power, but he did as he pleased and made himself great.

So that is the start of the vision --

As I mentioned, there are two possibilities for a start date But both of them relate to the sealed up and true vision related to Daniel in chapter 8.

Dan 8:9 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.
Dan 8:10 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.
Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Dan 8:13 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, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The question in verse 13 spells out the vision of the
-daily
-transgression of desolation
-casting down the host and santuary.

And we are given zero historic events for that period in Dan 8 to use as a start point. And no mention of trampling the Sanctuary at the start.

If the question is how long the vision of a,b and c, then when a,b and c begin you have the start. The question is how long that lasts.

It says the Ram was "already standing" and it was already expanding in all directions. It is some point during the Ram's dominant period.. no specific date given.

Incorrect. The vision does start with him standing in Elam. But then Daniel sees the expansion following that.

Dan 8:1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
Dan 8:2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
Dan 8:3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.

The ram is standing before the river. And then in the next verse the ram is no longer standing but expanding in three directions, all but East. That is because Elam is east of the conquests of that period.

Dan 8:4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

The ram starts in Elam, by the river then expands.

But 457 B.C. points to a singular event during that dominant period for Medo-Persia.

And is not mentioned at all in Daniel 8, which is sealed up, and true. And it doesn't correspond to the start of the vision.

True - no start point in Dan 8

There is a starting point. And the whole vision was sealed up and true, not incomplete.

And following Miller you pulled a start date from a different chapter. But the vision was already sealed up, not incomplete.

 

[BobRyan]

As I mentioned, there are two possibilities for a start date But both of them relate to the sealed up and true vision related to Daniel in chapter 8.

The inference you pour into "sealed up" when the vision is in fact publically available starting in Daniel's day - appears to have too much subjective preference in it - and I don't find that compelling.

The question in verse 13 does not "spell out the vision" -- rather it asks a question about it and mentions merely a part of its content as can be seen from the start of what is called "the vision" in vs 2 and 3.

Vs 1 and 2 make it clear - there is only one vision in Dan chapter 8.
vs 3 and 4 show that Persia was already standing and was engaged in expanding west,north, and south. No one could withstand Persia - in this starting scenario.

In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one which appeared to me previously. 2 I looked in the vision, and while I was looking, I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I looked in the vision, and I myself was beside the Ulai Canal. 3 Then I raised my eyes and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. 4 I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward, and no other beasts could stand against him

If the question is how long the vision of a,b and c, then when a,b and c begin you have the start.

There is only one vision and so it has only one start - and that is at the beginning as we see in vs 2 and 3.

The vision is "about" certain events - but the question is not "how long are those events" but how long is the total vision itself.

When one see a documentary about the use of the A-Bomb and ask "how long a period of time is covered by the movie about the dropping of the first A-Bomb" it is not asking "how many minutes did it take for the A-Bomb to fall and hit the ground", nor is it asking "How many years are covered from the actual falling of the A-Bomb (in the documentary) to the end of the documentary"

===================

You have free will and can insert any preference you wish into the chapter -- but what I have shown above is a fairly compelling case from my POV given the content of the chapter and the fact that there is only one vision in Dan 8.

Your idea that the vision does not start until AFTER the fall of both Persia and Greece - is a very massive stretch - and I would be happy to defend this particular POV of mine with anyone in my claim that I am taking a very objective and "obvious" position on this - no matter that "all" may not agree with me. It is still a pretty sound option for someone to take.

 

[tall73]

The inference you pour into "sealed up" when the vision is in fact publically available starting in Daniel's day - appears to have too much subjective preference in it - and I don't find that compelling.

Your attempting to change the meaning of sealed up I don't find compelling. A seal was used to prevent changing. The angel didn't say don't tell anyone. He did say it was sealed up. And he did say it was true.

I even pointed out Jeremiah's example of making an announcement of it to all, because it was meant to be evidence later.

You are in fact arguing for change, because you pull in a date from a vision years after. And you do this because your whole denomination was built on an after-the-fact application of Miller's dating scheme.

 

[BobRyan]

Your attempting to change the meaning of sealed up

"Sealed up" in the book of Daniel does not mean.
1. All details are spelled out
2. No questions remain
3. Hide it in the ground

It means that it cannot be fully understood yet.


YLT : 26 And the appearance of the evening and of the morning, that is told, is true; and thou, hide thou the vision, for [it is] after many days.'
NKJV: “And the vision of the evenings and mornings Which was told is true; Therefore seal up the vision, For it refers to many days in the future.”
NASB: 26 “The vision of the evenings and mornings Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days in the future.”

Though the book of Daniel was published - yet the meaning of this part of the book of Daniel was hidden, was kept secret until it was to open "opened"/"Unsealed" many centuries in the future. Even Daniel himself complained about that -

NIV
27 I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.
NASB 27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. Then I got up again and carried on the king’s business; but I was astounded at the vision, and there was none to explain it.
YLT 27 And I, Daniel, have been, yea, I became sick [for] days, and I rise, and do the king's work, and am astonished at the appearance, and there is none understanding.
NKJV 27 And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; afterward I arose and went about the king’s business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it.

No wonder we have at least one more detail in chapter 8 - spelled out in the very next chapter of Daniel - as we already saw here.
Yesterday at 3:34 PM #24

=================================
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible

Daniel 8:26

Verse 26
26. Wherefore shut thou up, etc. Rather, nevertheless shut thou up the vision. (See Daniel 9:24; Daniel 12:4.) Although a true prophecy, it was to be hidden from the minds of men, if not from their eyes, until a later time… It is better, therefore, to understand this verse as part of the apocalyptic vision. The author uses here the common literary method of his day in enforcing the thought that the chief lessons of the vision were not for the contemporaries of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, but for those who should live long afterward. It could not be understood until then.

 

[tall73]

It means that it cannot be fully understood yet.


YLT : 26 And the appearance of the evening and of the morning, that is told, is true; and thou, hide thou the vision, for [it is] after many days.'
NKJV: “And the vision of the evenings and mornings Which was told is true; Therefore seal up the vision, For it refers to many days in the future.”
NASB: 26 “The vision of the evenings and mornings Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days in the future.”

Though the book of Daniel was published - yet this part of the book of Daniel was hidden, was kept secret until it was to open "opened"/"Unsealed" many centuries in the future.

It doesn't say secret. It says sealed. That some translations render it as "keep it secret" isn't convincing. Especially since Daniel did not in fact keep it secret.

Now you note it was sealed up for many centuries in the future. But then you claim that it was re-opened and added to in chapter 9 which would be a short time after.

 

[tall73]

Sealed up in the book of Daniel does not mean.
1. All details are spelled out

If the vision was related, explained, and then he said it was true, there is no reason to say it was incomplete.

That is only your assertion that the text does not state.

2. No questions remain

Daniel had lots of questions. But the vision was true and sealed up. Your allegation is the vision was incomplete. The text does not state that.

3. Hide it in the ground

Things were sealed up as evidence that they were not tampered with. It was to apply to a later time, and was a record.

 

[tall73]

Though the book of Daniel was published - yet the meaning of this part of the book of Daniel was hidden, was kept secret until it was to open "opened"/"Unsealed" many centuries in the future. Even Daniel himself complained about that -

NIV
27 I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.
NASB 27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. Then I got up again and carried on the king’s business; but I was astounded at the vision, and there was none to explain it.
YLT 27 And I, Daniel, have been, yea, I became sick [for] days, and I rise, and do the king's work, and am astonished at the appearance, and there is none understanding.
NKJV 27 And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; afterward I arose and went about the king’s business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it.

No wonder we have at least one more detail in chapter 8 - spelled out in the very next chapter of Daniel - as we already saw here.
Yesterday at 3:34 PM #24

Daniel had lots of questions related to the sanctuary that was not yet rebuilt, and now this was talking about it being defiled again. And the vision was said to be true, but for many days from now.

Now if it couldn't be understood for centuries, how would Daniel understand it in chapter 9, a short time later?

Daniel 9 would have indeed been a comfort to Daniel because part of it talked of the rebuilding of the temple. And of course it promised a time to have other very wonderful things come about for Daniel's people, who were now seen not to be rejected, but still in God's plan. But it was its own prophecy. It clarified some of the questions of Daniel. But it didn't change the already sealed up vision of chapter 8.

The vision of Daniel 8 was already sealed up for many years hence. So trying to claim that it was incomplete and added to later makes no sense.

Miller pulled a date from one chapter and applied it to another without warrant.

 

[BobRyan]

You are in fact arguing for change, because you pull in a date from a vision years after

Dan 8 and Dan 9 -- same book, same author... "next chapter" - same readers

fits perfectly -- The text itself in Dan 9 makes direct reference to Dan 8 -- this is irrefutable. your argument requires that you hold these details in Dan 8 and 9 "at a certain distance".

Dan 9's vision starts off as an explanation for "the vision" given previously and mentioned in Dan 9 as "seen in the vision previously"

=================

1. Dan 8 ends with Daniel highly conflicted and anxious about the vision in Dan 8 - which has no start date other than we know it starts some time when Persia is dominant and Greece has not yet taken over as per the text itself.

2. The vision in Dan 9 of Gabriel starts off promising to "explain the vision" - to provide information missing from the vision about which Daniel was so distressed.

Dan 8:
15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, “Gabriel, explain the vision to this man.” 17 So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; and he said to me, “Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end.”

27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. Then I got up and carried on the king’s business; but I was astounded at the vision, and there was no one to explain it.

Dan 9:
21 while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. 22 He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. 23 At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision.

============

Read that text instead of dismissing it soooo fast. It only works one way.