Daniel's 2300 days - what's interesting is what's missing

[RND]

I guess you didn't understand. A. Epiphanes's story serves for the things of "the end". Daniel 8 makes it clear that there is a vision (A. Epiphanes) AND an application of it for the end times.

But you said that Daniel 8 applies to the "end times vision" and that it also applies to Antiochus Epiphanes. By logical extension then you are saying that Antiochus Epiphanes is part of the "end times."

Here's your exact quote:

No, the application of the vision is for the last days. The vision itself applies to Antiochus Epiphanes. He serves as a precursor for the configuration of the end times.

If the "application" of the vision is for the last days, and that vision "applies" to Antiochus Epiphanes then it is only logical to conclude you assume that Antiochus Epiphanes is part of the "end times."

 

[HisdaughterJen]

About the reconsecration of the temple after the 2300 days:

Dan 8:14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”




Eze 43:25 “For seven days you are to provide a male goat daily for a sin offering; you are also to provide a young bull and a ram from the flock, both without defect.
Eze 43:26 For seven days they are to make atonement for the altar and cleanse it; thus they will dedicate it.
Eze 43:27 At the end of these days, from the eighth day on, the priests are to present your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings on the altar. Then I will accept you, declares the Sovereign LORD.”



This is one of the things that the 70 weeks are for, isn't it?:
Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.



Notice the 7/8 days which falls into another pattern...7000 years, then new heavens/new earth on the eighth day & for eternity.

No, the numbers are there for a reason and point to His plans.

 

[holdon]

But you said that Daniel 8 applies to the "end times vision" and that it also applies to Antiochus Epiphanes. By logical extension then you are saying that Antiochus Epiphanes is part of the "end times."

Here's your exact quote:

I guess I should have said: the vision is about A. Epiphanes. Will this clear it up for you?
There is a vision about some future event vs 1 - 12: that ends with A. Epiphanes.
Then there is an explanation and application (I believe from vs 19 onward) that refers to the end times.
Then in 8:26 the vision about the evening and morning is refered to again as being separate and not pertaining to the end times, but for "many days to come".

 

[RND]

I guess I should have said: the vision is about A. Epiphanes. Will this clear it up for you?

The things is you did say this.

There is a vision about some future event vs 1 - 12: that ends with A. Epiphanes.

Nope. The verses of Daniel 8:1-12 are clearly spelled out as to who is who.

Dan 8:20
The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia.

Dan 8:21
And the rough goat [is] the king of Grecia: and the great horn that [is] between his eyes [is] the first king.

Then there is an explanation and application (I believe from vs 19 onward) that refers to the end times.

Of which Antiochus Epiphanes isn't a part of.

Then in 8:26 the vision about the evening and morning is refered to again as being separate and not pertaining to the end times, but for "many days to come".

Dan 8:26
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told [is] true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it [shall be] for many days.

"Wherefore shut thou up the vision..."

Simply shows that the vision is not for anytime soon. Considerablly in the future.

 

[holdon]

Of which Antiochus Epiphanes isn't a part of.

Indeed. So where is your beef now???

Dan 8:26
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told [is] true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it [shall be] for many days.

"Wherefore shut thou up the vision..."

Simply shows that the vision is not for anytime soon. Considerablly in the future.

???? "shutting up the vision" means "is not for anytime soon". How did you get that??

 

[RND]

Indeed. So where is your beef now???????

So was your original post a mistake then?

"shutting up the vision" means "is not for anytime soon". How did you get that??

Is this vision part of the Book of Daniel?

Dan 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[holdon]

So was your original post a mistake then?

??? I don't follow you. The only mistake I made was saying that the vision "applies to", rather than saying that it is "about" A.E.

Is this vision part of the Book of Daniel?

Dan 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

[/quote]But here it says: "to the time of the end", not so in 8:26....

And by the way: "shut up the vision" is not the same as "shut up the word".

 

[RND]

??? I don't follow you. The only mistake I made was saying that the vision "applies to", rather than saying that it is "about" A.E.

But you said the vision was about the "end times." How could the vision be about Antiochus Epiphanes then? Again, here's you exact quote:

No, the application of the vision is for the last days. The vision itself applies to Antiochus Epiphanes. He serves as a precursor for the configuration of the end times.

How does the vision apply to the last days but is about Antiochus Epiphanes?

But here it says: "to the time of the end", not so in 8:26....

The "vision" deals with the end of days.

And by the way: "shut up the vision" is not the same as "shut up the word".

Are both statements part of the same book? For example Daniel 8 was not fulfilled when the book of Daniel was sealed correct? If Daniel 12 tells Daniel to "...O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end:...." then when was Daniel 8 to be fulfilled? When was the book of Daniel to be "unsealed?"

 

[holdon]

But you said the vision was about the "end times." How could the vision be about Antiochus Epiphanes then? Again, here's you exact quote:



How does the vision apply to the last days but is about Antiochus Epiphanes?

I rarely come across futile discussions about words like this one. Do you know what the term: "application" means??? An "application" in my mind is not the thing itself.....

The "vision" deals with the end of days.

What do you means by "deals with"???

Are both statements part of the same book? For example Daniel 8 was not fulfilled when the book of Daniel was sealed correct? If Daniel 12 tells Daniel to "...O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end:...." then when was Daniel 8 to be fulfilled? When was the book of Daniel to be "unsealed?"

Sorry, I have never seen anyone that would apply ALL of Daniel only "to the times of the end" as you seem to want to do.....

 

[RND]

I rarely come across futile discussions about words like this one.

Just asking how you say that something applies to the future while at the same time saying it applies to the past.

Do you know what the term: "application" means???

Yes.

An "application" in my mind is not the thing itself.....

Then how does the vision "apply" to the past.

What do you means by "deals with"???

Is about.

Sorry, I have never seen anyone that would apply ALL of Daniel only "to the times of the end" as you seem to want to do.....

Well, shouldn't we examine when Daniel 8 was unsealed versus when Daniel 12 was unsealed?

 

[holdon]

Is about.

The vision "is about" the continuing story of the Medo Persian, then Grecian, then the split into 4 and one of the one being against the beauty country. This is past history.

 

[RND]

The vision "is about" the continuing story of the Medo Persian, then Grecian, then the split into 4 and one of the one being against the beauty country. This is past history.

If the story is about 'past history' how then could it be a 'continuing' story?

"... Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end [shall be] the vision."