I've already answered this. And I'm still waiting for a response from my brother. He actually does some personal translation work. Translations do have to take some liberties beyond strictly word for word translating. And that's because the object is to convey not just an equivalent word but also what was meant to be conveyed by the writer.
If, in this case, Yavan was a reasonable expression for the part of the world that included Greece, then use of that word in modern times may indicate it is just Turkey and excludes Greece. And that would then not be a proper translation.
The context then is more important than a word for word translation and determines what aspect of Anatolia is in the view of the message. Yes, most translators view Greece as the reasonable translation for a word that is literally translated "Yavan." And that's because the context indicates that is what the message intended to convey by the term. It was a reference to the power that succeeded Medo-Persia and was led by Alexander the Great.
When I hear back from my brother I will give you his thoughts, if you wish?
sure, but likely I don't find it satisfactory. Inserting their interpretation into the text forces a conclusion, and that conclusion can be wrong.
There are multiple historical inaccuracies between Daniel 8 and 11 vs what happened historically between Alexander and Antiochus. I covered Alexander before how he wasn't the first king, the kingdom was broken into more than 4 pieces (there were initially 12) by people who followed him, thus after his dominion which conflicts Daniel 11, and Antiochus never directly opposed Jesus, which is what the little horn does in Daniel 8.
You have to Gumby stretch a lot to somehow "spiritually" come to the interpretation that Antiochus faced Jesus and died. Not to mention, Daniel 11 has the vile man plant his tabernacle on the Holy Mountain, and then die, Antiochus died in Babylon of a fever.
are there a lot of similarities? Yes.
is it a 1:1 fulfillment? No.
and that's why I say there's a yet future fulfillment, that will be 1:1.
No, did you miss my point in all this, that if they had killed him we wouldn't have had the Revelation!
They tried to kill him.
They boiled him in oil and he survived.
That's why they exiled him. They couldn't kill him.
It's like with Daniel's 3 friends, they threw them in a furnace and the fire could not touch them. If God has a purpose for a person that has not been completed yet? He'll protect them.
and it won't be us protecting ourselves by using code to not have the Romans try to kill us..... even though they already tried.
As I said before, the "end" is focused on the end of Israel's place as a theocracy, or a representative of the Kingdom of God. That Kingdom was taken from Israel and given to a nation more worthy of it, namely Roman Europe. And from there the Gospel has spread out to the whole world, to all nations.
So the end actually began with the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities--even moreso the Babylonian Captivity because the Assyrian Captivity annihilated the tribal configurations to the north of Jerusalem.
The end is the end.. no time before Pentecost could even be considered the time of the end.
Jews still avoid reading Daniel because they consider it sealed until the time of the end.
Christians think it's the time of the end since Pentecost so they believe Daniel is unsealed. I'm not so sure because they read it and think of it as history rather than prophecy, which is useless to seal up.
Jeremiah was relevant prophecy to the Jews of his day, so it wasn't sealed up. A historical interpretation of Daniel would be useful for Jews between the days of 530-160BC or so, but it was sealed until after Christ, meaning that now all of it is useless if it's history.
And that's why this teaching about the "end" begins with Daniel, who is in the Babylonian Capativity. He explains not just history leading to Jesus but history leading to the end of the age, to the end of Israel's collapse as a nation of God.
I believe that Israel will be restored at the end of this long period of great tribulation for the Jewish people. When their national punishment is over, I believe they will be restored. This is why I'm a Premillennialist, though I have respect for Amillennialists.
I heard back from my brother, and he had a short answer to this:
According to BDB, a good Hebrew lexicon,, Yavan refers to Ionia, Greece. It cites Daniel 8:21, adding "i.e. kingdom over which Alexander ruled, whose dominion was afterward divided (see v. 22ff)".
This is saying basically the same thing that I was saying. The literal translation is in reference to Ionia, but in context to a territory ruled by Greece. That's why translators translate it as Greece, the land over which the Greeks ruled at the specified time.
But to many modern readers, they don't consider "Greece" to include large chunks of Modern day Turkey. Their focus drifts to Athens, not Istanbul.
