The Ten Horns from a Preterist view point.

[Notrash]

NoTrash and Nilloc:

I, too, used to treat Daniel in a piecemeal fashion as you are doing. But then I discovered two things that utterly forced me to shift to the Antiochus interpretation:

(1) Daniel's book ties itself to Antiochus using parallels that cannot be denied without tossing sound exegesis out the window (see the parallels below)

(2) Scholars have repeatedly proven that Daniel's prophecy fits the history leading up to and including Antiochus. (This is so clear that liberals insist that Daniel had to be written at about the time of Antiochus' death. In other words, liberals don't believe in the possibility of prophecy, so they say the book *has to be history disguised as prophecy.* That's how much the book fits history culminating in Antiochus.)


The parallels once again demand Antiochus:

The "Little Horn" in Daniel is Antiochus:
(Compare 8:9-12,23-25 --to--> Dan 7:8,24-26)


The daily sacrifice taken away by Antiochus
(Compare 8:11-12 --to--> 11:31 --->12:11 ---> 9:27)


"Transgression of Desolation" refers to Antiochus
(Compare Dan 8:13 --to--> 11:31 ---> 12:11 -->9:27)


The period for the power of Little Horn (Antiochus)
(Compare 8:13-14 (1150 days) --to--> 12:7 (time, times & half = 3.5 years)


The end for Antiochus and the restoration of the kingdom to the Jews
(Compare Dan 7:26 --to--> 8:17,19 ---> 9:26 ---> 11:40 ---> 12:4,9)
​

I wish I had more time to go through the whole study. But for now simply note that Daniel's writings themselves link to each other in such a fashion as to require that Antiochus is meant throughout.

The link to Christ is a typological one only.

You didnt' answer the two simple questions I asked.
Thanks.

Scholars can be inspired by error and to prove error. Being a 'scholar' is not a character merit of seeking truthfulness, but of seeking to publish a bestseller. (quote by me).

 

[Nilloc]

NoTrash and Nilloc:

Hi GW.

I, too, used to treat Daniel in a piecemeal fashion as you are doing.

Yet you haven’t answered any of my objections that prove the fourth Beast cannot be Greece or that the second kingdom is Medo-Perisa. If you think this is wrong, why won’t you show how the Medes and Persians were separate kingdoms (even though Scripture and history say they weren’t).

(1) Daniel's book ties itself to Antiochus using parallels that cannot be denied without tossing sound exegesis out the window (see the parallels below)

They are easily deniable when you take the whole Book and history in context, which show that the four kingdoms are Bablyon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Your only argument is the parallels, and I’ve already shown that Nero fulfills the little horn of chapter 7 and that it cannot be Antiochus. You have to throw Scripture (Dan. 5:28, 8:20), history (which shows that the Medes and Persians were one kingdom and that Greece does not have a historic fulfillment for the ten horns, but Rome does), and exegesis out in order to make it fit Antiochus.

(2) Scholars have repeatedly proven that Daniel's prophecy fits the history leading up to and including Antiochus. (This is so clear that liberals insist that Daniel had to be written at about the time of Antiochus' death. In other words, liberals don't believe in the possibility of prophecy, so they say the book *has to be history disguised as prophecy.* That's how much the book fits history culminating in Antiochus.)

It is true that liberals (mistakenly) try and put the writing of Daniel in the second century, but, they still say (and apparently you do too) say that Daniel made a mistake by splitting the Medes and Persians into two separate kingdoms. They also say Daniel mistakenly said that Greece had ten kings (the horns), because the ten horns do not find fulfillment in Greece, but Rome. This proves beyond any doubt that Daniel was a true prophet, because, even if it wasn’t written till the second century B.C., he still successfully predicted the ten kings of Rome, Nero’s persecution of Christians, the amount of time he persecuted Christians, and his subduing of three kings.

The parallels once again demand Antiochus:

The "Little Horn" in Daniel is Antiochus:
(Compare 8:9-12,23-25 --to--> Dan 7:8,24-26)


The daily sacrifice taken away by Antiochus
(Compare 8:11-12 --to--> 11:31 --->12:11 ---> 9:27)


"Transgression of Desolation" refers to Antiochus
(Compare Dan 8:13 --to--> 11:31 ---> 12:11 -->9:27)


The period for the power of Little Horn (Antiochus)
(Compare 8:13-14 (1150 days) --to--> 12:7 (time, times & half = 3.5 years)


The end for Antiochus and the restoration of the kingdom to the Jews
(Compare Dan 7:26 --to--> 8:17,19 ---> 9:26 ---> 11:40 ---> 12:4,9)

Simply repeating your arguments doesn’t make your view anymore convincing—the opposite actually. It shows that you apparently don’t have any other evidence or can’t refute what I already said.

I wish I had more time to go through the whole study. But for now simply note that Daniel's writings themselves link to each other in such a fashion as to require that Antiochus is meant throughout.

Daniel cannot be a true prophet and have Antiochus meant throughout as I have shown in my previous posts. If you believe that Daniel was a prophet, then it demands that Antiochus is not the only one meant.

The link to Christ is a typological one only.

Prove it. Jesus applies the passages to Himself, and gives no indication that it’s only typological.

God Bless.

Btw, GW, did you even read the link I gave in post #29? Here it is again: http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html#4king

 

[Nilloc]

I would disagree and I may put up my Translation of Daniel 11 on the Christian Scriptures board verse by verse. I do not believe it has anything to do with antiochus/macabees otherwise all of Dan 11/12 will appear to be a false prophecy.
One could be a type of "gentile" King and the other a type of "Jewish" king.

Remember that the Judeans in the NT were playing "kissy face" with the Romans?

Daniel 11:27 and Two of them, the Kings, heart of them to evil-mischief, and on a table one lie they shall speak. And not she shall prosper, that further End/07093 qets to appointed-time/04150 mow`ed.

Matthew 27:64 Oder thou! then to be secured the sepulcher till the third day lest then coming His disciples should be stealing Him and may be saying to the people 'He was roused from the dead-ones' and shall be the last deception worst of the first.

I would love to hear your view LLOJ. I'd be happy to discuss it on Christian Scriptures if you start a thread.

You didnt' answer the two simple questions I asked.
Thanks.

He didn't answer any of mine either.

Scholars can be inspired by error and to prove error. Being a 'scholar' is not a character merit of seeking truthfulness, but of seeking to publish a bestseller. (quote by me).

 

[GW]

To NoTrash and Nilloc:

Four kingdoms are commonly reckoned as Babylon, Medes, Persian, Greece.

The Ten Horns are the kings of the Seleucid Dynasty, and often are reckoned as:

1. Alexander the Great
2. Seleucus I
3. Antiochus I
4. Antiochus II
5. Seleucus II
6. Seleucus III
7. Antiochus III
8. Seleucus IV
9. Heliodorus
10. Demetrius


The little horn is of course Antiochus ( 8:9-12,23-25; Dan 7:8,24-26), who famously stops the daily sacrifices and profanes the Temple (Compare 8:11-12; 11:31; 12:11; 9:27)

 

[GW]

NoTrash: Also, how do you associate Jesus' telling the people in 30 Ad that when they see the abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel the Prophet, that they should run for the hills if this was all referring to Antiochus.?

GW: What took place with Antiochus at Daniel 11:31 prefigured a similar event at AD 70. So, even though Daniel 11:31 was fulfilled with Antiochus, it was a prophetic type. The Old Testament prefigured Christ in a broad range of ways. Jesus' citation of Daniel 11:31 does not mean Jesus is denying that Antiochus was the O.T. fulfillment.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

NoTrash: Also, how do you associate Jesus' telling the people in 30 Ad that when they see the abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel the Prophet, that they should run for the hills if this was all referring to Antiochus.?

GW: What took place with Antiochus at Daniel 11:31 prefigured a similar event at AD 70. So, even though Daniel 11:31 was fulfilled with Antiochus, it was a prophetic type. The Old Testament prefigured Christ in a broad range of ways. Jesus' citation of Daniel 11:31 does not mean Jesus is denying that Antiochus was the O.T. fulfillment.

I don't view antiochus as having any type of relation to Dan 11,12/Revelation, and Macabees is simply historical not SCRIPTURE.

I view the Siege by the King of Babylon shown in Dan 1 and most of Jeremiah as prefiguring the destruction of the OC Jewish Nation and Priesthood/Temple as shown in Revelation.

Daniel 1:1 To year of three to reign of Y@howyaqiym king of Y@huwdah, came N@buwkadne'tstsar king of Babel to Y@ruwshalaim, and he is besieging her.

Luke 19:41 And as He nears, beholding the City and He laments/eklausen <2799> (5656) on Her,
43 That shall be arriving days upon thee, and thy enemies shall be casting up a siege-work to thee, and shall be encompassing thee, and pressing thee every which place.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7164949&page=2
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

 

[GW]

NoTrash,

The "70 Weeks"---which is the Angel's allegorical interpretation of Jeremiah's 70 years prophecy---is basically as follows:

(1) 7 weeks = 'long period' --from Jeremiah's ministry foretelling the Babylonian conquest and return to the restoration of the city under Ezra and Nehemiah

(2) 62 weeks = 'very long period' -- the interval between the end of the exile and the beginning of the Seleucid persecution, wherein the Jewish High Priest, Onias III is deposed and killed (175-171 BC)

(3) 1 week = 'short period' -- the short period of Antiochus' persecution of the Jews, until he is overcome by the Israelites (171-164 BC)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

NoTrash,

The "70 Weeks"---which is the Angel's allegorical interpretation of Jeremiah's 70 years prophecy---is basically as follows:

(1) 7 weeks = 'long period' --from Jeremiah's ministry foretelling the Babylonian conquest and return to the restoration of the city under Ezra and Nehemiah

(2) 62 weeks = 'very long period' -- the interval between the end of the exile and the beginning of the Seleucid persecution, wherein the Jewish High Priest, Onias III is deposed and killed (175-171 BC)

(3) 1 week = 'short period' -- the short period of Antiochus' persecution of the Jews, until he is overcome by the Israelites (171-164 BC)

Just throwing this out there.

What if we could say the 1st 7 long weeks is Jesus prophesying to Israel/Judah and He is taken up as shown in Acts:

Reve 12:5 And she brought forth son male who is being about to be shepherding all the Nations in rod iron. And is snatched the child -of her toward the God and toward the throne of Him.

Then after Pentecost, Paul and the Apostles preach the Gospel to all the Nations being the 2nd very looong weeks

Reve 11:3 and I shall be giving to-the two Witnesses of Me and they shall be prophesying days a thousand, two hundred, sixty having-been-about-cast sackcloth.

Then after they are taken up, the Wraths fall and it is ALL finished:

Reve 16:17 and the seventh one pours out the bowl of him upon the air and came out Voice, great, out of the sanctuary from the throne saying :it-has-become/gegonen <1096> (5754).

 

[Nilloc]

Hi GW.

Four kingdoms are commonly reckoned as Babylon, Medes, Persian, Greece.

Common among naturalistic liberals who say that Daniel was a fraud and was just writing history. Most Christians (I think even the early church fathers) saw the kingdoms as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Because the liberals don&#8217;t believe in true prophecy, they had to say Daniel made a mistake by splitting the Medes and Persians. And even though the fourth kingdom is clearly Rome, they have to twist Scripture in order to fit their naturalistic world-view. The Medes and Persians were not separate kingdoms. There&#8217;s no way around it GW; Scripture says they were one kingdom and history says they were one kingdom. To split them up like this is contradictory to other Scriptures and history.

This is from the link I gave, explaining how the metals of the statue in chapter 2 prove a Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome sequence:

Kingdom #1=Babylonian Kingdom (gold head) - All parties agree on this identification; they could hardly do otherwise, since Daniel is quite explicit about it! Note that the Babylonian kingdom was closely associated with gold. Herodotus reported an abundance of gold in Babylon, including a great golden statue of Zeus.

Kingdom #2=Medo-Persian Kingdom (silver chest and arms) - Here is where the disagreements begin, as we have noted. Again, Herodotus tells us some interesting information. We know that the Medo-Persian empire collected tribute in silver as a rule; even the one vassal state that paid gold (India) had its tribute reckoned in terms of the value of silver!

Kingdom #3=Greece (brass thighs) - This is where the "metal corollaries" become interesting: The Persian kingdom, which late-daters must insist was what was intended here, had no connection whatsoever with bronze. The Greeks, however, were widely connected with that metal in the ancient world: They wore bronze armor, used bronze weapons, were known for the export of bronze (cf. Ezekiel's condemnation of Tyre, where "Javan" [Ionia, or Greece] is noted as an exporter of such) - their use of bronze was so well-known that the Greeks were referred to in a pagan prophetic oracle as "brazen men." (The Persians wore soft hats, tunics, and trousers in battle! OUCH!!!!)

Kingdom #4=Rome (iron and clay) - The Romans were the ones who slowly changed over from brazen weapons and armor to those made of iron. The iron sword and breastplate was standard for the Roman soldier.
​

And, from the same link, is the author using the Beasts&#8217; symbolism to prove the Babylon-Rome sequence:

#1 Lion = Babylon (All scholars agree with this)

#2 The Bear devouring three ribs = The three major conquests of Medo-Persian empire: Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt. Note that the bear is favored on one side.

#3 Leopard with four wings and four heads = Alexander's kingdom divided into four parts: Macedon, Asia Minor, the Seleucid empire, and Egypt. The symbolism does not support the Persian Empire. It did not divide into four parts. (Although Hartman and DiLella naively suggest that it represents that only four Persian kings listed in Ezra and Nehemiah! A 2nd-century Jew would KNOW that there had been more than four Persian kings!!)

#4 The ten horned Beast = This equals Rome or a series of empires based on Rome (this would depend on various eschatological viewpoints which we will not got into here). There were certainly not 10 Greek empires or kings.

​

The Ten Horns are the kings of the Seleucid Dynasty, and often are reckoned as:

1. Alexander the Great
2. Seleucus I
3. Antiochus I
4. Antiochus II
5. Seleucus II
6. Seleucus III
7. Antiochus III
8. Seleucus IV
9. Heliodorus
10. Demetrius

Heliodorus was not a king of Seleucid, he was a minister to Seleucus IV. Also, the little horn of chapter 7 subdues three of the kings. To my knowledge, Antiochus did not subdue any of the kings on your list. Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius were the kings subdued to get Nero on the throne because he was not in the direct line of succession.

I highly doubt these kings would be counted anyway; as you point out, they are part of the Seleucid Dynasty and (with the exception of Alexander) none of them ruled over all Greece, just in their own division.

These ten don&#8217;t matter anyways, because Greece cannot be the fourth kingdom as I showed above.

God Bless.

 

[GW]

NILLOC: Common among naturalistic liberals who say that Daniel was a fraud and was just writing history. Most Christians (I think even the early church fathers) saw the kingdoms as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

GW: The interpretation I hold has a *typological* application to Christ and the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus applies Daniel 11:31 to his generation, and yet all scholarship assigns Daniel 11:31 to Antiochus. Jesus is making a typological re-application.


NILLOC: Because the liberals don&#8217;t believe in true prophecy

GW: I only mention the liberals because their attempts to re-assign Daniel as a historical writing is done because of the undeniable fit the book has with the Antiochus sequence.


NILLOC: They had to say Daniel made a mistake by splitting the Medes and Persians.

GW: Liberals often make untenable dogmatic statements based on assumptions and inferences regarding a very incomplete record of history. Jeremiah had plainly said that the Medes would conquer Babylon (Jer 51:11, 28-29), and perhaps Daniel simply spoke of it in those terms.


NILLOC: they have to twist Scripture in order to fit their naturalistic world-view

GW: They assign Daniel to Antiochus *because the history itself compels them to and they have no choice.*


NILLOC: The Medes and Persians were not separate kingdoms.

GW: Jeremiah's prophecy, which Daniel references in his vision, said the Medes would conquer Babylon (Jer 51:11, 28-29). So, Daniel was not wrong, as I see it--he may simply use classifications of his day to describe that event. We can't make dogmatic historical statements when the historical record is often too thin to allow it and when our modern concepts sometimes fail to precisely match those of the ancient world. Darius the Mede is not *yet* known to historians via other sources, but then again neither was "Belshazzar" prior to 1854, when his existence was confirmed by other sources.


NILLOC: Scripture says they were one kingdom

GW: What sources do you reference for this?

 

[GW]

NILLOC: Heliodorus was not a king of Seleucid, he was a minister to Seleucus IV. Also, the little horn of chapter 7 subdues three of the kings. To my knowledge, Antiochus did not subdue any of the kings on your list.

GW: Antiochus comes to power amidst a great disturbance of the throne. Seleucus IV is assassinated, and his son and rightful heir, Demetrius I, had been taken captive and held hostage. Antiochus IV Epiphanes took advantage and usurped them all to gain the throne.

 

[Nilloc]

Hi GW.

The interpretation I hold has a typological application to Christ and the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus cites Daniel 11:31, which I think all scholarship assigns to Antiochus.

He doesn’t site Daniel 11:31, He just refers to the abomination of desolation, meaning that He could be referencing any one of the other mentions of the abomination of desolation.

I only mention the liberals because their attempts to re-assign Daniel as a historical writing is done because of the undeniable fit the book has with the Antiochus sequence.

Indeed they do, but they say Daniel messed up many parts about Antiochus (such as the splitting of the Medes and Persians, as well as the ten kings.) The metals of the statue and the symbolism of the beast prove that the kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (see my last post).

Liberals often make untenable dogmatic statements based on assumptions and inferences regarding a very incomplete record of history.

Yep, so why are you agreeing with them?

They assign Daniel to Antiochus *because the history itself compels them to and they have no choice.*

Of course they do. They must make the fourth kingdom Greece, because, if Daniel had successfully predicated the Roman Empire (which he did), then they would be forced to admit the supernatural.

Greece and Antiochus does not fit the fourth kingdom and dozens of problems come up with trying to make it so. Here is one:

Verses 13-14 of Daniel 7 prove that there is no way it was fulfilled in the Maccabeean period.

Daniel 7
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
​

These verses say that all peoples, nations and men of every language will worship Christ. It is impossible for this to have been fulfilled anytime before the Cross:

Ephesians 2
11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
​

Paul plainly says that the Gentiles (the “all peoples, nations and men of every language”) were excluded from Israel and the promises of God. It is only in Christ Jesus that they have now been grafted in into Israel and could serve the One True God. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Daniel 7 was not fulfilled in the Maccabeean period, but instead was fulfilled in the first century A.D. by Christ’s death and Resurrection. If Daniel 7:13-14 was fulfilled in the Maccabeean period, then it diminishes the work of Christ on the Cross.

Jeremiah's prophecy, which Daniel references in his vision, said the Medes would conquer Babylon (Jer 51:11, 28-29). So, Daniel was not wrong, as I see it. We can't make dogmatic historical statements when the historical record is often too thin to allow it and when our modern concepts of monarchy sometimes fail to match those of the ancient world.

They were still one kingdom (as I’ll show below), just because Jeremiah doesn’t mention the Persians is irrelevant.

What sources do you reference for this?

Daniel 5
26 "This is what these words mean: Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. 27 Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. 28 Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."
​

This clearly shows a dual monarchy. John Whitcomb, in his book on Daniel, says: “Even more important, the emphasis is clearly upon Persians rather than Medes, for the word PERES that appeared on the wall was identical to the word PARAS (the vowels did not appear), thus providing the double meaning of ‘Persians’ and ‘divided.’” This shows that the Medes and Persians ruled together after Babylon.

Daniel 8
20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king.
​

Media and Persia are spoken of here as a singular kingdom (a single animal), just as Greece is shown as a singular kingdom. All of Daniel 8 shows the Medes and Persians as one kingdom; if they were meant to be different, the ram would have only represent Persia, not both.

Daniel 6
8 Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed."
​

This whole statement would make no sense if the Medes and Persians were separate. If they were different empires, how could people be bound to laws from two completely different kingdoms?

Did you read the link I gave GW?

God Bless.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

He doesn&#8217;t site Daniel 11:31, He just refers to the abomination of desolation, meaning that He could be referencing any one of the other mentions of the abomination of desolation.

Hi NILLOC. You should seriously consider using a Hebrew/English interlinear, at least for Daniel 11. You need to download it to use the advanced features and if ya have any questions about it, PM me.

http://www.scripture4all.org/


Daniel 11:31and arms from him, they shall stand up. And they profane/violate the Sanctuary, the-refuge. And they take-away the-Continually, and they give The-Abomination, one-making-desolate.

Daniel 12:11 And-from-time he-is-taken-away the-continually, and-to-give-of an-abomination, one-desolating, days, thousand, twohundreds, and ninety

This is some interesting comments made concerning the use of the "abomination of desolation in Daniel:


4) Of these three possible references to the 'abomination of desolation' in the book of Daniel, only one can be considered definitive.

Daniel Daniel 12:11 on the other hand speaks of 'AN abomination of desolation'.

Only Daniel 11:31 uses the exact phrase and contains the definite article: 'THE abomination of desolation'. Therefore Daniel 11:31 is the only reference that can be safely admitted to be the one referenced by our Lord in Matthew 24:15.

5) This above thought is confirmed by the fact that Luke's gospel records the words of Jesus that following the desolation of Jerusalem the Jewish people would fall by 'sword and captivity'.

Following the 'abomination of desolation' described in Daniel 11:31 we also see shortly following a reference to the Jewish people falling by 'sword flame and captivity' (Dan 11:33). This makes it at once clear that in Matthew 24 Jesus is primarily commenting on the material in Daniel chapters 11-12.

The 'abomination of desolation' in Daniel 12:11 however does not carry the definite article and should thus be rendered 'AN abomination of desolation'. Elliot argues that the lack of the definite article excludes 12:11 from being a direct reference to the 'abomination of desolation' of 11:31:

Hebrew Interlinear of Daniel 11:31 Showing the use of the Definite Article -
THE Abomination of Desolation

Hebrew Interlinear of Daniel 12:11 Showing the Absence of the Definite Article -
AN Abomination of Desolation

6) Jesus' discourse in Matthew 24 indicates that following the 'abomination of desolation' that there would be 'great tribulation' (Matt 24:21). This tribulation was to last until immediately preceding his second advent (Matt 24:29).
Then, as to the epoch from which the periods are to be reckoned, (an epoch marked by the setting up of some desolating abomination,) there is one thing very important to note, though hitherto, I believe, overlooked by expositors, - viz. that the definite article is wanting before the word abomination in verse (1211"And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.", so that the correct rendering of the clause would be, "From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and an abomination that makes desolate set up, there shall be 1290 days. By this not only is the desolating abomination of xi. 31, "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate", (the same that we saw reason to interpret of the Roman armies that desolated Jerusalem under Vespasian) not plainly and specifically referred to, but rather almost excluded from being the subject of reference.
There has been a HaTamid/continual [sacrifice], apart from the Temple, since the days of the Babylonian captivity. This continual has not ceased and its practice can be observed in our days at the Western Wall (the Kotel) of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. What is it? It is the prayers of Israel at the time of the morning and evening sacrifices, and at the hour of the burning of incense, at 3:00 p.m.27. Daniel prayed three times a day, precisely at the hours when the daily oblations were to be offered in the Temple. Ever since the destruction of the Second Temple and the Great Dispersion religious Jews have practiced Daniel&#8217;s continual mincha [morning and evening prayer services], even as it is written:

 

[Notrash]

NoTrash: Also, how do you associate Jesus' telling the people in 30 Ad that when they see the abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel the Prophet, that they should run for the hills if this was all referring to Antiochus.?

GW: What took place with Antiochus at Daniel 11:31 prefigured a similar event at AD 70. So, even though Daniel 11:31 was fulfilled with Antiochus, it was a prophetic type. The Old Testament prefigured Christ in a broad range of ways. Jesus' citation of Daniel 11:31 does not mean Jesus is denying that Antiochus was the O.T. fulfillment.

I thought Jesus was refering to the abominations of Dan 9:26,27. But LLOC has also provided info that Dan 11:31 is referring to "the abomination" of the Romans in Jerusalem that Jesus mentions. Good work LLOC.
This view also supports the belief that Kittim in vs 30 refers to the Roman ships as Kittim is the symbolic name of Rome. http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/k/kittim.html

4Q169 1:1-4 Where the lion went, a lion's cub to come there [with none to disturb] (Nahum 2:11) [Its pesher refers to Deme]trius king of Greece who sought to enter Jerusalem on the counsel of the seekers-of-smooth-things. [And he did not enter, for God did not give Jerusalem] into the hand of the kings of Greece, from Antiochus until the appearance of the rulers of the Kittim. And afterwards the city shall be trampled &#8230;

I also think that the Jews of Jesus time had known the history of 'A' 'abomination of desolation' of Antiochus to use as a guide and type of a second event that would happen within that generation that Jesus spoke to. Thus, knowing that the Jews already knew of Antiochus' abomination, I think he played against those words even in the book of Daniel to indicate a similar type of event yet to come.

I do think that your somewhat correct in the prophetic type of Antiochus invading the temple, but the 490 yr prophecy of the 70 weeks came after Daniel realized that Jeremiahs 70 year prophecy was coming to a close.

In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

The weeks were not simultaneous with the 70 years, but the 70 (sevens) prophecy started from the command to rebuild the temple and were given to Daniel as the 70 yrs of captivity closed. The command to rebuild occured in the middle 400's B.C. and if it refered to literal weeks, would have been the lenght of a year and 4 months. Thus, the commonly accepted thoughline is that the 70 sevens refer to 490 years after the decree to rebuild the temple in the mid 400's BC. This figures out to be in the time of Christ who was prophecied to come during the prophecy of the 70 weeks.

Simeon the prophet was looking for the Messiah as were others. They were looking for him in correlation with the 490 yr prophecy. Even the Pharisees wonderd "Could this be the Christ". And the woman at the well also said that there people were expecting a "Messiah" most likely due to the dating of Daniels prophecies.

Thus, Daniels 70 sevens was not a allegoric retelling of Jeremiahs 70 years, but was seperate and distinct from it. There may have been some parallels as you mentioned, but the dating was from the command to Rebuild the temple forward.

 

[GW]

NILLOC: He doesn&#8217;t site Daniel 11:31, He just refers to the abomination of desolation

GW: Compare the statements side by side and see that Jesus is citing Daniel 11:31. Therefore, we see that Jesus is using typology (for Antiochus was known to have done this).



NILLOC: they say Daniel messed up many parts about Antiochus

GW: Their arguments are assuming that Daniel would reference Darius and the Medes in the way they classify history. Can we really know that Daniel would make the same classifications about the Medes and Persians that modern historians do? Liberals are assuming way too much there. Jeremiah and Isaiah both said "The Medes" would conquer Babylon.

But it's a moot point anyway, for the other Grecian classification system works equally well: Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece, Diadochi (i.e., Daniel 11's "Seleucid kings of the north" and "Ptolemaic kings of the south," which are linked to the Four-Part division of Alexander's kingdom). This is an alternate way of saying the same thing. That is, the succession of rulers is essentially the same for both of these sequences, and these rulers are clearly identified in Daniel's book.



NILLOC: the metals of the statue and the symbolism of the beast

GW: I don't place much weight on arguments about symbolism. It's always dicey to use symbolic speech as a primary means of identifying the nations and leaders of history. Symbolism can be contorted to fit nearly anything.



NILLOC: why are you agreeing with them?

GW: The liberals didn't create the Antiochus sequence, they are only agreeing to its historical merits. The Antiochus sequence existed before the time of Jesus. It is explicit in 1 Maccabees. Also, Josephus holds the Antiochus view, in which he says Alexander is the He-Goat; the "four notable ones" of 8:22-23 are the four divisions after the break-up of Alexander's rule (Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor); and Antiochus arises out of these and overtakes the Holy Nation and temple.


NILLOC: They must make the fourth kingdom Greece, because, if Daniel had successfully predicated the Roman Empire (which he did), then they would be forced to admit the supernatural.

GW: The Roman-sequence reading of Daniel's book is so piecemeal and out of sync with the successions of rulers discussed in Daniel that liberals don't even bother with it. In contrast, the Antiochus sequence is so compelling that liberals accept it on its merits and then say the book therefore had to be written after the fact! Talk about being forced to admit the supernatural. They are so compelled by the accuracy of the Antiochus sequence that they move the entire book's origin to the end of Antiochus' reign, just so that they can deny Daniel is true prophecy.


NILLOC: Verses 13-14 of Daniel 7 prove that there is no way it was fulfilled in the Maccabeean period.

GW: That's simply the glorious climax of the Jews' nation, which I agree encompasses Christ and the gentiles.


NILLOC: just because Jeremiah doesn&#8217;t mention the Persians is irrelevant

GW: Do you agree with Jeremiah's words that The Medes conquered Babylon? Daniel was clearly reading and interpreting Jeremiah. This is where classification becomes overly picky given limited historical information, in my view.

 

[GW]

Notrash: Daniels 70 sevens was not a allegoric retelling of Jeremiahs 70 years

GW: The very occasion of the "70 Weeks" comes from the fact that Daniel was asking God about Jeremiah's statements that God would accomplish "Seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." Gabriel interprets Jeremiah as speaking of "weeks of years," thus extending Israel's plight centuries beyond the return from exile.

 

[GW]

NILLOC: Did you read the link I gave?

GW: I am reading it, and it's useful. However, I don't see any real challenge to my view, other than minor classification quibbles. For when I say Greece is the final empire, I'm including the "four divisions" after Alexander and the Ten Horns of the Seleucid/Ptolemies. These are all explicitly referenced by Daniel, and "little horn" Antiochus comes from that historic line, according to Daniel. So, the history is there. And once you combine that with the internal parallelisms of Daniel's book, I see no way to conclude that different final periods are meant. Antiochus is meant all throughout chapters 7-12.

BTW, that article you linked says: "The little horn of chapter 8 cannot be the same as chapter 7. The little horn of chapter seven arises out of the ten horned kingdom. While the little horn of chapter 8 comes out of the four parted kingdom."

But the obvious response is that the Ten Horns, and Antiochus as the little horn, are part of that "four parted kingdom." So again, the Little Horn of chapter 8 is also the Little Horn of chapter 7. They are described in the same language and the perform the same act against the Temple and Holy People. Antiochus is indeed a horn from the four-parted kingdom, and the Ten Horns are also of that four-parted kingdom. Daniel ties these all together in a chained historical succession.

Quite simply, the Antiochus interpretation flows naturally and maintains the undeniable unity of Daniel chapters 7-12. The Roman sequence, like the Dispy and Historicist sequences, chops up and separates chapters 7-12 from each other in an arbitrary fashion that denies the obvious parallels Daniel himself is making.

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I thought Jesus was refering to the abominations of Dan 9:26,27. But LLOC has also provided info that Dan 11:31 is referring to "the abomination" of the Romans in Jerusalem that Jesus mentions. Good work LLOC.
This view also supports the belief that Kittim in vs 30 refers to the Roman ships as Kittim is the symbolic name of Rome. [URL="http://www.preteristarchive.com/Stud.../k/kittim.html."]http://www.preteristarchive.com/Stud.../k/kittim.html.[/URL]

That is interesting concerning "ships".

While translating that Covenantle parabel of the "rich-man/lazarus" in Luke 16 I noticed an interlinear used the word "ferrying" in Luke 16:26 and I thought "what the heck"?

But sure enuf, that is the meaning of the greek word, as Deut 28:68 also mentions ships, and Hebrews 11:29 confirms the story of the OC Israelites crossing the Red Sea. I may have to look at this more. Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/


Luke 16:26 And on all of these, between Us [NC Faith/Life] and Ye [OC Law/Death] a great chasm/casma <5490> hath been established, so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye not be able to, no yet thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276>.

Deut 28:68 `And YHWH hath brought thee back to Egypt with ships, by a way of which I said to thee, Thou dost not add any more to see it, and ye have sold yourselves there to thine enemies, for men-servants and for maid-servants, and there is no buyer.'

Hebrews 11:29 By Faith They crossed-over/diebhsan <1224> (5627) the Red Sea as thru Dry: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

 

[Nilloc]

Hey GW.

Can we really know that Daniel would make the same classifications about the Medes and Persians that modern historians do?

Yeah we can. Daniel refers to them as one kingdom in his book.

But it's a moot point anyway, for the other Grecian classification system works equally well: Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece, Diadochi (i.e., Daniel 11's "Seleucid kings of the north" and "Ptolemaic kings of the south"). This is an alternate way of saying the same thing. That is, the succession of rulers is essentially the same for both of these sequences, and these rulers are clearly identified in Daniel's book.

Okay, I get what you’re saying here. I don’t agree, but it does make more sense than making the kingdoms Babylon, Medes, Persians, and Greece. I don’t know much about the Diadochi, so I can’t really comment on them, but, if they were part of the Greece Empire, I see no justification for splitting it from Greece.

I don't place much weight on arguments about symbolism. It's always dicey to use symbolic speech as a primary means of identifying the nations and leaders of history. Symbolism can be contorted to fit nearly anything.

The symbolism of the four kingdoms is not dicey; it’s very exact and fits very well with a Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome sequence. When I started seeing the symbolism beyond the metals and the beasts I was amazed (as I always am when I read Daniel).

The liberals didn't create the Antiochus sequence, they are only agreeing to its historical merits. The Antiochus sequence existed before the time of Jesus. It is explicit in 1 Maccabees. Also, Josephus holds the Antiochus view, in which he says Alexander is the He-Goat; the "four notable ones" of 8:22-23 are the four divisions after the break-up of Alexander's rule (Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor); and Antiochus arises out of these and overtakes the Holy Nation and temple.

I agree that Antiochus is in Daniel 8; I’ve never said I didn’t. Do you know which books Josephus writes about the Maccabeean period, I'd be interested in reading them.

The Roman-sequence reading of Daniel's book is so piecemeal and out of synch with the successions of rulers discussed in Daniel that liberals don't even bother with it.

They don’t’ bother with it because we have manuscripts of Daniel dating before Rome, which would close the door (for them) on trying to see Rome in it. And I see nothing ‘out of synch’ with the Roman sequence.

That's simply the glorious climax of the Jews' nation, which I agree encompasses Christ and the gentiles.

Can you explain further?

Do you agree with Jeremiah's words that The Medes conquered Babylon? Daniel was clearly reading and interpreting Jeremiah. This is where classification becomes overly picky given limited historical information, in my view.

Yes they did conquer Babylon, but the Persians ruled with them in a dual monarchy; the Persians never conquered the Medes and Daniel always refers to them as a united kingdom.

I am reading it, and it's useful.

Thank you GW.


Part of the problem I see with making the fourth kingdom something other than the Roman Empire is with my interpretation of Revelation. I take a Partial Preterist interpretation of Revelation (which I think you do too, correct?). The Sea Beast in Revelation has many similarities with Daniel’s fourth beast, so that trying to change the fourth beast to something other than Rome complicates (for me at least) my interpretation of Revelation. Daniel’s fourth beast does the same things Revelation’s beast does and I don’t buy into the fourth beast being just a ‘type’ of the Sea Beast.

It also complicates my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, but I don’t really have time to explain.


I probably won’t be able to continue the discussion, for at least a while. I’ve . . . been rather lazy so far this summer, not least of which has been caused by me spending to much time on the computer. There are other, more personal reasons as well, but either way I need to take a brake for a while; I may be able to get on here and read your answers to my questions, but I won’t be able to have any long responses. I’m also having surgery next week (I’ll be very weak afterwards and unable to do much more than sleep), which will only extended my absence. Sorry.

I’ve enjoyed the discussion GW, thank you. I’ll certainly consider your position; I don’t want to rush into it, as there are still other problems I see with it.

God Bless.

 

[GW]

NILLOC: I don&#8217;t know much about the Diadochi, so I can&#8217;t really comment on them, but, if they were part of the Greece Empire, I see no justification for splitting it from Greece.

GW: To summarize the Diadochi, Daniel 8:8-9 specifically mentions the dividing of Alexander's empire into four parts (Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor)---and then Little Horn Antiochus Epiphanies comes from these divisions (8:9). We learn that Antiochus Epiphanies arises out of these four divisions towards the end of their period (8:21-24). Chapter 11 picks up on the same history of these four divisions of Alexander's kingdom (11:3-7) and zeros in on the rival between the North kings (Syria's Seleucid line) and the South kings (Egypt's Ptolemy line) (11:11-20). As Daniel shows, these are the many kings who arise in succession to each other and battle it out as the fourth, divided kingdom. Finally, from this line of horns comes the Little Horn who profanes Israel and the Temple (11:31-35).

Once this history of chapters 8 and 11 is understood, it becomes obvious that Daniel 7, 9, and 12 are telling the exact same story, even using the same language and describing the same events.



NILLOC: Yes they did conquer Babylon, but the Persians ruled with them in a dual monarchy

GW: Since I'm not well versed on your objection, could you explain again precisely why Daniel could not have spoken of Media and Persia as separate entities? As you know, the Median Empire had long been a separate empire (until about the time Daniel is writing), and Jeremiah clearly says the Medes conquer Babylon (and Daniel is relying heavily on Jeremiah's words). So what would be the problem of a Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece sequence?


NILLOC: Part of the problem I see with making the fourth kingdom something other than the Roman Empire is with my interpretation of Revelation. I take a Partial Preterist interpretation

GW: I am a partial pret, and I get that you see a direct link between Revelation and Daniel. I believe the link between Revelation's images and the O.T. is one of *typology.* I believe Jesus' citation of Daniel 11:31 is typological, and I believe Revelation's use of O.T. images and events is typological. I try to interpret Daniel in the light that Daniel himself provides through his parallelisms. Though I used to hold your view, I became convinced that Antiochus' story is tracked and followed from chapters 7 through 12 as a united whole.

God bless you, too, Nilloc. I understand if you don't have time to continue. I don't have much time either. You have been very helpful and informative, and I appreciate that. May God's peace and care be with you during your surgery.


.