Dr. Shane Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Liberty Insider had a good study on Daniel 11. In it we find two kings. The king of the south and the king of the north. The king of the north is a religeous power which is clear due to the description of the damage done to him by the king of the south in 11:31-33. The king of the south does not believe in God. Egypt is used to symbolize it and the words of Pharoh decribe it "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord" So we have a conflict between a religous power and a secular power. Adventists generally understand this as Catholism with apostate Protestantism verses secular humanism which has its roots with the French Revolution. Today we see this reflected in the political groups of the Religious Right and the Secular Left. Ultimately we know that the King of the North wins. However that isn't reason to join hands with the Secular Left. I will go out on a limb here... The best place to be is in the middle - either a moderate liberal, a moderate conservative or a mix of the two. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 I'd guess that your first paragraph is on a limb too. Considerable speculation there I believe. Where does it change from the actual kings of North and South to some hypothetical kings? "Advertists generally understand this as......" So what? mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 28, 2006 Author Share Posted July 28, 2006 I am basing my comments off from published works I have read by Adventists. Certainly there are critics but I don't think Liberty Insider was going that far out on a limb when they defined the symbolic kings of the north and the south. Some of our critics will tell us we are going out on a limb with our teaching of the Sabbath, clean and unclean meats and the state of the dead. We certainly do see a culture war going on and it isn't something as new as the Religious Right wants many of us to believe. However secularism has made some major advances in the last 40 years. Yet we know how it all ends. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 When and why do the kings change from real kings to symbolic kings? The last verses of chapter 11 sound just as real as at the beginning of the angel's explanation. mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 So are they all real or all symbolic? Or if some of each which verse is the marker to denote a change from real to symbolic? mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 The first six chapters of Daniel are literal and the last six chapers are symbolic. The folks at Liberty Insider weren't doing an in depth study. I think they were operating on the work already done by previous Adventists. The thrust of their point was that the culture war we find ourselves in was prophecied as being part of the end time scenario. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Dan. 11:2 "Three more kings will appear in Persia and the fourth will far surpass all the others in wealth: and when he has expanded his power through his wealth, he will rouse the whole world against the kingdom of Greece"....Surely these are not symbolic kings! They are historical. I dont understand where you are coming from by saying the last 6 chapters are symbolic mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 I will suggest a few books: Commentary on Daniel and Revelation Daniel and the Revelation by Uriah Smith God Cares by C. Mervyn Maxwell I especially recommend the God Cares books. Those should bring anyone up to speed to be able to participate in a discussion at this level. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Smith was rather careful in suggesting interpretations of prophecy. Maxwell not so much so. Have read them all Shane. Snide remarks are hardly suitable for one in your position I think. mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> The thrust of their point was that the culture war we find ourselves in was prophecied as being part of the end time scenario. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> When, in history, was there ever NOT a culture war? In fact the world today is probably as tolerant and as diverse as it has ever been. Yes, the ME is a mess. On the other hand Spain and Portugal aren't fighting over the world, the English and the French are not at each others throats, the Conquistadors aren't subjugating South America, the Chinese and Japanese aren't threatening mutual annilation, and in the USA, NZ, Australia, England, France, and many other countries there are wide ranges of ethnic groups living in relative peace. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Have read them all Shane. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Well, if they could not answer your questions, I certainly doubt I can. Those great men of faith knew much more than I suspect I ever will. This thread didn't start off in a direction to pick apart the Adventist understanding of prophecy. This is the Religious Liberty area of Club Adventist. That type of thread would be most appropriate in the Bible and Theology section. Here I was just discussing the political reality of today and how it lines up with the Adventist belief of prophecy. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> In fact the world today is probably as tolerant and as diverse as it has ever been. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> I agree with that. From the Adventist prespective, the King of the North is apostate Christianity. This was dealt a powerful blow during the French Revolution by the King of the South. Secular aithiesm has been making in roads ever since. We see this very profoundly over the past century as Darwin's theory of evolution has gained acceptance among the scientific community, gained enterence into the public schools and even into some churches. Entertainers, who society once considered on the same level as prostitutes, have become cultural icons while promoting a secular agenda. But we know how it ends. Those that take the side of the far left because they know the King of the North is the beast power that will persecute the saints again are operating on the philosophy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I think that is faulty reasoning. Just because the far left is the enemy of the far right doesn't mean it is any less dangerous. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Several points which might clarify the discussion. The first six chapters of Daniel are mainly narrative-- a story or history. They still contain a couple of major prophetic visions, both of which were given to Nebuchadnezzar. The last six chapters of Daniel contain very little narrative, in several chapters, no narrative at all. Instead, they contain predictive prophecies-- visions or dreams about events yet to take place. All visions about the future are somewhat figurative or symbolic, because they concern events and people which do not yet exist, yet they must be explained in terms of what does already exist. Hence, the kings of the north and the south. From Daniel's perspective, the king of the north would be Babylon. Although Babylon is due east of Israel, they always marched around the desert and attacked Israel from the north. The king of the south would be Egypt, for similar reasons. Egypt does indeed represent atheism; Babylon has always represented an apostate power. So Daniel would see the impending conflict as one between an apostate power and an atheist power. There were no republics or secular states-- nor did the Muslims exist for more than a thousand years after Daniel. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morning Glory Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Thank you for that explanation. I started reading the text at the beginning of this tread, and again, felt stymied to understand exactly "who" these kings alluded to. This makes it much more understandable. MG Quote Kindness is the oil that takes the friction out of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 You're welcome. Also need to keep in mind prophetic perspective and prophetic foreshortening. These terms mean two things. Prophets see events closer to their time more clearly than events farther into the future. That's prophetic perspective. So Daniel was relatively close to the Greeks and Romans, but very far away from our day. So he would see with greater clarity and detail those events nearest him in time. Prophetic foreshortening means that, from Daniel's perspective, the Romans and WWII might look very close to each other. I live in the country, where I can see a good distance. The farmhouse just 1 mile from me looks like it's right next to one 3 miles from me, and the one 3 miles from me looks like it's right next to the town 10 miles away. That is foreshortening. This means that Daniel will see more clearly the events nearest his own time, but will have a hard time distinguishing the difference in time between two future events. He may see events during the Roman Empire 500+ years from him, and say, the discovery of America 2000 years from him as happening one right after the other. Hope that's clear. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Mel here, struggling to sit up after being knocked down by the resident V I P and this in a RELIGOUS LIBERTY thread which he started. (I was just exersizin my rights!) Funny huh? :-) mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Egypt does indeed represent atheism; Babylon has always represented an apostate power. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> So the question we must ask ourselves is that since we are instructed to get out of Babylon, does that mean we take refuge in Egypt - sybolically of course? Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> So the question we must ask ourselves is that since we are instructed to get out of Babylon, does that mean we take refuge in Egypt - sybolically of course? <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Not to pick on you, Shane, but you're asking a question that the text cannot answer. The call to "come out" of Babylon occurs in Revelation, not Daniel. But the Kings of the North and the South do not appear in that book. It's similar to mixed metaphors. I don't want to be a monday morning quarterback and rock the boat, but if your goose is cooked, it can't be in a wild chase or lay golden eggs. . . .if you see what I'm sayin'? Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Is this to suggest that the King of the North of Daniel 11 is not the same power as Revelation's Babylon? From how I understood the Liberty Insider episode, they were saying that in the end-time scenario, the two symbols represent the same power - that being apostate Christianity. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Is this to suggest that the King of the North of Daniel 11 is not the same power as Revelation's Babylon <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Not at all. But the context differs significantly. Daniel wrote as an exile from Israel and Jerusalem. He still saw things as an Israelite. So the Kingdom of the North would be Babylon, and the Kingdom of the South Egypt. But he wouldn't be running anywhere. He was caught between the two in Jerusalem. John was writing at the end of the second century, a member of a church already dispersed away from Jerusalem. Babylon is a historical power to him, not a current one. Hence its symbolism. There is no "Kingdom of the South" in Revelation, and John doesn't live in Jerusalem. The church is spread out. Coming out of Babylon doesn't mean running to Egypt or anywhere else. The church in the NT is ekklessia (you may recognize it in the spanish "Iglesia"). "ekklessia" means "called out." So being "called out" of Babylon means becoming a part of those "called out," the church. If you insist on finding Egypt in Revelation, look in Ch. 11, where you may find a rather confusing reference. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 I don't think that Liberty Insider was trying to put the King of the South in Revelation. I may have confused things by comparing the King of the North to Babylon. They did state that the King of the South started beating back the King of the North with the French Revelation. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I am not familiar with Liberty Insider. Is that the newsletter that Liberty sends out? In general, I think that level of detail is not sustainable, because of the remoteness in time from Daniel's day. Remember that foreshortening tends to compress things in the distance, and it also tends to obscure and confuse detail. Pressing every detail of prophetic utterance often leads to error. And needless error, because prophecy is concerned with large trends more often than specifics. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 Liberty Insider is a TV program that Lincoln Steed and Nicholas Miller put together. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Koot Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Shane said: Is this to suggest that the King of the North of Daniel 11 is not the same power as Revelation's Babylon? From how I understood the Liberty Insider episode, they were saying that in the end-time scenario, the two symbols represent the same power - that being apostate Christianity. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Hmmm. I had understood spiritual Babylon--the mother of all harlots, to be a religion. The woman sits atop a beast, which would seem to represent a temporal power--okay, church and state together, if you please. The king of the north, by contrast, is, at least I had understood, a temporal power--a kingdom, State, empire, or something of the kind. True, ancient Babylon HAD a civic religion, but was not a religion. One might characterize the U.S. as the king of the north in the final conflict, as some have done. Other ideas abound. But to say that it is the same as Babylon in Rev.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.