Revisiting Daniel

[Michaelangelo]

John and Bob, many thanks for the most recent comments, which I have taken on board. I will get around to replying, but I'm still working on responses to your replies in the order you made them and this obviously leads to a bit of a backlog! Thanks for your continuing patience.

[John317]

We understand, friend. Don't feel you have to rush.

How many times have you read Daniel? Have you studied different commentaries from various points of view? For instance, the SDA Bible Commentary? There are many good, useful ones.

How many translations have you read it in? Taken any classes in it?

[Aliensanctuary]

For us to know the future, we must have that information given to us by someone who has already been there, and perhaps moved farther on in time than the events communicated to us. The events predicted in Dan, Rev, and the Prophets are based on information communicated telepathically from beings living in the future to humans in the past.

To the beings in the future, the battle between Good and Evil is already over. They already know who won, who lost, and which humans were chosen to participate in the Kingdom of the Stars. They knew this even before the Earth and its life were created.

The events sent to Daniel telepathically are mainly concerned about politics and wars during the Last Days, and the Messengers in his visions tell us this on several occasions. There are some historical parallels to the multi-metal statue and the four beasts. Perhaps the leaders of these historical kingdoms will be resurrected to re-enact their conquests, only on a much larger, worldwide scale.

We have three choices: Do the events predicted in Daniel's visions occur before, during, or after the 1K years?

We have the same choices for the predictions of the OT Prophets, and the events of Rev. If we wish to understand the End Times, we need to connect the prophecies of Dan, Rev, the Prophets, and Jesus together, using only the scriptures.

Quote:

Isaiah 2

2 In the Last Days

the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established

as chief among the mountains;

it will be raised above the hills,

and all nations will stream to it.

3 Many peoples will come and say,

"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,

to the house of the God of Jacob.

He will teach us his ways,

so that we may walk in his paths."

The law will go out from Zion,

the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4 He will judge between the nations

and will settle disputes for many peoples.

They will beat their swords into plowshares

and their spears into pruning hooks.

Nation will not take up sword against nation,

nor will they train for war anymore.

So, Isaiah indicates there will be a mountain/temple in the Last Days. Again, the puzzle is whether this Temple exists before, during, or after the 1K years. Is it manmade or of extraterrestrial construction?

Quote:

Zechariah 14

The LORD Comes and Reigns

1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.

3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5 You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake [a] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

6 On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime—a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light.

8 On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea, in summer and in winter.

9 The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name.

10 The whole land, from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become like the Arabah. But Jerusalem will be raised up and remain in its place, from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses. 11 It will be inhabited; never again will it be destroyed. Jerusalem will be secure.

Now, how do Isaiah 2 and Zech 14 fit in with SDA theology? We can study EGW and follow her sequence, but she was only human, and like the rest of us, prone to error. There will be a great disappointment if or when we realize she was mistaken with her End Times sequence.

[John317]

For us to know the future, we must have that information given to us by someone who has already been there, and perhaps moved farther on in time than the events communicated to us. The events predicted in Dan, Rev, and the Prophets are based on information communicated telepathically from beings living in the future to humans in the past.

What do you mean "living in the future"? Where do you get this idea? There's a sense in which God is in the future, since He knows all things. Perhaps that is what you mean.

But who do you believe the beings were who communicated with Daniel and John?

Quote:

To the beings in the future, the battle between Good and Evil is already over. They already know who won, who lost, and which humans were chosen to participate in the Kingdom of the Stars. They knew this even before the Earth and its life were created.

The events sent to Daniel telepathically are mainly concerned about politics and wars during the Last Days, and the Messengers in his visions tell us this on several occasions. There are some historical parallels to the multi-metal statue and the four beasts. Perhaps the leaders of these historical kingdoms will be resurrected to re-enact their conquests, only on a much larger, worldwide scale.

We have three choices: Do the events predicted in Daniel's visions occur before, during, or after the 1K years?

It is true that the war between Christ and Satan is over in the sense that Satan is already a completely defeated foe.

Who are the beings you speak of?

Where do you get the idea that the leaders of the historical kingdom will be resurrected to re-enact their conquests?

Also, why would you think that the events in Daniel's vision would occur after the 1000 years? What events in particular?

[Aliensanctuary]

What do you mean "living in the future"? Where do you get this idea? There's a sense in which God is in the future, since He knows all things. Perhaps that is what you mean.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

How far it is possible to argue that Rome was 'exactly like' the fourth kingdom of Daniel is a subject for debate.

Yes, we should examine this point closely and see what other power could be said to have fulfilled it, or if Rome itself fulfilled it.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes' date=' we should examine this point closely and see what other power could be said to have fulfilled it, or if Rome itself fulfilled it.

Or if any power at all has fulfilled the prophecy. To do this, we obviously need to determine what would constitute fulfilling the prophecy.

Quote:

Luke 2: 1 and 3: 1 show without a doubt that the Roman Empire was the kingdom that followed the Greek Empire. It was a Roman Emperor who gave the order for "all the world to be enrolled" (RSV), and it was an official of the Roman Empire who had the babies destroyed in a search to kill Christ.[/quote']

Given the debate that there is amongst biblical scholars about the authenticity of Luke's claim about both the timing and circumstances of Quirinius' census of Syria and Judea and its relation to the birth of Christ, this seems to be at best scanty evidence to support Daniel's prophecy.

What is the extent of the debate? Who are the Biblical scholars who are saying this? Give their names if possible.

What exactly is there evidence and reasoning?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes' date=' we should examine this point closely and see what other power could be said to have fulfilled it, or if Rome itself fulfilled it.

Or if any power at all has fulfilled the prophecy. To do this, we obviously need to determine what would constitute fulfilling the prophecy.

Quote:

Luke 2: 1 and 3: 1 show without a doubt that the Roman Empire was the kingdom that followed the Greek Empire. It was a Roman Emperor who gave the order for "all the world to be enrolled" (RSV), and it was an official of the Roman Empire who had the babies destroyed in a search to kill Christ.

I would also dispute whether Herod could be properly identified as an official of the Roman Empire, as opposed to a client king, which is something qualitatively different. [/quote']

The argument I am making does not depend on whether Herod meets the technical qualifications of Roman official. He was not a Roman governor per se, of course. But the fact is that he was named tetrarch by the Romans, was elected King of the Jews by the Roman Senate, and was backed by the Roman Army and the authority of the Roman Empire. He couldn't have ruled without the Roman Empire and he worked together with them.

To say he was a client king of Rome makes the same point that I am making. My point is only that Herod's rulership is a demonstration of the fact that Rome ruled in that area of the world at the time of Jesus.

Who ruled before Rome? Greece. (Today it is often referred to as the Macedonian kingdom.)

See info below--

Quote:

Under Philip V of Macedon (221–179 BC) and his son Perseus of Macedon (179–168 BC), the kingdom clashed with the rising power of the Roman Republic. During the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, Macedon fought a series of wars with Rome. Two major losses that led to their inevitable defeat were in 197 BC when Rome defeated Philip V, and 168 BC when Rome defeated Perseus. The overall losses resulted in the defeat of Macedon, the deposition of the Antigonid dynasty and the dismantling of the Macedonian kingdom. Andriscus' brief success at reestablishing the monarchy in 149 BC was quickly followed by his defeat the following year and the establishment of direct Roman rule and the organization of Macedon as the Roman province of Macedonia.

Quote:

Herod (Hebrew: Horodos, Greek: Herōdes), also known as Herod I or Herod the Great (73 BC – 4 BC in Jericho), was a Roman client king of Judaea.

He enjoyed the backing of Rome... In 43 BC, following the chaos caused by Antipater offering financial support to Caesar's murderers, Antipater was poisoned. Herod, backed by the Roman Army, executed his father's murderer... In 42 BC, he convinced Mark Antony and Octavian that his father had been forced to help Caesar's murderers. Herod was then named tetrarch of Galilee by the Romans.... He was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate.

The last lines, which are underlined here, prove my point.

[John317]

[John317]

[John317]

I also continue to be skeptical about the need to conceal the supposed identity of the 4th kingdom from the Roman authorities.

Even if Babylon had been the only Empire identified by name, and if Daniel had never identified by name any of the empires after Babylon, the facts of history would still show the same succession of Empires, and therefore the results would be the same: Babylon, Medo-Persia (or the Achaemenid Empire), Greece (or Macedonia) and Rome. The Roman Empire broke up and no monolithic empire replaced it. The nations of the Roman Empire are not united, and never were united, even though many tried to unite them. That is what the prophecy said would happen, and it is what history records did indeed happen.

I would suggest that the description of these major empires is enough to establish their identify when you compare the Biblical descriptions with the historical evidence.

In fact, I believe the accuracy of the "prophecy," or outline of Daniel's view of the rise and fall of the major empires, is the very reason that some people deny that the book was written when it claims to have been written. It's conceded by virtually everyone that these things happened. The only question in some minds is whether they were described after the events or before. I can see why those who reject the possibility of predictive prophecy would also reject the book of Daniel as being authentic.

[John317]

...The foundational Christian texts were clearly anti-Roman anyway and Christian practices were characterized variously as disgusting, cannabilistic, incomprehensible and repulsive. Pliny regarded Christianity as a ‘detestable superstition’. Christians were punished mostly because of their perceived deviation from Roman ways or simply because of public hostility towards their exclusive, secretive practices. In these circumstances, it seems very unlikely that the prophecies of Daniel, if read and understood, would have influenced very much at all the response of the Roman authorities to Christianity.

Of course they were anti-Roman. And it is true that the Roman government and officials saw the Christian practices the way you described them. This shows how misinformed they were, and it also shows they did not understand the Scriptures of the Christians. What you say about Pliny is quite true also.

My only point-- and I believe it is reasonable-- is that if they were hostile toward Christianity on the basis of their misinformation, it makes sense that their hostility would have increased if they had clear evidence from the Christian's writings that they believed Rome was evil and would destroyed. No doubt they would have believed the books were attributing Rome's fall to the God of the Christians.

Remember that the persecutions of the Christians by Nero and Diacletian were terrible as it is, without any direct evidence that the Scriptures condemn Rome. They destroyed many copies of the books held sacred by the Christians. I find it only sensible that the persecutions would have been even worse if Rome had reason to believe the books of the Christians referred to Rome as an evil empire.

See interesting essay on the reasons for the persecutions--

http://patriot.net/~carey/afa/latinclub/persecution.htm

The writer of the essay says that the Romans had suspicious the book of Revelation referred to Rome under the symbolical name of Babylon, but he omits any documentation:

Quote:

Another part of Christianity which the Romans failed to understand was the Book of Revelations. It was seen as an attack against Rome, because the Romans believed that the city of Babylon referred to in Revelations was actually a poorly disguised reference to Rome. So, this book was viewed as anti-Roman propaganda, adding another nail to the coffin of Christianity in the minds of Romans.

This makes sense but I wish I had documentary evidence of its truth. If this is true of the book of Revelation, it would only take on greater significance if the book of Daniel had direct references to Rome as an evil empire.

The "poorly disguised references to Rome" in Revelation shows that it was believed to be fairly clear, yet since they were disguised under symbols, there was no proof that they did indeed refer to Rome.

The fact that you are not convinced they refer to Rome makes my point. If you yourself are unconvinced, imagine a Roman official's confusion and doubt. That was one of the reasons for the disguise.

John the Beloved may well have written the book while in exile on the island of Patmos. At least there is a good possibility of this being the case. If that were the case, it means the Romans would have looked at the book when they took it from Patmos to wherever it was sent. Imagine if, when they looked at it, they had seen Rome identified by name as a evil empire which would collapse because of the power of God. I doubt they would have been pleased with John.

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote:

Dan 2: 28. but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries and who has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what is to take place in the Final Days.

Quote:

Dan 8:17. He approached the place where I was standing; as he approached, I was seized with terror and fell prostrate on the ground. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand this: the vision shows the Time of the End."

19. `Come," he said, "I shall tell you what is going to happen when the Retribution is over, about the Final Times.

Quote:

Dan 11: 35. Of the wise leaders some will stumble, and so a number of them will be purged, purified and made clean, until the Time of the End, for the appointed time is still to come.

Quote:

Dan 12:

4. `But you, Daniel, must keep these words secret and keep the book sealed until the Time of the End. Many will roam about, this way and that, and wickedness will continue to increase."

9. `Go, Daniel," he said. "These words are to remain secret and sealed until the Time of the End.

13. But you, go away and rest; and you will rise for your reward at the End of Time."

If we read Daniel 2 and 7-12 carefully, we can see that the Messenger to Daniel was telling him about events that will occur at the End of Time. We can try to fit the 4-Metal Statue and the 4 Beasts and the Kings of the North and South into history, but these visions concern the Time of the End only, as the Messengers clearly state repeatedly.

The Last Days means days, not the Last 2-3 Millennia. That some believe that 1 day equals 1 year in prophecy is an unfortunate error. The events portrayed to Daniel take place in a very narrow time span of less than 7 years, most likely after the 1K years, after Satan and company are released for the Last Battle, which they nearly win.

The destructive rampage of the 4th Beast, the 10-Horned People-Smashing Beast is finally halted when the High Court of the Kingdom of God convenes to examine the life records of humans and others to determine who will be awarded a place in the Kingdom of the Stars.

Likewise, the Abomination of Desolation occurs in the Last Days, not historically. This mysterious object could be a powerful weapon, perhaps of nuclear proportions. Or, maybe it serves only as a warning to those in Jerusalem to run for their lives because the city's destruction is imminent.

Quote:

Zech 14:

1. Look, the Day of Yahweh is coming, when the spoils taken from you will be shared out among you.

2. For I shall gather all the nations to Jerusalem for battle. The city will be taken, the houses plundered, the women ravished. Half the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be ejected from the city.

3. Then Yahweh will sally out and fight those nations as once he fought on the day of battle.

4. When that day comes, his feet will rest on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, forming a huge valley; half the Mount will recede northwards, the other half southwards.

5. The valley between the hills will be filled in, yes, it will be blocked as far as Jasol, it will be filled in as it was by the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. And Yahweh my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

6. That Day, there will be no light, but only cold and frost.

7. And it will be one continuous day, Yahweh knows, there will be no more day and night, and it will remain light right into the time of evening.

8. When that Day comes, living waters will issue from Jerusalem, half towards the eastern sea, half towards the western sea; they will flow summer and winter.

9. Then Yahweh will become king of the whole world. When that Day comes, Yahweh will be the one and only and his name the one name.

10. The entire country will be transformed into plain, from Geba to Rimmon in the Negeb, but Jerusalem will stand high in her place and be full of people from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the earlier gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's wine-presses.

11. People will make their homes there. The curse of destruction will be lifted; Jerusalem will be safe to live in.

Jesus warned his followers to flee the capture of Jerusalem and the unprecedented cataclysmic event of mountain-moving to ensure their survival, if they obeyed his command.

Eerie, isn't it, to see that history will repeat itself as far as the first three kingdoms go.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

….In Daniel 11 the writer prophesies that a king of the south will attack the Greeks in Palestine under Antiochus, that the Greeks will win, conquer Egypt and most of NE Africa, and then the Greeks will return to Palestine where Antiochus will die. None of these prophecies came to pass, although Antiochus did die, but in Persia.

Please cite the texts you're referring to. I think you might be misunderstanding the prophecies there.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

What is your definition for the boundaries of the Roman Empire? As it was when it was proclaimed? As it was at whatever date might be assigned to its break up? At some intermediate date? What are the grounds for your choice?

North Africa from the Red Sea to Atlantic Ocean

Western Europe, including England, Spain, France, and Italy

Palestine, Turkey, and parts all the way to the Caspian Sea

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The question is, have those territories ever been united again under a monolithic power?

No, but this becomes a moot point if it is not the Roman Empire that is being referred to in Daniel's prophecy.

Granted.

So, then, make the best case you can for the understanding you have of Daniel's prophecy regarding the fourth empire, etc.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

.....in Daniel 5:28 the Medes and Persians are identified separately:

5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Does it say, "given to the Medes and to the Persians"? If it did, that would mean two different powers. On the other hand, "the Medes and Persians" refers to one kingdom.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

Quote:

BRIEF HISTORY OF MEDO-PERSIA

There seem to be no grounds for rolling Media and Persia into the sort of bipartite geopolitical entity that this title requires. It seems to be a case of assuming the desired conclusion.

I didn't devise the name. Historians did. That is how it sometimes occurs in history books.

A Google search shows that sites that use the term {i}Medo-Persia all seem to be addressing the subject from the same perspective as yourself, i.e. with an apparently Christian religious agenda that regards Daniel's 2nd kingdom prophecy as referring to a single unity known as Medo-Persia. You can search the Wiki articles on the Median and Achaemenid Empires without finding the phrase Medo-Persia occurring at all. The Iran Chamber Society articles on the Median and Achaemenid Empires do not use the term, neither does the MMA's short article on the Achaemenid Persian Empire. None of the relevant articles on the Livius ancient history site refers to Medo-Persia either. So the extent to which the term Medo-Persia is used by writers on the history of the region, the intent behind its use and how accurate it is historically all seem to be a matter of some debate.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/median/median.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenids.php

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/acha/hd_acha

http://www.livius.org

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

....referring to the Achaemenid Empire as the Medo-Persians is misleading.

I don't object to that name of it, but I may sometimes refer to it under the name of Medo-Persia because that is how it often appears in books discussing that empire. If you want to refer to it under the Achaemednid Empire, that's fine. We both know what we're talking about, and that's what's important. But I'll try to remember Achaemednid Empire. The other name is so much easier, for one thing.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Does it say, "given to the Medes and to the Persians"? If it did, that would mean two different powers. On the other hand, "the Medes and Persians" refers to one kingdom.

This seems like a piece of grammatical legerdemain designed to support a particular argument rather than anything else.

[/quote']

Daniel 8: 20 says clearly and unmistakably that a single symbol, the two-horned ram, represents the Medes and Persians.

Rotherham's Emphasized (a literal translation)--

Quote:

The ram which thou sawest, having the two horns, representeth the kings of Media and Persia.

My point has been that the grammatical structure of the sentences where Medo-Persia is mentioned support what the angel says in Daniel 8:20. For instance, Daniel 5: 28 says, "given to the Medes and Persians," not "given to the Medes and to the Persians."

The first construction refers to a single united group whereas the last refers to two distinct groups. The author clearly considered the two as constituting one kingdom. Babylon was not divided up between two separate kingdoms.

History does show that at that time it was a single, united empire, not two separate empire.

From the wikipedia--

Quote:

The Medes are credited with the foundation of the first Iranian empire, the largest of its day until Cyrus the Great established a unified Iranian empire of the Medes and Persians, often referred to as the Achaemenid Persian Empire, by defeating his grandfather and overlord, Astyages the shah of Media. The Median capital was Ecbatana, the modern day Iranian city of Hamedan. Ectbatana was preserved as one of the capital cities of the Achaemenid Empire, which succeeded the Median Empire.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

If they are two separate powers, the only correct way would be to say, "the laws of the Medes and of the Persians," etc.

.... There are no grounds for supposing that, unless the word 'laws' is used instead of 'law', the phrasing can be used to determine unequivocally that the writer of Daniel regarded the Media and Persia as one single kingdom, two separate kingdoms, or even some sort of dual-monarchy. And at least two Bible translations available online use the word 'laws' when referring to the Medes and Persians in Daniel Chapter 6:

6:12 .... "Absolutely," said the king. "Written in stone, like all the laws of the Medes and Persians." (The Message)

6:12 ....The king answered, "The decree stands—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed." (NIV)

The word, "law," in the original Hebrew, is singular. But it doesn't matter.

Even if it was "the laws," it would still be referring to one Empire, that of the Medes and Persians.

The Hebrew can't be translated, "the laws of the Medes and of the Persians."

See Robert Young's Literal Translation--

Quote:

12then they have come near, yea, they are saying before the king concerning the king's interdict: `Hast thou not signed an interdict, that any man who seeketh from any god and man until thirty days, save of thee, O king, is cast into a den of lions?' Answered hath the king, and said, `The thing [is] certain as a law of Media and Persia, that doth not pass away.'

See Robert Young's Literal Translation of Esther 1: 19--

Quote:

19`If to the king [it be] good, there goeth forth a royal word from before him, and it is written with the laws of Persia and Media, and doth not pass away, that Vashti doth not come in before the king Ahasuerus, and her royalty doth the king give to her companion who [is] better than she;

The fact that the angel refers to a single symbol, the ram, as representing Medo-Persia proves without question that one symbol represents both the Medes and the Persians, and that the Medes are not represented by a separate symbol and the Persians by another.

See Daniel 8: 20--

20`The ram that thou hast seen possessing two horns, [are] the kings of Media and Persia.

Notice that in Daniel 2, Medo-Persia is represented by the chest and the two arms of the statue. Similarly, as we've seen, that empire is represented by the one ram with two horns. Recall that in Daniel 7, the single Empire is represented by the bear which raises itself up higher on one side, signifying that one part of it will be dominant.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I didn't devise the name. Historians did. That is how it sometimes occurs in history books.

A Google search shows that sites that use the term {i}Medo-Persia all seem to be addressing the subject from the same perspective as yourself' date=' i.e. with an apparently Christian religious agenda that regards Daniel's 2nd kingdom prophecy as referring to a single unity known as Medo-Persia. You can search the Wiki articles on the Median and Achaemenid Empires without finding the phrase Medo-Persia occurring at all. The Iran Chamber Society articles on the Median and Achaemenid Empires do not use the term, neither does the MMA's short article on the Achaemenid Persian Empire. None of the relevant articles on the Livius ancient history site refers to Medo-Persia either. So the extent to which the term Medo-Persia is used by writers on the history of the region, the intent behind its use and how accurate it is historically all seem to be a matter of some debate.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/median/median.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenids.php

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/acha/hd_acha

http://www.livius.org

[/quote']

There are historians who believe the Bible, as well as Bible-scholars, who refer to it as the Medo-Persian Empire. It doesn't matter what you choose to call it. Call it the unified Iranian empire of the Medes and Pesians or call it the Achaemednid Persian Empire. Call it whatever you believe is appropriate. Personally I'm fine with any of those descriptions or names. The important thing is to understand what the names signify.

From the wikipedia--

Quote:

The Medes are credited with the foundation of the first Iranian empire, the largest of its day until Cyrus the Great established a unified Iranian empire of the Medes and Persians, often referred to as the Achaemenid Persian Empire , by defeating his grandfather and overlord, Astyages the shah of Media. The Median capital was Ecbatana, the modern day Iranian city of Hamedan. Ectbatana was preserved as one of the capital cities of the Achaemenid Empire, which succeeded the Median Empire.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- They were under the domination of Assyria until the 7th century BC.

Media was, but not Persia.

They were unless this is wrong:

Quote:

The earliest known record of the Persians comes from an Assyrian inscription from c. 844 BC that calls them the Parsu (Parsuaš) and mentions them in the region of Lake Urmia alongside another group, the Mādāyu (Medes). For the next two centuries, the Persians and Medes were at times tributary to the Assyrians.

Sorry, my bad. I think I may have misread domination as dominion. As you say, it is certainly the case that the Parsu were frequently harried and often forced to pay tribute to the Assyrians, even if they weren't actually incorporated into the Empire as such.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

Quote:

In 549 BC, the Persians conquered the Medes to form Medo-Persia.

There was no such geopolitical entity as Medo-Persia; as you have mentioned before, the power referred to is properly known as the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

Do you have documentation that the only way one properly refers to this power is under the name, Achaemenid Persian Empire?

I know it is often referred to that way, but I don't see that referring to it under the name of Medo-Persia is considered in accurate. It is, after all, also called the Empire of the Medes and Pesians.

I think I can agree with you that, for the purposes of our discussion, the terms can be used interchangeably when referring to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, although as I mentioned in an earlier post the term Medo-Persia does not seem to be a term commonly used by historians of the period.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

Quote:

The Medo-Persian empire covered the entire Middle East and surrounding areas, and they ruled up until the rise of Alexander the Great in 331 BC.

The Achaemenid Empire was, in terms of geographical extent, the greatest empire of classical antiquity, the Roman Empire notwithstanding.

Strictly in terms of territory, the Achaemenid Persian Empire covered 6.5 million Km.

The Greek, or Macedonian Empire covered 5.9 million km

The Roman Empire 5.9 km.

The real importance of the Roman Empire did not lie in its size but in its actions and its influences, as I'm sure you realize.