Revisiting Daniel

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- In fact, has Western Europe ever been united again since those peoples were broken up in about 470 AD?

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- But is it just Western Europe that is relevant to this discussion? I thought it was the 'whole earth', however this may be defined.

The Roman Empire broke up. It was eventually divided between the Western and the Eastern empires. It was never united again. That is precisely what the prophecy said would happen.

Daniel 7: 23, in referring to the "whole earth," is naturally speaking about the earth which was known at the time of Daniel by the people of that part of the world.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

The importance assigned to the Roman Empire in our eyes is a function of a number of biasing influences. In the first place, we have far more recorded material about Rome which is easily translated and understood than we have of any other classical empire. In the second place, Rome is seen as a 'Western', European empire and was a profound influence on the shared history of anyone with a European heritage. The Achaemenid Persian Empire does not enjoy the same biases in our understanding, but to appear to dismiss it therefore as in some way of less significance than the Roman Empire is a misleading assessment. Arguably, the Achaemenid Empire exerted at least a great and lasting influence over the territories it controlled as did Rome and, at least as far as the Middle East is concerned, its influence has been much stronger than Rome's...."

The whole purpose of the Bible's giving us the prophecy about the 4 empires is due to their influence on Israel and on the church. It has to do with the war between good and evil, between the people of God (both Jews of that day and the church) and the powers used by Satan. This is brought out more clearly in the book of Revelation. The Roman Empire had a direct role to play in Israel at the time of the Messiah and Rome would also have a central role in the rise of the little-horn power in Daniel 7 and 8. The Roman Empire and its collapse is also still of great importance in Western Europe.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I don't object to that name of it' date=' 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.[/quote']

Agreed. I think this has been picked over enough by both of us. So long as we both understand whatb the other is referring to, I think it is reasonable enough to use either expression when referring to the empire that succeeded the Median Empire.

One of the main problems with identifying the four empires as Babylon, the Medes, the Pesians, and the Greeks is that there is no evidence for an independent Median kingdom in an interval between the Babylonian and Persian kingdoms. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 B.C. and the Babylonians in 539 B.C.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

Daniel doesn't refer to Medo-Persia at all. Elsewhere Daniel refers to Media and Persia as two distinct kingdoms. The fiction of the Medo-Persian kingdom is necessary to validate earlier prophecies and to identify Rome as the fourth kingdom of Daniel s prophecy.

The denial that the second kingdom was the unified empire of the medes and Persians is obviously in order to avoid identifying Rome as the fourth kingdom of Daniel's prophecy.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The denial that the second kingdom was the unified empire of the medes and Persians is obviously in order to avoid identifying Rome as the fourth kingdom of Daniel's prophecy.

Well' date=' yes and no: as I argue that the 4th kingdom of Daniel's prophecy may more likely be seen as the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus IV Epiphanes than Rome, whether Daniel regarded Media and Persia as two separate kingdoms at one point and a united kingdom at another becomes largely irrelevant. To me, however, it seems clear that at least once the writer of Daniel regards the two as different entities:

8:20 The ram which you saw, having the two horns; they are the kings of Media and Persia. [/quote']

Give your best reasoning why the Medes and Persians would be represented by a single symbol in Daniel 8: 20, yet in all other places be viewed as two distinct and separate kingdoms. Explain, in particular, why, in Daniel 5: 58, you believe the writer wants us to understand that Babylon is being given over to two separate Empires.

[John317]

[John317]

[John317]

[John317]

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- In Daniel 7: 5, the reason the bear is higher on one side than the other is because the Medes and the Persians rule together, but the Persians became the higher power. The three ribs represent the three nations conquered by the Medes and Persians as they came to power: Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.

Doesn't the wikipedia say here that Cyrus the Great established a unified Iranian empire of the Medes and Persians?

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:

Daniel 7:5 refers to Media-Persia. The bear raising itself up on one side refers to Persia being greater than Media.

I see no grounds for determining this other than wishing it to be so. It could also be argued that the bear represents the Median Empire alone.

Why would we wish it to be so, unless that is what happened in history? Would you be willing to admit that it does describe exactly what took place?

Did not Media come up first, followed by Persia, which became dominant and the greater power?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- The Bear is portrayed as having three ribs in its mouth. Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that the bear only represents the Median Empire alone. If that is true, what do you believe is the significance of (a) the raising of itself on one side; ( the three ribs in its mouth between the teeth; and © being told to arise and devour much flesh?

More evidence from wikipedia that Media and Persia were united:

Quote:

By the 6th century BC, after having together with the Chaldeans defeated the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Medes were able to establish their own empire, which stretched from the southern shore of the Black Sea and Aran province (the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan) to north and Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and which included many tributary states, including the Persians, who eventually supplanted and absorbed the Median empire in the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

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, king of Media....

In 553 BC, Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, rebelled against his grandfather, the Mede King Astyages, son of Cyaxares; he finally won a decisive victory in 550 BC resulting in Astyages' capture by his own dissatisfied nobles, who promptly turned him over to the triumphant Cyrus. Thus were the Medes subjected to their close kin, the Persians. In the new empire they retained a prominent position; in honor and war, they stood next to the Persians; their court ceremony was adopted by the new sovereigns, who in the summer months resided in Ecbatana; and many noble Medes were employed as officials, satraps and generals. Interestingly, at the beginning the Greek historians referred to the Achaemenid Empire as a Median empire.

The Medes alone never did rise up and devour "much flesh" of Babylonia, although the exiled Jews expected them to do so. The Medes were united with the Persians when they devoured the flesh of Babylonia, as the following shows:

Quote:

In 612 BC, Cyaxares [a Median king] conquered Urartu [of Assyria], and in alliance with Nabopolassar (who created the Neo-Babylonian Empire), succeeded in destroying the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, and by 606 BC, the remaining vestiges of Assyrian control. From this point, the Medes king ruled over much of northern Mesopotamia, eastern Anatolia and Cappadocia. His power was a threat to his neighbors, and the exiled Jews expected the destruction of Babylonia by the Medes (Isaiah 13, 14m 21; Jerem. 1, 51.).

When Cyaxares attacked Lydia in the Battle of Halys, the kings of Cilicia and Babylon intervened and negotiated a peace in 585 BC, whereby the Halys river was established as the Medes' frontier with Lydia. Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon married a daughter of Cyaxares. Cyaxares' son, Astyages (584 BCE - 550 BCE), went to war with the Babylonian king Nabonidus. An equilibrium of the great powers was maintained until the rise of the Persians under Cyrus the Great.

[Michaelangelo]

Bob, sorry to take so long to get round to replying to you, but I'm working my way through posts in the order they were made. Thanks for your patience.

It is easy to understand how your proposal that maybe Daniel is in error on some fact about the Medo-Persian empire would leave you guessing that Daniel was writing during the time of Babylon BEFORE the events of the Medo-Persian empire had played out and therefore was simply "guessing badly".

what is NOT so easy to follow is your claim that a suggested error in DETAIL proves that this writer is writing AFTER all the details are fully known and simply getting what it fully public knowlege - written down incorrectly as you state...

[John317]

[John317]

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- in a similar way, the bear could be assumed to represent the alliance of Cyaxares and Nabopolassar that destroyed Nineveh, the Medes being subsequently expected by the Jews to destroy Babylonia;

That alliance did not fulfill the prophecy. Remember that the prophecy was that the Bear would overthrow Babylon. The alliance between Cyaxares and Nabopolassar did not overthrow or conquer Babylon. The prophecy was that the second kingdom would arise after the Babylonian kingdom. This was fulfilled in the Achaemenid Persian, or the Medo-Persian, Empire, but not in the alliance you speak of.

The Medes did indeed destroy Babylon, though not by themselves but in combination with the Persians.

Quote:

as to the three ribs, these could be taken to reflect the fact that the bear represents the third kingdom – the Kingdom of God stands first among all,

But the bear represents the second kingdom, following immediately after Babylon. What kingdom was that? Was that the Median kingdom? No. Therefore, the bear cannot represent the Median kingdom. It must represent the combined kingdom of the Medes and Persians.

Where do you get the idea that the kingdom of God is first and is involved in the kingdoms being described? These are earthly kingdoms. The kingdom of God is not an earthly but a heavenly kingdom. It does eventually come to earth but after the fourth kingdom is broken up. See Daniel 2: 44, 45; 7: 11, 12, 26, 27. In other words, you are in error to make the kingdom of God first among them.

Quote:

therefore second-ranking Babylon is represented by a lion with two wings that walks on two feet, third-ranking Media by a bear with three ribs and walking on three legs (raised up on one side suggests the fourth leg may be lifted up), fourth-ranking Persia by a leopard with four heads and four wings, and fifth-ranking Greece/Macedonia by a dragon with two rows of five horns.

Why not--

1) Babylon-- lion with two wings, eventually stands on two feet

2) Medo-Persian (Achaemenid Persian) Empire-- bear with three ribs between its teeth (and possibly on three legs)

3) Greece-- Leopard with four heads and four wings

4) Rome-- dreadful, exceedingly strong, great iron teeth, devoured, broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet, different from all the previous beasts and has 10 horns.

The prophecy says nothing about "two rows of five horns."

It seems obvious to me, on the basis of the specifics of the prophecy, that the fourth kingdom could not be Greece. Greece did not fulfill the prophecy that was given about the fourth beast. Rome did. (Compare the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2, which represent it by the legs of iron. The Third kingdom was represented by the bronze, or brass. Rome was known as the iron kingdom and Greece was well known for its use of bronze.)

Quote:

The bear might even be taken to represent Cyaxeres himself and the three ribs the three Median kings that preceded him: Deioces, Phraotes and Madius.Achaemenid Persian

None of the animals or beasts represent individuals. They symbolize empires and kingdoms.

Remember that the prophecy portrays the three ribs as being in the bear's mouth and between its teeth. That cannot signify that there were merely three kings that preceded a king.

Three ribs between the teeth in a bears mouth can only represent victims or prey. In this case, it would be nations or empires gobbled up. In the case of Medo-Persia, it did gobble up Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt.

[Michaelangelo]

Vs 40-45 of chapter 11 are taking place wayyyy too late in the Dan 10-11 sequence to be a reference to anything before Christ.

[Michaelangelo]

....

Quote:

Michaelangelo said -

There's a lot of unsupported asertions here - Rome splitting into ten kingdoms and 1260 years of dark ages to name two - even without addressing what a Greek writer may or not have been expected to know.

I would be happy to discuss those details - but first you have to find your initial claim that knowing the future name of the 4th empire would be expected of a writer in the days of the Babylonian empire and since Daniel does not name it -- he must have been writing during the time of the Greek empire.

[Michaelangelo]

Quote:

Bob said --

Is it your claim that the Ottoman empire or the British empire every owned all of Europe as did Rome??

Quote:

Absolutely not, but then neither did Rome.

As I said -- I find your logic illusive.

[Michaelangelo]

There was a time when the critics did not believe that Belshazzar existed, either. In fact, people used to say Daniel was wrong about a lot of things that they now know are true.

[John317]

Wikipedia is in error on some of the information, but for now it doesn't matter. I'll address those issues later.

I won't reply for a while, which will give you time to go through the many previous posts which you haven't yet responded to. Pleasant reading.

And so to bed.

[Michaelangelo]

My immediately previous reply answers several of the points in this post. Other responses are below.

Are you in agreement that assuming throne names did happen in ancient times?

[Michaelangelo]

Wikipedia is in error on some of the information, but for now it doesn't matter. I'll address those issues later.

I won't reply for a while, which will give you time to go through the many previous posts which you haven't yet responded to. Pleasant reading.

And so to bed.

Sleep well! I will continue to struggle to catch up!

By the way, this site http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/gobryas/gobryas_3.html also states 535 BC as the date for Gobryas' appointment to the governorship of Babylon, as does this site http://www.iranica.com/articles/v11f1/v11f1020.html.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

Quote:

My understanding is that the identity of Darius the Mede is still a matter of some dispute. Some of the candidates include two Persian kings, two Median kings, and two Persian governors. But so far they are only candidates, far from certain.

The dispute existing, presumably, only because otherwise the error of the prophecy has to be recognized? Do you have any references?

References given on previous posts.

I could quite easily and logically throw the question back, why do people seek so desperately to disprove the prophecy except for not wanting to admit that predictive prophecy, and perhaps God, exists?

[Michaelangelo]

It is true that Rome did not own ALL of Europe. It did not conquer the German tribes in what we know of as Germany, for instance. It didn't own anything in the territories of old Poland or Prussia and Denmark. But that is not important. The prophecy did not say that the fourth Empire would have to occupy all of what we now call Europe.

[Michaelangelo]

All that is true, but I was interested in your own personal viewpoint of Revelation, whether you believe it contains references to Rome.

I am open to argument that this is so, but I am not at this point certain that Revelation contains unmistakable references to Rome.