Revisiting Daniel

[Michaelangelo]

On Thomas Jefferson's deistic views in relation to revelation by God-- ....

John, many thanks for that most interesting info on Jefferson and the others.

[Michaelangelo]

On the basis of what the text itself says, please make your case that Daniel was speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes. What is the evidence?

I have begun to do this in some of my recent posts. I will continue to do so.

[Michaelangelo]

Got an NIV or NASB study Bible?? -- apparently everybody on the planet seems to get that 4 empire sequence!

If everybody on the planet got the 4 empire sequence in the same way you do, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

[Michaelangelo]

When it comes to the Fourth kingdom there is general agreement on the identity of it. In fact, the Jews and Christians both identified it as Rome. They also identified the second power as that of the Achaemenid Empire, or Medo-Persia. None of them thought that the second power was Media and the third Persia.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

And yet the prophecy did say that the 4th kingdom would occupy all the earth:

7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

The Roman Empire did not even occupy all of the territories of the preceding empires that Daniel is apparently making prophecies about.

Do you believe that Daniel 2: 38, 39 are failed prophecies since neither Babylon nor the third kingdom ruled over all "the children of men" or all the earth as we know it today?

I don't know of any Bible scholars who believe that the prophecy meant the whole world as we know it in the 21st century. Of course it was referring to the known world of Daniel's day and to the people of that area. I think it's unreasonable to suppose it's predicting that these powers would rule every inch of territory on the planet.

If you were going to write a commentary on the Bible, would you say that the whole prophecy fails in the second chapter because none of those nations mentioned ever ruled the entire globe?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

How long have you been studying Revelation? And do you study various commentaries on it?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

When it comes to the Fourth kingdom there is general agreement on the identity of it. In fact, the Jews and Christians both identified it as Rome. They also identified the second power as that of the Achaemenid Empire, or Medo-Persia. None of them thought that the second power was Media and the third Persia.

The fact that we are having this discussion at all is evidence that agreement on the 4th kingdom's identity is far from general.

There is some disagreement by someone about virtually everything under the sun. There always will be, and that includes things about which there's little or no doubt.

That's because there are reasons other than strictly logic that result in doubt and in various points of view. The reason people believe the way they do is not based on only one or two things but on many, some of them being quite complex.

Quote:

That some Jews and some Christians have identified the 4th kingdom as the Roman Empire is not evidence that the Roman Empire is the 4th kingdom.

Neither is it evidence that it is not the fourth kingdom, and it must be added that our belief today is no more evidence than theirs that Rome is or is not the 4th kingdom.

We have to decide ourselves individually on the basis of the weight of evidence. Let each man make up his own mind.

Quote:

The early Christian church was consumed with apocalyptic fervor with a widespread belief that the last days were imminent. Both Matthew and Mark seem to be quite specific about this, expecting Daniel's prophecies to come about within their generation.

What is meant by "last days"?

Could you be more specific about what prophecies you believe they expected to come about? I think I know what you have reference to, but I don't want to guess. People see those statements differently, so I don't want to assume a belief on your part that you may not share.

[Aliensanctuary]

We can look at history to find fulfillment of the Multi-Metal Statue that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of, the 4 Beasts, and the Ram and the Goat, and we may find some parallels, but these visions were meant to explain the Time of the End and the Last Days. We can turn the Last Days into the Last Centuries or Last Thousands of years or even the Last Millions of years, but then we must turn the 7 Days of Creation into the 7 Hundred Years of Creation, the 7 Thousand Years of Creation, or the 7 Million Years of Creation, etc.

In the vision of the Statue, the last 4 Kingdoms of men, Nebuchadnezzar is told that he will be the First of Four. Babylon of the past did not meet all of the conditions of the vision, therefore, we must look to the future for its fulfillment. We must accept that Nebuchadnezzar will indeed rise again to power, this time to rule the entire world. Future Babylon is Historical Babylon on steroids.

Quote:

Isaiah 14:17 Can this be the one who destroyed the world and made it into a shambles and demolished its greatest cities and had no mercy on his prisoners?"

Nebuchadnezzar, as we might expect, will be a merciless tyrant, just as he was in the past, re: forcing everyone to worship him, roasting people like marshmallows tossed in a campfire if they didn't, killing his wise men, enchanters, and magicians and turning their houses into dung hills.

Nebuchadnezzar won't exactly be a nice guy, especially when he has the power and weapons to rule the whole world, destroying those who resist. He can, and will, destroy the great cities of the world, as Isaiah indicates.

If we take the Last Days literally, then that must mean the time immediately preceding and following Judgment Day. The 4-Metal Statue, the 4 Beasts, and the Ram and Goat would all arise after the 2nd Resurrection.

Revelation is also describing Last Day events. We somehow have to connect the dots between Daniel, Rev., Jesus, and the Prophets of the OT to synthesize an accurate picture of the End of the World.

Quote:

Matt.25:

32. And all the nations shall be gathered before me. And I will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,

33. and place the sheep at my right hand, and the goats at my left.

We must include in our understanding of the End of Time statements like the above. On the Day of Judgment, the wicked and the righteous will be side by side just after they are resurrected. The righteous will be taken to a place of safety, but the wicked will be destroyed, forever.

Although it is a good message for all time, the official 3 Angel's Messages are given in the Last Days, which is why they are proclaimed during the Reign of the 4th Beast. EGW and SDA theology have muddled things a bit, claiming the Dark Day, the Day of the LORD, has already occurred, but this is, of course, not true.

We wouldn't be sitting around looking at computers if the Day of the Lord has come and gone.

[Michaelangelo]

You yourself have said that without a name attached to the Fourth Kingdom, it leaves room for doubt about its identity.

Do you have any evidence that officials of the Romans Empire knew or even studied the book of Daniel? Is there reason to believe that Roman officials were interested in learning what it taught?

I doubt they did. However, imagine if they discovered a clear reference to Rome as an evil power who would be overthrown by the God of the Jews and Christians. I tend to think they would not have been pleased. As it is, they attempted to kill off many Christians and destroy the New Testament. What would have happened if they had found texts of their holy books that attacked Rome-- we can only imagine the result.

If the symbolism is as obvious as it is claimed, Roman scholars would not have had to study either Daniel or Revelation very seriously to reach the same conclusions. It is also the case that many Roman citizens became Christians. Are you suggesting that they failed to understand the symbolism as well or that, if they did, such understanding failed to leak out? How easy is it to keep a secret when thousands of people know it?

It seems to me that your argument faces a dilemma: either the prophecy about the 4th kingdom is so almost self-evident that it is impossible to interpret it correctly in any way but that it refers to Rome, or it is phrased so cryptically that if a Roman official came across it he would be unable to realize that it referred to Rome.

Historically, Rome was not immune to literary criticism on several fronts. I think it would be up to you to establish some grounds for supposing that Christians would have been persecuted more than they were and for reasons beyond those they were persecuted for simply because of cryptic predictions by an obscure prophet. Do you have any references of the reaction of senior Roman officials to Daniel's prophecies once Christianity became the 'official' religion of the Empire? Were they recognized as foreshadowing the doom of the Empire and, if not, why not?

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

Whether Rome was noticeably more cruel than other contemporary cultures is debatable. Most classical (and many later) empires were cruel by our standards.

I don't know of any American leaders like Nero or Diocletian and some other Roman leaders I could name.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Got an NIV or NASB study Bible?? -- apparently everybody on the planet seems to get that 4 empire sequence!

If everybody on the planet got the 4 empire sequence in the same way you do, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

Just because there is truth available and is well-known does not mean everyone believes it or accepts it.

A person has to have a desire for spiritual truths and for God in their lives.

Please compare Daniel 12: 10; 2 Corinthians 2: 13-16; John 14: 26.

[John317]

In the vision of the Statue, the last 4 Kingdoms of men, Nebuchadnezzar is told that he will be the First of Four. Babylon of the past did not meet all of the conditions of the vision, therefore, we must look to the future for its fulfillment.

What are some of those conditions of that vision that Babylon did not meet?

At what point in the future would you anticipate the fulfillment?

Quote:

We must accept that Nebuchadnezzar will indeed rise again to power, this time to rule the entire world. Future Babylon is Historical Babylon on steroids.

You mean you expect Nebuchadnezzar to be resurrected from the dead in order to rule again?

What is your evidence for this belief?

[John317]

[Michaelangelo]

Then your answer is no. Predictive prophecy is not about a human making it seem to forecast anything. Predicative prophecy is making a genuine prediction on the basis of a prophetic utterance. You obviously do not believe it exists.

That would clearly make it difficult for you to accept the evidence that points to predictive prophecy. You would tend to reject it and try to explain it away at almost any cost. That's understandable, but it would be more helpful to you, in terms of seeing the truth, if you were more open minded about it.

[Michaelangelo]

The fact is that we know both Jews and Christians in the first and second centuries identified Rome as the Fourth Empire. We have no evidence that the Roman authorities were aware of this. This was before the collapse of the empire. There were Christians who taught at that time that the antichrist power-- the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8-- would not arise until the Roman Empire collapsed. That is exactly what happened. History records it: the Papal system came directly out of the Roman Empire, and is with us 2000 years later, just like the prophecy said it would be. And it will continue until the Second Coming. The papal system was practically destroyed in 1798, but the Bible said it would come back, and it has. It also says that it will get even more powerful and influential than it is now.

But Daniel identifies the goat as 'the king of Grecia' and the 'little horn' as coming from the 'four horns' that came from the 'great horn' when it was broken. I have difficulty seeing this as anything but a reference to the Diadochi and the rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes who indeed 'waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land'.

[melvin mccarty]

Predictive prophecy can be viewed in at least two ways. It could be a revealing of events that God intends to make happen. mel

[John317]

Interesting concept.

Do you think it's possible that one reason God had the prophecies written in a kind of code, in symbols, rather than in a newspaper style-- writing the future as if it is history, and in great detail, naming all the people and telling what each would do-- is that God honors our freedom?

For instance, if He described my life and said everything I would do thousands of years before I was born, I could claim that I had no freedom but that I had to do those things.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The fact is that we know both Jews and Christians in the first and second centuries identified Rome as the Fourth Empire. We have no evidence that the Roman authorities were aware of this. This was before the collapse of the empire. There were Christians who taught at that time that the antichrist power-- the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8-- would not arise until the Roman Empire collapsed. That is exactly what happened. History records it: the Papal system came directly out of the Roman Empire, and is with us 2000 years later, just like the prophecy said it would be. And it will continue until the Second Coming. The papal system was practically destroyed in 1798, but the Bible said it would come back, and it has. It also says that it will get even more powerful and influential than it is now.

But Daniel identifies the goat as 'the king of Grecia' and the 'little horn' as coming from the 'four horns' that came from the 'great horn' when it was broken. I have difficulty seeing this as anything but a reference to the Diadochi and the rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes who indeed 'waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land'.

"The goat," which represented Grecia, was called "very great" (8: 8, 21).

Was Antiochus IV Epiphanes ever greater than the Greek Empire? Unless he was, he couldn't be said to fulfill the prophecy. The prophecy said that this little horn would become "exceeding great" (8: 9), that is, greater than the Grecian goat. History shows that this cannot be said of Antiochus E. He doesn't fulfill the predictions of Daniel 8: 9-12. Even a Roman legate, G. Popilius, was able to order Antiochus E. out of Egypt in 168 BC. Another argument against Antiochus' being the little horn is that Daniel 8: 17 says the vision refers to the time of the end, proving that the little horn does not represent someone living before the time of Jesus.

The little horn doesn't arise out of one of the Grecian horns but rather out of one of "the four winds of heaven." The immediate antecedent of "one of them" is "the four winds of heaven," i.e., directions of the compass.

Notice this little horn grows "exceeding great" toward the south and toward the east and toward the Glorious Land (Palestine). This fact shows that the little horn must originate from either the north or the west. Rome followed the Greek kingdom, and Rome is west of Greece.

There's no time period in the history of Antiochus E. that fits Daniel 8: 14 and the 2300 days. The temple was profaned in 168 B.C. and it was "cleansed" December 25, 164 BC. Desecration lasted only 3 years and 10 days. 2300 literal days is 6 years and 140 days.

[melvin mccarty]

It is the unreasonable insistence by some that it is possible for God to know in advance the decisions that humans will make that fuels the arguements for predestination. Better to allow that God has a general plan for the earth and knows how that plan will unfold and just leave it there. mel

[melvin mccarty]

So the "little horn" was to be active in the eastern part of the Romen empire! I wonder how that fits.

[John317]

So the "little horn" was to be active in the eastern part of the Romen empire! I wonder how that fits.

The "little horn" of Daniel 8: 9 is parallel to the fourth beast of Daniel 7: 19 and 2: 33, 40. The Roman Empire started west of Greece and spread south into Africa and east into what we call Turkey, Israel, Iraq, and parts of Iran.

[John317]

It is the unreasonable insistence by some that it is possible for God to know in advance the decisions that humans will make that fuels the arguements for predestination. Better to allow that God has a general plan for the earth and knows how that plan will unfold and just leave it there. mel

Then what do Isaiah 45 and Daniel 11 mean, prophecies that deal with the detailed actions of individuals? There's also the prophecies regarding Judas and Peter. I don't think those prophecies are grounds for arguing for predestination but are evidence of the fact that, as Isaiah 40 to 45 claim, God knows the end from the beginning. According to the Bible, God's knowledge of the future is proof that He is who He claims to be, the Creator of the universe.

I think that the point you bring up about predestination is a good one, and it seems to me one reason the prophecies were frequently written in symbols. If they had been written directly so that individuals knew ahead of time exactly what they were going to do, people would have felt that they had no choice.

We don't have any evidence that Judas understood the prophecies regarding himself, and Peter seemed to have remembered Jesus' prophetic words only after he betrayed Him. Jesus obviously understood the many prophecies concerning Himself, but it seems clear that Jesus didn't think of them as preventing Him from having free will.

[John317]

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/pioneerwritings.html

[Michaelangelo]

....There's no reason to believe that the Roman Christian told the Roman authorities that the holy books of the Christians and the Jews taught that Rome was going to be destroyed by God. But if we suppose some Roman Christians became traitors and informed the government about the prophetic teachings, But if the book of Daniel and Revelation did not specifically name the Roman Empire, there would obviously be more protection against Roman persecution than if did name it. As you said before, if the name Rome does not appear in it, and if it is in symbols, there seems to be less certainty of what it means. This in itself is less of a provocation....

[Michaelangelo]

Quote:

In his masterful biography of Alexander, Alexander of Macedon (Pelican Books edition, Harmondsworth 1974), Peter Green notes that

A person has to decide what he is going to believe. That's the reason for the exchange. You can choose to believe the Bible and Josephus, or you can believe Peter Green.

Which is why we look at the available evidence. From what I know of Josephus's writings and Peter Green's academic background and career (1st Class honours in both parts of the Classical Tripos at Cambridge, winner of the Craven Scholarship and Studentship in the same year, Director of Studies in Classics at Cambridge, Professor of Classics at the University of Texas in Austin, etc), I would tend to defer to his assessment of the evidential worth of Josephus in any particular case.