Revisiting Daniel

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

I was not trying to argue that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel. I was arguing that, if Daniel was written pseudepigraphically around 167 BC, the fact that Antiochus failed to fulfil the prophecy is not evidence of the fact that the prophecy did not refer to what was expected of his future....

As usual -- your logic is illusive on this point.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What it does show is that there is good evidence to believe that the symbols [in Daniel] point to Rome. What other power does it point to?

Let's talk about that.

Okay. Interpretation #1

As far as the statue is concerned, Daniel 2:37-8 unequivocally identifies the 1st kingdom as Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar II (‘you are this head of gold’). The 2nd kingdom is described in Daniel 2:39 as coming ‘after you [Nebuchadnezzar II]’, but also as ‘inferior’ to Nebuchadnezzar’s. It is hard to see this as a description of the Achaemenid (Medo-)Persian Empire

Why not? Was the Medo-Persian Empire superior to the Babylonian kingdom in every way? Did Medo-Persia govern its subjects as effectively as Babylon did? Was Medo-Persia inferior in luxury and magnificence?

It also should be considered that the Median and Persian conquerers adopted the culture of the complex Babylonian civilization, because their own was far less developed.

Perhaps you are understanding "inferior" as merely referring to the size of the empire, but this is not necessarily so.

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO--and the Median Empire clearly pre-dated the empire of Nebuchadnezzar. By this understanding, a likely suspect for the 2nd kingdom becomes the Lydian kingdom of Croesus, which rose to power after Nebuchadnezzar.

Yes, Median Empire did pre-date the empire of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is why it cannot be the Empire referred to. It was contemporary with Babylon, not its successor. The prophecy is that these four kingdoms would rule successively, not contemporaneously.

Media fell to Cyrus the Persian before Babylon did. The prophecy is that the next kingdom will take over the Babylonian kingdom. Media did not take over Babylon until Media was united with Persia.

Did the Lydian kingdom of Croesus take over the Babylonian Empire? If not, it doesn't qualify as the second kingdom.

Which Empire does history say took over the Babylonian Empire? The book of Daniel says nothing about Lydia but it does say a great deal about the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus took over Lydia about 8 years before he took Babylon.

[John317]

[John317]

If it was so perfect, there would not be disagreement amongst Christians (and Jews) about the interpretation that should be made.

The truth of the Bible is not determined by the number of people who believe it. And there are disagreements about virtually everything under the sun.

God didn't make the Bible so that one could not possibly find reason to disbelieve it if one chose to doubt it or deny it. There is very good evidence for belief in God and in the Bible, but God has left people room to disbelieve if they want to.

[Michaelangelo]

OK, you'll evidently admit, then, that Antiochus E. does not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel. I agree completely.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

OK, you'll evidently admit, then, that Antiochus E. does not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel. I agree completely.

As I have made clear in recent posts, Antiochus seems to fit quite well with several of the references we find in Daniel.

It seems to me that at the moment our agreement is limited to the fact that Antiochus's achievements and fate do not match the prophecies in Daniel of events after around the middle of the 160s BC.

Antiochus doesn't fit the prophecy of Daniel at all. He was never greater in any way than the third empire, Greece, nor was he greater than either Cyrus or Alexander; but he would have had to be greater than these if he was going to fulfill the prophecy. He was forced to pay tribute to Rome constantly. He was killed when trying to raise more money to pay tribute. He did not enlarge his territory. His people referred to him as the madman. There are many other ways in which he simply does not fit the prophecy. I understand, however, that since you don't believe in prophecy, you consider it perfectly reasonable for him not to fit the prophecy, yet for him to be the subject of the prophecy. In other words, you are not looking for anything or anyone to fulfill the prophecy.

[Michaelangelo]

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.

[John317]

... I can be skeptical of prophesy in the Bible without believing that the Bible is full of lies. I can look at the Bible as the work of imperfect human beings who have on occasions bent it to their own purposes without coming to the conclusion that the essential worth of Christ's message to humanity is thereby in some way devalued.

What do we call a man or his book which claims to be someone or something they aren't? If the writer wanted us to believe he was the prophet Daniel who lived in the 6th century at the time of the Babylonian Empire, yet he was someone else writing about 400 years later, isn't that a lie? Wouldn't that make the book of Daniel a book full of lies, when he claims that God showed him visions of the future, which in fact were made up fictions?

Can you say that you believe the book of Daniel? Do you have confidence in it?

Do you believe Christ's statement in Matt. 24: 15?

Notice Jesus says the words were spoken through Daniel the prophet, and He obviously believed that the "abomination of desolation" was not fulfilled in the past but that it would be fulfilled after His death and resurrection.

[Michaelangelo]

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......

[Michaelangelo]

....For our purposes, it's a moot point, since it's already well established that Rome was the next empire to rule after the Greek Empire.

Only if you choose to disqualify the Diadochi, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids and the Hasmoneans as in any sense rulers.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

....For our purposes, it's a moot point, since it's already well established that Rome was the next empire to rule after the Greek Empire.

Only if you choose to disqualify the Diadochi, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids and the Hasmoneans as in any sense rulers.

The first three named here were part of the Greek Empire. The Hamoneans were Jewish and were not in any sense part of an empire. Therefore none of these in any way dispute the fact that Rome was the next major empire after Greece, or Macedonia.

Daniel 8: 22 shows that the kingdoms that succeeded Alexander the Great are included in the Greek Empire.

We're only establishing that Rome was the next empire to rule after the Greek Empire.

[Michaelangelo]

The only two points that are being made-- the truth of which I believe you will admit to-- is that the Roman Empire followed the Greek (or Macedonian) Empire and ruled in Palestine, and that Luke refers to this fact. It is clearly stated that Rome had the power and authority at that time to tax or register that part of the world, and then Luke 3:1 refers to the fact that the events narrated occurred during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being the Roman governor of the area in which Jesus was born.

This establishes beyond question that the Bible shows that Rome was the fourth kingdom, following the third kingdom of Greece.

I have to be pedantic, I'm afraid. The Roman Empire followed the Macedonian Empire in the sense that, as it was only historically incorporated on the succession to power of Octavius, it post-dated the Macedonian Empire. As a power with territories and influence beyond its homeland, it was to a certain extent coincidental with the Macedonian Empire. As a much later successor to the Macedonian Empire in numerous territories, including Palestine, it was by this definition a successor to (i.e. came after) the Macedonian Empire. However, the Diadochi, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids (two of which at least were imperial powers) ruled lands of the Macedonian Empire - including Palestine - after its break up and long before Rome succeeded it; supposing these to be some sort of amorphous, undefined 'Greek Empire' is dubious to say the least. Rome never ruled over all the lands and peoples that the Macedonian Empire ruled over; likewise, the Macedonian Empire never included all the lands that the Roman Empire did and Luke 3:1 does not show in any way that I can understand that Rome was the 4th kingdom referred to by Daniel.

[Michaelangelo]

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.

[melvin mccarty]

Perhps we should examine in detail chapter eleven which the recent Sabbath School lessons on Daniel obviously avoided. The "king of the north" has had varied identities over the last century and a half among Bible students. mel

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The only two points that are being made-- the truth of which I believe you will admit to-- is that the Roman Empire followed the Greek (or Macedonian) Empire and ruled in Palestine, and that Luke refers to this fact. It is clearly stated that Rome had the power and authority at that time to tax or register that part of the world, and then Luke 3:1 refers to the fact that the events narrated occurred during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being the Roman governor of the area in which Jesus was born.

This establishes beyond question that the Bible shows that Rome was the fourth kingdom, following the third kingdom of Greece.

I have to be pedantic, I'm afraid. The Roman Empire followed the Macedonian Empire in the sense that, as it was only historically incorporated on the succession to power of Octavius, it post-dated the Macedonian Empire. As a power with territories and influence beyond its homeland, it was to a certain extent coincidental with the Macedonian Empire.

Study well Daniel 8:8. It says the third beast, the male goat which represents Greece, grew very great. (Remember that it says the fourth empire grew even greater than the third empire.) But when he became strong, the large horn was broken. That large horn represented Alexander the great, the first king. He died at the height of his power. Then it says that in place of Alexander the great would come up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven. This is exactly what happened after the death of Alexander the Great: Antigonus ruled from northern Syria to central Asia; Cassander ruled over Macedonia; Ptolemy ruled in Egypt and southern Syria, including Palestine; Lyssimachus ruled over Thrace.

All of these powers were Macedonian, or Greek.

The wikipedia on the Seleucid Empire:

Quote:

The Seleucid Empire / (312 - 63 BC) was a Hellenistic empire, i.e. a successor state of Alexander the Great's empire.

The Diadochi were Alexander's generals who jostled for supremacy. Ptolemy was one of the generals. Seleucas was another of Alexander's generals. A third general was Lysimachus. Antigonus was a fourth significant general.

Quote:

Upon Alexander's untimely death, there was almost immediately a dispute among his generals as to who his successor should be.

... This division was to last for a century, before the Antigonid Kingdom finally fell to Rome, and the Seleucids were harried from Persia by the Parthians and forced by the Romans to relinquish control in Asia Minor. A rump Seleucid kingdom limped on in Syria until finally put to rest by Pompey in 64 BC. The Ptolemies lasted longer in Alexandria: Egypt finally fell to Rome in 30 BC.

[John317]

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- As a much later successor to the Macedonian Empire in numerous territories, including Palestine, it was by this definition a successor to (i.e. came after) the Macedonian Empire. However, the Diadochi, the Ptolemies

The Ptolemies were part of the Greek Empire which were conquered by Rome:

The wikipedia--

Quote:

The Ptolemaic dynasty (sometimes also known as the Lagids, from the name of Ptolemy I's father, Lagus) was a Hellenistic Macedonian royal family which ruled the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt for nearly 300 years, from 305 BC to 30 BC.

Ptolemy, a somatophylax, one of the seven bodyguards who served as Alexander the Great's generals and deputies, was appointed satrap of Egypt after Alexander's death in 323 BC. In 305 BC, he declared himself King Ptolemy I, later known as "Soter" (saviour). The Egyptians soon accepted the Ptolemies as the successors to the pharaohs of independent Egypt. Ptolemy's family ruled Egypt until the Roman conquest of 30 BC.

All the male rulers of the dynasty took the name Ptolemy. Ptolemaic queens, some of whom were the sisters of their husbands, were usually called Cleopatra, Arsinoe or Berenice. The most famous member of the line was the last queen, Cleopatra VII, known for her role in the Roman political battles between Julius Caesar and Pompey, and later between Octavian and Mark Antony. Her suicide at the conquest by Rome marked the end of Ptolemaic rule in Egypt.

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- and the Seleucids (two of which at least were imperial powers) ruled lands of the Macedonian Empire - including Palestine - after its break up and long before Rome succeeded it; supposing these to be some sort of amorphous, undefined 'Greek Empire' is dubious to say the least.

As already shown, the Diadochi, including Ptolemies and the Seluecids were a part of the Mecedonian empire of Alexander the Great.

Again, the wikipedia on the Seluecids--

Quote:

The Seleucid Empire/ (312 - 63 BC) was a Hellenistic empire, i.e. a successor state of Alexander the Great's empire.

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- Rome never ruled over all the lands and peoples that the Macedonian Empire ruled over;

Rome ruled over Greece and Macedonia:

Wikipedia--

Quote:

Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of Paeonia and incorporated it in his empire. Subsequently the territory was conquered by Rome, and the region became part of two Roman provinces.

Rome also ruled over Egypt, Asia Minor, and most importantly, Palestine, Syria. also parts of Persia and modern Iraq.

[John317]

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- likewise, the Macedonian Empire never included all the lands that the Roman Empire did

The prophecy did not say it would include ALL of the same lands. Persia did not include all the same lands that Greece would hold, and of course Rome did not take all the same lands that Greece held. But then the prophecy did not say that each one hold ALL the same territory.

Desmond Ford wrote in his commentary:

Quote:

It is not the intention of the prophecy to describe all the great powers that would influence the world in all ages. It does not intend to be encyclopedic about history. This map of the future is concerned with the people of God and the revelation made by God initially to the theocratic race whose home was Palestine. The purpose of this message from heaven is to show that all the events between the overturning of the chosen people by Nebuchadnezzar and the ultimate establishment of God's kingdom on earth are in the hand of God. He has willed that four great monarchies should preserve a certain amount of order in the earth (Romans 13 1-7), particularly that part of the world where true religion had its greatest strength. Babylon and its successors all held the land of Palestine as well as adjacent countries in their grip. The fact that the outer boundries of these four empires varied was of slight consequence, so long as Palestine, the core, was retained. To Palestine the Messiah would come, and the gospel would initially be proclaimed from that base...

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- and Luke 3:1 does not show in any way that I can understand that Rome was the 4th kingdom referred to by Daniel.

It does so by showing that when Christ was born, that part of the world was ruled by none other than Rome. The testimony of history is that the previous Empire to rule in Palestine was Greece, the empire of Alexander the Great.

If you deny this, tell which Empire ruled in Palestine during the time of John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles? Was it another power besides Rome?

Yes, Rome clearly succeeded Greece in power.

None of those four empires would have been mentioned in the Bible if they hadn't ruled in Palestine. Their only reason for being in the Bible is their close connection with the nation of Israel and with the church.

[John317]

Perhps we should examine in detail chapter eleven which the recent Sabbath School lessons on Daniel obviously avoided. The "king of the north" has had varied identities over the last century and a half among Bible students. mel

Did you study the book that accompanied the lessons, written by Gerhard Pfandl? It's entitled, Daniel the Seer of Babylon. See pages 103-108 dealing with the 11th chapter of Daniel.

Seventh-day Adventists have written a great deal about Daniel 11. Besides the SDA Bible Commentary, we have commentaries by C. Mervyn Maxwell, Desmond Ford, Jacques B. Doukhan, Stephen N. Haskell, Uriah Smith, Ranko Stefancovic, Roy Allen Anderson, and several books by William Shea, to name just the better known ones. I think they're all well worth reading, in addition to many other, non-SDA commentaries.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

The selection of powers to be included in the list of empires appears contrived to fit the prophecy rather than to match historical actuality. The Seleucid Empire particularly seems to be dismissed for no very good reason when there are many references in Daniel that appear to describe the history of that Empire and its rulers' actions quite accurately.

The Seleucid Empire is dismissed as the Fourth Empire because it doesn't fit the prophetic specification.

Wikipedia--

Quote:

The Seleucid Empire/ (312 - 63 BC) was a Hellenistic empire, i.e. a successor state of Alexander the Great's empire.

Seleucus was one of Alexander's generals, who broke up the kingdom into different Macedonian, Hellenistic kingdoms. As such, the Seleucid kingdom was included among the four horns of Daniel 8: 8. There are many other ways in which he doesn't fulfill the prophecy of Daniel.

[John317]

[John317]

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- it [Rome] did not even encompass all the lands that the Macedonian Empire did, nor the Achaemaenid Empire.

Where does the prophecy stipulate that the Fourth Empire would encompass or occupy ALL the lands of the previous two empires?

To fulfill the prophecy, the Fourth Empire must succeed the Third Empire. The Roman Empire is the only empire which did succeed the Greek, Hellenistic, or Macedonian, Empire. All historians are agreed that Rome did that. If you're still in doubt, read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Properly speaking-- and viewing it from the perspective of Daniel-- the generals who took over after Alexander the Great were part of the Third Empire, because, as shown previously, they were Hellenistic, or Macadonians.

Wikipedia--

Quote:

The Hellenistic world view after Alexander: ancient world map of Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), incorporating information from the campaigns of Alexander and his successors.

After Alexander's death, in 323 BC, the rule of his Empire was given to Alexander's half-brother Philip Arridaeus and Alexander's son Alexander IV. However, since Philip was apparently feeble-minded and the son of Alexander still a baby, two regents were named in Perdiccas (who had received Alexander's ring at his death) and Craterus (who may have been the one mentioned as successor by Alexander), although Perdiccas quickly managed to take sole power.

Perdiccas soon eliminated several of his opponents, killing about 30 (Diodorus Siculus), and at the Partition of Babylon named former generals of Alexander as satraps of the various regions of his Empire. In 321 BC Perdiccas was assassinated by his own troops during his conflict with Ptolemy, leading to the Partition of Triparadisus, in which Antipater was named as the new regent, and the satrapies again shared between the various generals. From that time, Alexander's officers were focused on the explicit formation of rival monarchies and territorial states.

Ultimately, the conflict was settled after the Battle of Ipsus in Phrygia in 301 BC. Alexander's empire was divided at first into four major portions: Cassander ruled in Macedon, Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus in Mesopotamia and Persia, and Ptolemy I Soter in the Levant and Egypt. Antigonus ruled for a while in Anatolia and Syria but was eventually defeated by the other generals at Ipsus (301 BC).

Alexander's Empire-- the Third Empire of Daniel-- was divided into four major portions just like the prophecy said it would be. Alexander, the first king-- symbolized by the great horn (Dan. 8: 8, 21, 22)-- was broken, and in his place came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven.

[John317]

Certainly it broke up (as did all the others before and after it) and was supplanted by others through all of its territories at one time or another.

What Empire replaced the Roman Empire? It was broken up into separate peoples and nations but it was not succeeded by another monolithic Empire.

The Roman Empire was broken up into the different nations of Europe, and eastern part became known as the Empire of Byzantium.

Quote:

In the fifth century AD, the mighty Roman Empire "fell" to invading barbarians and complex internal pressures. The land that had been centrally governed for centuries disintegrated into numerous warring states. The safety and privileges enjoyed by some residents of the empire vanished to be replaced by a constant state of danger and uncertainty; others merely traded one set of daily terrors for another. Europe was plunged into what Renaissance scholars would label a "dark age."

Yet Byzantium remained.

The Empire of Byzantium was the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, which was divided in 395 A.D.

What is the next big event to happen after the Fourth Empire? (See Daniel 7: 9-14, etc.)

In view of what happens after the Fourth Empire, how could Antiochus E. be the Fourth Empire? (Remember he existed long before Christ.)

[John317]

... The interpretation of the prophecy that you offer seems ready to compromise on definitions when it suits the purpose of those who believe it has been fulfilled ('the whole earth', for example),

This particular example has been dealt with and answered, and is answered here again:

The following uses of the word in the book of Daniel show that it is not a word that is to be taken in a literal sense of the entire planet:

Da 2:39 -

And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

Da 4:1 -

Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.

Da 4:11 -

The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Da 4:20 -

The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth;

Da 4:22 -

It is thou,O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

Da 4:35 -

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Da 6:25 -

Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.

It should be clear to anyone that the writer is using hyperbole. Is he saying, for instance, that Darius wrote literally unto all people that dwell in all the earth?

Quote:

but insistent on specificity when that specificity works in the preferred direction (reuniting all the lands of the Roman Empire in a successor empire).

The important point here is that all historians are in agreement that the Roman Empire was not overthrown by another Empire but collapsed and was divided just as the prophecy said it would be. It was not succeeded by a Fifth Empire.

When the the Fourth Empire was divided between the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire, it would not make sense to call the Eastern section a Fifth Empire succeeding the part from which it was divided.

That is not what happened in the case of the other, previous three empires.

When the Third Empire, Greece, broke up, the Hellenized sections did not become new kingdoms. They continued to be part of the Greek Empire but under different leadership. They were taken over eventually by the Roman Empire.

[size:14pt]The nations making up the Roman Empire were not taken over by any other kingdom. That empire collapsed and fell apart, some into the Eastern section and the rest into distinct, separate nations. The Eastern section cannot be said to be a new Empire after Rome because it was simply part of the original empire which broke up. Its very name, Eastern Roman Empire, makes it clear that the Empire was divided permenantly and was never again united. This is stated clearly in the following:

The wikipedia--

Quote:

In the late 3rd century AD, Diocletian established the practice of dividing authority between two emperors, one in the western part of the empire and one in the east, in order to better administer the vast territory. For the next century this practice continued, with occasional periods in which one emperor assumed complete control. However, after the death of Theodosius the Great in 395, no single emperor would ever again hold genuine supremacy over a united Roman Empire. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 as Romulus Augustus was forced to abdicate by Odoacer. The Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire endured until 1453 with the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks led by Mehmed II. Therefore, it is difficult to give an exact date when the Roman Empire ceased to exist, but this article will focus on the empire from 27 BC to the permanent division in AD 395.

The essential point is that the Roman Empire collapsed and was permanently divided. It was not taken over by another, or a fifth, monolithic empire. It was never united again. This is precisely what prophecy said would happen to the Fourth Kingdom.

To say that the Eastern section of the Empire continued is itself proof that the Roman Empire was divided. Some refer to the Eastern section after the breakup as "the Byzantine Empire." But no one believes that the Byzantine Empire succeeded the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire was simply a part of the previous empire. It attempted for a time to bring unity again to the Roman Empire but it failed. The fact that historians speak of the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire is proof that the Roman Empire split up and was never united again. Of course, as you know, the peoples that made up the Western section of the Empire became the European nations of today. Many leaders over the centuries attempted to unite these nations but it has never been done since the breakup.

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- Regardless of this, however, I am at the moment wholly unpersuaded that the 4th kingdom referred to by Daniel is Rome. There are too many compromises with what we know of history that have to be made to come to such a conclusion.

Could you specify all of the significant "compromises," in addition to the two which have been already dealt with?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

You are fully entitled to your belief. However, I would dispute that skepticism about the authenticity of Daniel as a 6th Century BC prophesy necessarily implies those expressing such skepticism also reject all possibility of predictive prophecy.

Do you accept the theoretical possibility only; or do you believe in any particular predictive prophecies?

Do you believe that God knows the future and has communicated this knowledge to His prophets who wrote the prophecies?

If so, could you give an example of such a prophecy?

Quote:

Those who think there are grounds for believing the book to have been written later than the rise of the Macedonian Empire have at least some grounds for that belief and express their understanding in good faith.

I would not deny that they have some grounds for their belief. I would not deny, either, that they sincerely express their understanding.

The main problem is that in order to believe what you argue, a person must believe that the book of Daniel is a fraud and no true prophecy at all. The book claims to have been written by Daniel about future events on the basis of visions and dreams and the teaching of angels. If it is not, then it is fiction.

Having studied the books of Daniel and Revelation for over 25 years, I'm convinced that they are true prophecies, not because I simply want to believe them, but because of the reasonable, historical evidence.

It seems to me that you do not even look for fulfillments in the prophecies. Therefore, if you find that something does not fulfill a prophecy, that fact is not sufficient to cause you to look for what DOES fulfill it.

For instance, you admit that Antiochus E. does not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 7 and 8, yet you still think he is the one Daniel was speaking of, because you don't expect Daniel's prophecy will be truly fulfilled. Why not? Because, evidently, you don't believe there is such a thing as true predictive prophecy.

Let me know if you believe I am mistaken here.

Those that teach this may have good faith in something but it obviously is not good faith in Daniel or in the God of Daniel and Isaiah. See Isaiah 40 to 46.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

More than once less than a dozen; not sure exactly. Yes, but only those available on-line.

Have you studied a commentary on Daniel written by an SDA?

How about Matthew Henry's or Adam Clarke or John Wesley's? They all wrote pretty good ones.