Daniel 11

[Samie]

Daniel is giving us history that will unfold in "mostly" chronological order. Verse 21 refers to Tiberius, the "flood" refers to the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Verse 22 referrences the death of Christ (AD 31).

I say "mostly" unfold in chronological order because there are some problems if we hold fast to this concept as a "rule". Daniel 11:22 could be also be seen as a repeat when the King of the North sets up it's HQ in Jerusalem! Which will ALSO be destroyed again, for the last time.

As we move down chapter 11 we need to follow the order of history which has been fulfilled until we get to Daniel 11:40-45 or so, which remains to be fulfilled. I believe Sister White recognized this when she said the events of Daniel 11 are "almost" fulfilled. The end is near, the prophecy "almost" fully understood.

We find Alexander the Great in Daniel 11:3, for instance, and then on down through history until today, 40 to 45. And by the way, Daniel 11 should be extended into Daniel 12, the first four or five verses anyway. In Daniel 12 we see the story, the history is continuing to unfold. There is no break in the dialog that shows a shift away from the very last end time events.

Can you please show how the king referred to in v21 be referring to different kings until the narrative ends in v45?

[Lysimachus]

Can you please show how the king referred to in v21 be referring to different kings until the narrative ends in v45?

You want to know what is so laughable, yet so tempting to lose our cool with people like you Samie?

Is that if you feel that we haven't cracked the "exact" and "precise" meaning of just ONE SINGLE verse, that this somehow disqualifies the ENTIRE interpretations of Adventism!

And you will hang Adventists on the highest mast in Christendom if you sense that perhaps Adventists have not rounded and squared the meaning of every single verse in an overall understanding of a chapter. Yet with your interpretation, it's OKAY to have a few "question marks" that you will work out later, but NOT Adventists! When they have one or two verses that have not been perfectly rounded and squared to know how it fits in their paradigm, that's NOT ALLOWED you see!

Oh Lord have mercy, the bugginess is more than I can bear!

[ClubV12]

Samie, consider the entire chapter of Daniel 11. It's a "history" lesson. Can we show how Alexander the Great appears in verse three? Can we show how the history progress' through time? Sure can! Daniel 11:22 is an anchor point in that history timeline, 31 AD to be exact. Can we "Show" that Christ was crucified? Sure! But some will still not believe. Some will always question history.

To "SHOW" this in the detail required is really beyond the scope of a single thread. The literal history of Kings and powers that have come and gone covers a 2,300 year period, ending in 1844! Pull up a chair, your gonna need a book, or several, to compare the biblical text with the actual history books. This is the only way your going to be able to put together this incredibly long journey of time and history. Roosenbergs video series that covers this topic is TEN HOURS long! He has a BOOK laying it out. If your seriously interested, you should start there.

For THIS thread, you can take it or leave it, form your own opinions, come up with your own interpretation. Me? I HAVE studied it in depth, Roosenberg has come up with a profoundly detailed interpretation that fits with history very nicely right up to Daniel 11:40-45. From there, we can only intelligently surmise based on current world events who the players might be, how the rest of Daniel 11 might unfold. But Roosenberg would be the first to say he's not totally sure from 40-45 on. It's still prophecy yet to be fulfilled. But he sure nailed the prophecy that HAS been fulfilled!

What ever happened BEFORE Daniel 11:40 no longer interests me that much, it's literally "history". What intriques me is where do we go from here? What does Daniel 11:40-45 and into 12:1-4 really mean? THAT is the burning question!!

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Can you please show how the king referred to in v21 be referring to different kings until the narrative ends in v45?

You want to know what is so laughable, yet so tempting to lose our cool with people like you Samie?

Is that if you feel that we haven't cracked the "exact" and "precise" meaning of just ONE SINGLE verse, that this somehow disqualifies the ENTIRE interpretations of Adventism!

And you will hang Adventists on the highest mast in Christendom if you sense that perhaps Adventists have not rounded and squared the meaning of every single verse in an overall understanding of a chapter. Yet with your interpretation, it's OKAY to have a few "question marks" that you will work out later, but NOT Adventists! When they have one or two verses that have not been perfectly rounded and squared to know how it fits in their paradigm, that's NOT ALLOWED you see!

Oh Lord have mercy, the bugginess is more than I can bear!

What's worng, brother?

[ClubV12]

Here's a link to Roosenbergs 10 part series, you can also buy his book.

http://www.sealingtime.com/media/product...hecy/index.html

[Samie]

Earlier I asked:

Quote:

What about verses 40 to 45? It looks like the same king remains in power starting from verses 21 to 45. Do you think the time frame of verses 40 to 45 lie within the reign of this king?

There is no direct response to the question; however, part of your post reads:

Samie,

...

What ever happened BEFORE Daniel 11:40 no longer interests me that much, it's literally "history". What intriques me is where do we go from here? What does Daniel 11:40-45 and into 12:1-4 really mean? THAT is the burning question!!

What made you conclude the time frame of vv40-45 falls outside the reign of the king in vv21-39, when the Bible details but one and the same king from vv21-45? Can you provide the specific verse(s) in chapter 11 that led you to conclude the king referred to in vv21-39 is different from the king referred to in vv40-45?

[ClubV12]

Whew, you want a verse by verse play? It doesn't appear that you have grasped the concept that Daniel 11 moves through time, it's "history". Verse 20, Augustus Ceaser, 63 BC to 14 AD. Verse 20 could not be Julius/Ocavian because he was assassinated, which implies "anger or in battle". From HISTORY we see that Ceaser fits the description to a tee. Consider the "tax" imposed at the time of Jesus' birth for instance.

...moving on, verse 21, new king, who is he? Tiberius fits with history, take my word for it or study it yourself, whatever. Check the history books for a "match", a fitting description of a king for this verse that followed Ceaser.

Verse 22, the ANCHOR point for AD 31, the crucifixtion.

Verse 23, the rise of the Papacy. It just FITS with history and Daniels description. To understand this point you have to understand the history, get a few books and check it out. This "man of peace" (verse 24) will rule for a limited time. We are NOW in the time of the King of the North, the emerging Papal power. The Kings of the North and the South (the puppets if you would) are both geopolitical and spiritual. Christianity and Islam. The North King attacks from the North, the Crusades. The South King attacks from the South, from the Islam base, get out a map, check it out. The King of the South (Egypt essentially, controlled by Islam) is ALSO a religious power, just like the North King.

Verses 25-28. Jerusalem is right in the middle of all this, getting attacked from both sides. These verses describe the Crusades! The end of all this is the "appointed time" (verse 29), the end of the 1,260 year segment of the 2,300 year prophecy.

Verse 30 puts us in the time frame of 1530 to 1560 or so. Naval battles by Islam, until the Pope intervenes. The council of Trent, etc.

and so forth and so on until we come down to the "time of the end", 1844 and Daniel 11 verse 40 and onward. NOW were getting somewhere. Uriah Smith and many many other scholars down through the years had worked out most of the historical details of Daniel 11 but could only suggest or speculate based on current events of THEIR time what might take place NEXT. Today, for the first time in history we have the clearest view man has EVER had as to how Daniel 11 may finally end. Islam vs Chrisitianity. It was right there before us all this time, so apparent from history, we just never saw it! The conflict has been between Islam and Christianity from around the time of Christ, it continues today.

Verse 40 begins: "At the time of the end...." That would be AFTER the deadly wound, 1798. It would be at the END of the 2,300 year prophecy, 1844. We are now living in the "time of the end".

Verse 45. The glorius holy mountain, Jerusalem, HQ for the final battle, the end of the Great Controversy on earth.

[Samie]

Whew, you entirely missed my point, ClubV12. Again, here's my question:

Quote:

What made you conclude the time frame of vv40-45 falls outside the reign of the king in vv21-39, when the Bible details but one and the same king from vv21-45? Can you provide the specific verse(s) in chapter 11 that led you to conclude the king referred to in vv21-39 is different from the king referred to in vv40-45?

Is my question vague it cannot be understood?

[phkrause]

Here's a break down verse by verse Samie.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post479910

I also think that club gave you another link to a book about Dan 11, pretty good also. Try reading these two and see what you can get out of them.

[ClubV12]

Samie says,

"...the Bible details but one and the same king from vv21-45."

No, it doesn't, and thats the point you keep missing. But your welcome to your own independant view on it.

[Samie]

Here's a break down verse by verse Samie.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post479910

I also think that club gave you another link to a book about Dan 11, pretty good also. Try reading these two and see what you can get out of them.

Thank you for the info. But it did not answer my question. I am looking for a response that addresses the question based on what the Bible says, not on interpretation of what it says.

[ClubV12]

Lets try another approach Samie. Who do YOU think the King is in verse 21? If not Tiberius, then who? If it IS Tiberius, how long did he live and reign?

By assigning the bulk of the chapter to ONE MAN and his lifetime you completely miss the point that Daniel is covering over 2,000 years!

Daniel speaks of very real nations, peoples, countries, kings, not symbolic stuff, but real people. Alexandar the Great, Tiberius, Rome, etc.

[Samie]

Samie says,

"...the Bible details but one and the same king from vv21-45."

No, it doesn't, and thats the point you keep missing. But your welcome to your own independant view on it.

That is why I am asking you where in vv21-45 did you base your conclusion that these verses are referring to different kings. I'm sorry but it appears you based your conclusion on interpretation of what the Bible says rather than on what it says.

I observed the Bible details but one king in vv21-45; you told me, they don't. I asked you which of those verses led you to your conclusion; you gave me interpretations of how you understood those verses. When I reiterated my question, you responded I missed the point.

If your interpretation is really based on what the Bible says, how come you cannot specify what verse or verses in vv21-45 led you to conclude these verses describe not only one king?

How can your position pass the test of a "Thus saith the Lord"?

[Samie]

Lets try another approach Samie. Who do YOU think the King is in verse 21? If not Tiberius, then who? If it IS Tiberius, how long did he live and reign?

By assigning the bulk of the chapter to ONE MAN and his lifetime you completely miss the point that Daniel is covering over 2,000 years!

Daniel speaks of very real nations, peoples, countries, kings, not symbolic stuff, but real people. Alexandar the Great, Tiberius, Rome, etc.

So what is the BIBLICAL basis for the conclusion that Daniel 11:21-45 cannot be fulfilled within the lifespan of a man?

[ClubV12]

What "man" do you have in mind Samie?

One basis is Daniels referrence to the "time of the end". The time we are living in now.

Do you believe Daniel 11 is in the past, HAS been fulfilled and is now over? Relegated to the dust bin of history?

Time, times and a half a time. How long do you think that is Samie?

[Samie]

What "man" do you have in mind Samie?

One basis is Daniels referrence to the "time of the end". The time we are living in now.

Do you believe Daniel 11 is in the past, HAS been fulfilled and is now over? Relegated to the dust bin of history?

Time, times and a half a time. How long do you think that is Samie?

For so many posts I had been consistently requesting but you continually evaded and refused to give me the clear-cut biblical basis of your position that vv21-45 speaks of more than one king. Now, you are asking my position.

I am sorry, but before delving into it, may I know whether your request for my position is one way of saying you cannot really give me the verse(s) I was requesting you to provide? This is just to give you all the possibility there is for you to defend your position based on Scriptures. I hope you understand.

[ClubV12]

Simple question Samie, I've told you who I think the King in verse 21 is and have not avoided anything. My interpretation of this scripture is that it covers more than a 1,000 years of time and multiple nations, kings and people.

If you don't think the King is Tiberius, prove it, using the bible only please.

You say it covers ONE King and all occurs within that Kings lifetime. Who do you think that King is? Fair question, I told you who I think it is AND why I believe that.

I wonder, can you do the same, or only complain?

[Samie]

I am not complaining, ClubV12. I am giving you the chance to prove your position is a "Thus saith the Lord". If it is, praise God. I will humbly admit I had a wrong view and will adopt yours. What's the use of giving my position when you have proven yours is what the Bible says?

But instead you have avoided to directly provide me with the verse upon which you based your conclusion vv21-45 speak of more than one king. This is the issue. Not only who the king in v21 is. ONE or MORE THAN ONE. You said MORE THAN ONE. But until now you refuse to give me the verse upon which you based your position vv21-45 speak of more than one king. I wonder why you cannot admit whether you can provide or not. If you can, give me the verse. If you cannot, will you be humble enough to admit there's none, brother?

[ClubV12]

So who is the King of Daniel 11:21 Samie?

You can't answer because you don't know. Even if you had a guess, you couldn't prove it from scripture, like I DID. Tiberius stands, history proves it, the bible prophesied it.

What do you got, Samie? Who do you think the King is? Answer the question or quit complaining, we have nothing else to discuss if you refuse to answer the question.

[Samie]

ClubV12, I gave you the chance to prove that your position is a "Thus saith the Lord":

Quote:

I am not complaining, ClubV12. I am giving you the chance to prove your position is a "Thus saith the Lord". If it is, praise God. I will humbly admit I had a wrong view and will adopt yours. What's the use of giving my position when you have proven yours is what the Bible says?

But instead you have avoided to directly provide me with the verse upon which you based your conclusion vv21-45 speak of more than one king. This is the issue. Not only who the king in v21 is. ONE or MORE THAN ONE. You said MORE THAN ONE. But until now you refuse to give me the verse upon which you based your position vv21-45 speak of more than one king. I wonder why you cannot admit whether you can provide or not. If you can, give me the verse. If you cannot, will you be humble enough to admit there's none, brother?

But it seems you cannot prove it. So you asked and answered your own question before I could even answer:

So who is the King of Daniel 11:21 Samie?

You can't answer because you don't know. Even if you had a guess, you couldn't prove it from scripture, like I DID. Tiberius stands, history proves it, the bible prophesied it.

What do you got, Samie? Who do you think the King is? Answer the question or quit complaining, we have nothing else to discuss if you refuse to answer the question.

Since you squandered the chance I gave, indirectly showing your position is not a "Thus saith the Lord", here's my position, based on Scriptures:

1. The king of v21 is the same king spoken of until v45 inclusive, against whom the king of the south will wage war (see v40).

This can be proven from directly reading the narrative from v21 to v45 where the same king is being referred all throughout. There is nothing in these verses that show the rise of any other king who replaced him in his reign. This could be the reason why you cannot show the verse I was asking you to provide.

2. The king in v21 = the man of sin = the beast of Rev 13.

This can be proven from the description of this king in v36 which is similar to the description of the man of sin (see 2 Thes 2:3-4) and that of the beast in Rev 13:4-8.

3. This king is directly linked with the setting up of the abomination of desolation (see v31).

In v31, the word translated "arms" in the KJV is the Hebrew "zerowah" which could mean military or political force (see Strong's data <02220>). This force will set up the AoD. The AoD is no other than the image of the beast. The word translated "abomination" in Daniel is the Hebrew "shiqquts" which refers to an idol or image representing pagan deity(see Strongs data <08251>; for parallel verses see 1 Kings 11:5-7; 2 Kings 23:13). The Bible records only one image that will devastate the people of God in the last days, the image of the beast (Rev 13:15).

4. The reign of this King will be up to the time of the 2nd Coming.

The Bible says his conquests will be up to the time when Michael shall "stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:1-2)

The time of trouble described in Dan 12:1 is the great tribulation similarly described by Christ in Matt 24:21. Notice that Christ was explaining to His disciples the rapid succession of events culminating in His 2nd Coming, the starting event being the setting up of the AoD (see Matt 24:15-31; Mark 13:14-27)

No wonder why Paul said the 2nd Coming is not to occur unless the man of sin is first revealed.

You may now post your objections as to why my position is not in accord with Scriptures.

[ClubV12]

Since you squandered your chance to show who the King is in verse 21, Tiberius stands. Or, uh, DID stand, he's dead now, not standing anymore.

What happened is you missed the transition to the NEW rising power in verse 23.

Roman Catholicism, which indeed stays with us until the second coming.

The AoD has nothing to do with the time of trouble, by the way.

[wayfinder]

Since you squandered your chance to show who the King is in verse 21, Tiberius stands. Or, uh, DID stand, he's dead now, not standing anymore.

What happened is you missed the transition to the NEW rising power in verse 23.

Roman Catholicism, which indeed stays with us until the second coming.

The AoD has nothing to do with the time of trouble, by the way.

I would say it has everything to do with it.

Matthew 24:15,21 "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand ),...

21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

The great tribulation, such as has not occurred..., nor never will (again). If you say this happened in the past, then we have nothing to fear of the future.

[wayfinder]

Samie, you are definitely on the right track!

[ClubV12]

Abomination of desolation, started 508 AD, rise of the Roman Papacy, Daniel 11:23. It ruled with great power for a limited time, 1,290 years, Daniel 7:25, Rev 12:6,14

And we have much to fear for the future, the abomination, the Roman Power that came in 508 and was established in 538 will rise again. It will be the power behind the King of the North. It will introduce a time of trouble like the world has never seen, exceeding even the horror of the dark ages.

[Samie]

Since you squandered your chance to show who the King is in verse 21, Tiberius stands. Or, uh, DID stand, he's dead now, not standing anymore.