Learn and unlearn, Belshazzar and the 2300 days

[Kevin H]

Back when I was in college the information on Belshazzar's rule was just under 10 years. This was interesting and was pointed out that this placed Daniel 8 in the year that would make the 2300 evenings-mornings go to the end of Babylon. I've been using this when teaching about the 2300 days. I've reciently come across newer informaion. Before there was a time around an attempted coup where that needed more study, and it was unknown if Nebuchadnezzar's family was able to continue or if they were replaced, and just when it was that Nebonidus started before he moved away from Babylon and Belshazzar started to reign. 

I reciently came across information that appears to have learned more details about the attempted coup, and this suggests that yes, the attempted coup failed and that Nebonidus  was indeed  Nebuchadnezzar's decendent, with Belshazzar being his son. This also suggests that Nebonidus did not rule on his own, but that it was indeed Belshazzar ruling from the time of the attempted coup; with the coup being 16 years before the fall of Babylon.  We will see what more information develops, but right now the evidence is that Belshazzar ruled for 16 years instead of the 10 years that it looked like a few decades ago. This does not have the 2300 days covering from Belshazzar's thrid year to the year of the fall of Babylon. So I need to stop teaching this, and since I've shared it here several times, and I don't know if anyone has repeated this. We will see how studies continue, but for now this does not appear to fit current understanding of the historical context. 

[Theophilus]

I dont understand if you are just throwing that information in, or you believe it has to do with the dates of the prophecy.You're right to stop teaching that the 2300-day prophecy starts in Belshazzar’s third year—that was never the intended interpretation. The current understanding ties it to Medo-Persian and later Greek dominions (as per Daniel 8), and Daniel 9 gives the interpretive key with the 70 weeks beginning at 457 BC, connecting it to the larger 2300-day timeline.

[Theophilus]

The third year is when Daniel received the vision

[Gustave]

As a general rule would SDA's accept as a possibility that Jesus during His earthly ministry would have celebrated a pagan festival or festival of any kind that would lead people astray from the truth? 

[Gregory Matthews]

So, Gustave, what is your point?

[Gustave]

I was looking over the O.P. which mentions the 2300 days of the prophecy in Daniel (or better said, 'evenings & mornings') in the context of the reign of Belshazzar. Given that Jesus celebrated Hannukah - & Hannukah celebrates the cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem I've never understood how this part of SDA theology works? If nothing unclean can enter into heaven and Jesus was present at THE Hannukah celebration wouldn't that indicate that a future fulfillment (of the Temple being made right) post Maccabees is untenable? 

[NOTE:  I have corrected a typo in the above post--GM.]

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  Gustave is correct:  "Evenings and mornings" is a more accurate translation.  SDA publications have recognized this for many years.  Whether the typical  SDA member is aware to this is going to vary from person to person.

[Kevin H]

On 5/4/2025 at 10:05 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  Gustave is correct:  "Evenings and mornings" is a more accurate translation.  SDA publications have recognized this for many years.  Whether the typical  SDA member is aware to this is going to vary from person to person.

Yes, however, even more accurate is to remove the word "and" and just leave a dash "Evenings-Mornings" This indicates cyclic time based on the evenings and mornings of creation week; and the cycles we find in Leviticus 23 and 25 which we also find here and there in Deuteronomy. Leviticus 23 and 25 have the cyclic week of six days plus the Sabbath, six months and either Passover or Yom Kippur, six years and the Sabbatical year, and in Leviticus but NOT in Deuteronomy, six Sabbatical years and the Jubilee. Thus the Hebrew cycles are day=month=year= (in Leviticus only, but not Deuteronomy) Sabbatical year. Thus the cycles we can use in Daniel 8:14 would be days, month and/or years (Since Daniel is based on Deuteronomy, and was a student of Jeremiah, who there is evidence that Jeremiah was likely the Deuteronomic Historian and possibily the final editor of Moses, the book of the law, into our Deuteronomy, we need to limit the 2300 evenings-mornings  cycles to days, months, or years.)

Some people want to fit it into the two sacrifices and thus 1150 days and apply it to Antiochus Epiphanes. However, while it fit's him a little better than 2300 days, they still do not fit well (conservative commentaries tend to over look this, more liberal commentaries tend not to.) However, the term for the sacrifices are "Morning and Evening" I've read a couple of commentaries that said that the writer of Daniel was clearly Dyslexic because he meant to write "Morning and Evening" but his dyslexia caused him to write it "Evenings-Mornings." putting the two words in oposite locations and forgetting the word "and". 

There is evidence that supports the Adventist understanding of Daniel 8:14. However, it turns out that one of these pieces of evidence that I had learned from years ago has not stood up as we learn more. I just want to be honest and not leave out there outdated information. 

It's been said that a medical professor would start out the first day for that school's med students with the phrase "Half of what you learn from me and in these next 4 years of medical school will be wrong, however, we do not yet know which half." and one of my professors used to say "Students often ask me if I'll give the same final exam that I gave the last semester. I reply 'yes, but that does not mean that you can take that exam and not study, because while the questions do not change the answers may change as we learn more."

Now, if the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the 2300 Evenings-Mornings did not have merrit, we would find little if any evidence supporting it, and much evidence against it. However, there is a fair amount of evidence to indicate that we are on the right track. And over the years more evidence has come to support it, this is just one piece of evidence that, at least current information and understanding of the information, indicates that we can no longer list this among the evidence. 

[Gustave]

My point is that the Jews of Jesus' earthly time (and Jesus as well) attributed Chanukah to be celebration of Daniel's 2300 evening / morning prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus was present at this celebration in Israel - this is why I asked if SDA's believed Jesus would participate in a false religious celebration. Can anyone imagine Jesus showing up for a party celebrating Zeus or Molech? 

11 Facts About Antiochus Every Jew Should Know - Chabad.org

Hanukkah: Darkness to Light — The Jewish Road

[Kevin H]

On 5/10/2025 at 5:35 PM, Gustave said:

My point is that the Jews of Jesus' earthly time (and Jesus as well) attributed Chanukah to be celebration of Daniel's 2300 evening / morning prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus was present at this celebration in Israel - this is why I asked if SDA's believed Jesus would participate in a false religious celebration. Can anyone imagine Jesus showing up for a party celebrating Zeus or Molech? 

11 Facts About Antiochus Every Jew Should Know - Chabad.org

Hanukkah: Darkness to Light — The Jewish Road

Daniel was focused on the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom, whether it was due to the exile ending in a second exodus lead by the Messiah, or a lackluster return to the land and the reestablishment of the kingdom (with Zerubbabel). When Zerubbable did not end up carrying on the Davidic Kingdom, it appeared that the prophecies failed. Daniel appears to have gotten placed on the shelf. 

The book of Daniel has the section telling about Daniel, and the section where Daniel talks in the first person. The traditional view is that Daniel was written by Daniel himself. the popular alternative view is that Daniel was written by someone who was living under the Antiochus persecution. In the last century Fundamentalists, who would normally hold with the traditional view has changed over to supporting the Antiochus view and wants Daniel 8:14 to be dealing with the Antiochus situation. Now neither 2300 days nor 1550 days fit the Antiochus situation. Non-Fundamentalist scholars are open about this not fitting, I read in one commentary that it does not need to fit since it was just wishful thinking. Fundamentalists commentaries tend to ignore that neither number fits. 

The 1150 comes from making the 2300 evenings-mornings into the morning and evening sacrifices and since there are two sacrifices thus dividing 2300 by 2 and coming to 1150 days. A difficulty is that the term for the morning and evening sacrifices are "morning and evening" not "evenings-mornings". A couple of commentaries said that this was due to either Daniel or a scribe suffering from dyslexia, switching the words mornings and evenings and forgetting the word "and" between them. 

Arguments against Daniel being the author include that some of the descriptions of Babylon are not correct and if Daniel was the author then he would have gotten this information correct. However, a new set of arguments have come up (It's not just when Belshazzar’s third year was that are affected by deeper study) is that while it has some information wrong, there are other parts of Babylon's history that the book has amazingly correct, things that would have been long since forgotten by the time of Antiochus. So there is a growing trend among scholars for a new understanding of Daniel. 

This new approach says that there was indeed a Daniel who served in Babylon and the early Medio-Persia. Daniel would have had students. After Daniel died, and before Zerubbabel failed to restart the David Monarchy, that one or more of Daniel's students, took Daniel's history and wrote the first part, then used the actual writings by their teacher for the second part. This would explain both why the book of Daniel is not quite as perfect as if it flowed from Daniel's pen, but perfectly fits the historical situation of Daniel's interest in the reestablishment of the David Monarchy, the things incorrect about Babylon, yet the correct information about Babylon that were long burried in the archaeological layers by the time of Antiochus  Now, there are passages that are clearly scribal notes which are arugued if they got in before or during the Antiochus situation. 

I hope this helps: KH 

PS What do you mean in your question 

Quote

I asked if SDA's believed Jesus would participate in a false religious celebration. Can anyone imagine Jesus showing up for a party celebrating Zeus or Molech? 

You have something on your mind that is not coming across in what I'm reading from you. I have no idea what it is. It seems confusing that you somehow connect the book of Daniel to Jesus participating in false relifious celebration. I'm trying to piece together if maybe you are calling Hanukkah a false religious celebration? Nothing I'm trying seems to make any sense. Please help me out, then I can try to answer your question. 

[Gustave]

Jesus was a Jew who lived with and spoke to other Jews - all these Jews believed that Daniel's prophecy about the 2300 evenings & morning was fulfilled when the Maccabean revolt restored the Temple (& worship). This event was celebrated by Jews (and Christ). It would seem that if the rededication of the Temple was not a fulfillment of the 2300 evenings and morning of the Book of Daniel Jesus wouldn't have participated in celebrating the event. That's what I was getting at. 

 

[Kevin H]

On 5/18/2025 at 10:15 PM, Gustave said:

Jesus was a Jew who lived with and spoke to other Jews - all these Jews believed that Daniel's prophecy about the 2300 evenings & morning was fulfilled when the Maccabean revolt restored the Temple (& worship). This event was celebrated by Jews (and Christ). It would seem that if the rededication of the Temple was not a fulfillment of the 2300 evenings and morning of the Book of Daniel Jesus wouldn't have participated in celebrating the event. That's what I was getting at. 

 

This view eventually grew to be a possibility, but it was not yet a developed theory by Jesus day. 

Jesus celebrating  Hanukkah did not need it to be connected to the 2300 evenings-mornings. Neither the 2300 days or 1150 days really fit the Antichous situation. While there is evidence that the book of Daniel was used to give hope to go through the situation, the theory that Daniel was about the Antichous situation had not yet formed.  You are taking later thought and theories and assuming that they were seen as fact prior to the development of the theory.  Also, there is too much in Daniel that does not fit the Antichous situation.  Jesus placed the abomination that causes desolation, that the theory applied to the Antichous situation, Jesus said that Daniel's prophecy was still future. 

The temple was redidicated after the Antichous persecution. This redidication was celebrated by the Jews. Jesus celebrated the event. Jesus used the consept of the event as the setting for the resurrection of Lazarous. But this does not mean that Jesus tied this event to the book of Daniel. We remember D day every June 6. This does not mean that we see D day as a specific fulfillment and the message of the book of Daniel, even thought the Bible gave those going through D. Day and their families comfort, and the prophecy of Daniel 2 indicates the failure of attempts to join the toes together. 

[Gustave]

I've reached out to some very Jewish sources I've spoken with in the past and will report back as to what they say. I'm not an expert by any means in what Jews do or don't ascribe to the Book of Daniel or its connection [of lack thereof] to the celebration of Hanukkah. I do know what Judaism claims about the day and what it commemorates. You say there isn't a connection to Daniel 8. I'll be finding out shortly and if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it. 

[Gustave]

Start at the 14:21 mark, fortunately there is enough English spoken here to get the gist of what he's saying. 

Daniel - Chapter 8 - Nach Yomi - OU Torah

 

Would you agree that Josephus [the Jewish historian] attributed the celebration of Hanukkah to the prophecy Daniel made in Chapter 8 and that according to Josephus the Jews in Jesus' day believed Hanukkah commemorated fulfillment of the 2300 evening and morning prophecy? 

I'll wait until I hear back from my conservative Jewish sources before I challenge what you said but was interested in your views on Josephus' commentary. I'm referencing Book 10, Chapter 11 of Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus. 

The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus

Here is the part I felt salient to our conversation. 

"that the he-goat signified that one should come and reign from the Greeks, who should twice fight with the Persian, and overcome him in battle, and should receive his entire dominion: that by the great horn which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat was meant the first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of the earth, signified the successors that should arise after the death of the first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be neither his children, nor of his kindred, that should reign over the habitable earth for many years; and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away their political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years' time. And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel; and may thence discover how the Epicureans are in an error, who cast Providence out of human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator; which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a Providence, and so perish, and come to nought."

I'm just trying to get a radar fix on where you are coming from. 

[phkrause]

On 5/21/2025 at 10:37 PM, Gustave said:

Start at the 14:21 mark, fortunately there is enough English spoken here to get the gist of what he's saying. 

Daniel - Chapter 8 - Nach Yomi - OU Torah

What I got out of this Rabbi is that he's just an interpreter, plan and simple! I'll give you my opinion of Jewish theologians, they have no clue of the actual prophetic messages of Daniel, or what the Bible is telling them?? Sorry to say it that way, but at the moment I can't think of how to explain it any different. I also take what they say with a grain of salt!! They really don't even consider Daniel a Prophet of any kind so they don't even consider the book of Daniel Prophetic?? Again what this rabbi is doing is just interpreting for us in this video, the Hebrew into English and trying to explain to us what he thinks in means. That's just my opinion of this video and the Rabbi doing the interpreting!!

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, phkrause said:

What I got out of this Rabbi is that he's just an interpreter, plan and simple! I'll give you my opinion of Jewish theologians, they have no clue of the actual prophetic messages of Daniel, or what the Bible is telling them?? Sorry to say it that way, but at the moment I can't think of how to explain it any different. I also take what they say with a grain of salt!! They really don't even consider Daniel a Prophet of any kind so they don't even consider the book of Daniel Prophetic?? Again what this rabbi is doing is just interpreting for us in this video, the Hebrew into English and trying to explain to us what he thinks in means. That's just my opinion of this video and the Rabbi doing the interpreting!!

 

Would you agree that Flavius Josephus, in what he said in Antiquities of the Jews, was reflecting the common Jewish understanding of Hanukkah - i.e. that the Festival of Lights commemorates / celebrates the rededication of the Temple and that the contamination of the Temple was "prophesied" by Daniel and fulfilled prior to the birth of Christ? 

In any event Jews believe that Daniel possessed "ruach ha-kodesh" - which is believed [by Jews] to deliver a higher level of detail / revelation than was generally attributed to "prophets". I'm not sure where the negative connotation is coming from with what Jew's ascribe / don't ascribe to Daniel? I'd be interested in seeing this? 

[Kevin H]

On 5/24/2025 at 8:57 PM, Gustave said:

 

Would you agree that Flavius Josephus, in what he said in Antiquities of the Jews, was reflecting the common Jewish understanding of Hanukkah - i.e. that the Festival of Lights commemorates / celebrates the rededication of the Temple and that the contamination of the Temple was "prophesied" by Daniel and fulfilled prior to the birth of Christ? 

In any event Jews believe that Daniel possessed "ruach ha-kodesh" - which is believed [by Jews] to deliver a higher level of detail / revelation than was generally attributed to "prophets". I'm not sure where the negative connotation is coming from with what Jew's ascribe / don't ascribe to Daniel? I'd be interested in seeing this? 

Not necessarly.  But the application of Daniel to Antichous is not based on the historical context of the book of Daniel, but how many Jews returned to the book of Daniel to help them through the crisis. There is too much in the book that does not fit Antichous. When Daniel and his disciples were by the rivers of Babylon they were not focused on Antichous (nor the pope for that matter.) They were interested in the coming of the messiah and the return to the land (whether a second great exodus lead by the Messiah, or a lackluster return in which case what they were to do when back in the land to prepare for Messiah.)  God's people always look for how to apply the text to help in current situations over history. Some of these become very strong, others, not so strong as the time passes. The book of Daniel covers too much that would have been known by the generation just after Daniel's death, but was long forgotten by the time of Antichous; and too much that people try to say is about Anthichous, but which is simply wrong and those who support the Antichous application needs to keep either ignoring the problems, or coming up with excuses (such as needing Daniel to suffer from Dyslexia in writing 2300 evenings-mornings when he "intended" to write 2300 mornings and evenings. 

Yes, the book of Daniel gave comfort to those living under Antichous, but the principles fit much better the ministry of Jesus, as well as the Flavian Emperors and the Papacy. 

[Gustave]

I didn't clarify what I was trying to get across very good. Would you say that Jews, at the time of Christ, who practiced Judaism, believed that the Festival of Lights commemorated the rededication of the Temple from the actions of Antiochus and that the Jews (at the time of Christ) understood the defilement of the Temple was the same defilement described by Daniel prior to the defilement taking place? 

[Kevin H]

We western Greek thinkers tend to view time as a time line, with the past, I'm now in the present, then there is the future. 

Eastern thinkers, that Hebrew came out of saw things as cycles (the idea of reincarnation is a poor application of this).  The Hebrews had this cyclic thought, however with a begining and a coming kingdom of God. 

The festival of lights commemorated the rededication of the temple from the actions of Antichous.  We do not find evidence of them making the strong connection that we are finding among people today who insist in setting Daniel in the context of Antiochus and directly talking about the Antiochus situation. This is a modern idea that stems from the counter reformation. 

There is evidence that in the Antiochus crisis Jews turned to the book of Daniel for comfort, but no more than we turn to the Bible for comfort in crisis in our lives. 

Jesus saw the defiliment of the temple as something that did not yet take place; and do not have record of him needing to explain why it is still future and was not fulfilled by Daniel being applied to the Antiochus situation. 

[Gustave]

I finally got a call back from Rabbi Hahn Yisorel with Chabad. I asked if Hannukah commemorated the Temple being rededicated after the contamination of Antiochus AND he said it did. I also asked if the contamination was predicted in the Book of Daniel and he said it definitely was. I was also invited to listen to a globally recognized Jewish speaker who will be at the Westin Hotel here in Seattle on the 10th. I've got some additionally lines in the water on this question, so I'll see what those other sources say but thus far one Rabbi was explicit that Antiochus was who was spoken of in Daniel and Festival of Lights commemorates the temple being set right from the pollution of Antiochus. 

[Kevin H]

Modern tradition in any religion does not mean that is the older understandings, nor does it mean that the tradition stands up to careful Bible Study.  

The evidence points to the book of Daniel being written by one or more of his students between Daniel's death and when the Jews gave up trying to re-establish the David Kingship over the people. The book has some errors that Daniel himself would not have said, but which would have been the understandings of the next generation, as well as facts that were long lost by the time of Antiochus. 

Daniel was focused on the exile, how to spread the gospel in the context of the exile, first expecting the exile to end in a second great exodus lead by the Messiah. Then encouraging repentance, and finally information needed in returning to the land in a lackluster return, but how to prepare for the coming Messiah and how to live in the land over the 70 weeks of years. 

When Zerubbabel did not re-establish the David Kingship, it looked like Daniel was a failed prophecy.  Daniel was writing about life in Babylon and early Persia. Daniel and his disciples who compiled/wrote the book knew nothing about Antiochus and couldn't care less about him. 

The 70 weeks of years is amazing in it's predictions about Jesus. 

Eventually, centuries later when Antiochus came, Jews pulled Daniel off their shelves and blew the dust off of it and used it for comfort just like 81 years ago soldiers going into D-Day, and their families at home turned to the Bible for comfort. 

Some of the Jews, wanting to distance Jesus from the prophecies of Daniel, looked for a different approach, and latched on to how the book was a comfort in the time of Antiochus, and changed the focus of the book. (Also, the way some Jews wanted to move the Bible from pointing to Jesus is how we got our popular "6,000-year-old world.")

As Protestants were using Daniel against the Papacy, the counter reformation came out with saying that the Protestants were wrong and gave two possible ways for it to be incorrect to apply Daniel to the Papacy. One way was to say that Daniel was writing about things far in the future, and not the world Luther, Calvin and others were living in. The second possibility was to make Daniel about the Antiochus situation. 

Later as evolution was growing and atheism was becoming popular, atheists latched on to the Antiochus time period to say that Daniel did not make these amazing prophecies, but that they were written after the fact by someone pretending to write prophecy and pretending to have lived back in Babylon, while he actually was living in the time of Antiochus. Then, with nothing seeming to have happened after 2300 years, yet the Seventh-day Adventists continued to hold on to the 2300 evenings-mornings prophecy, other Protestants gave up traditional understandings and latched on to the Antiochus situation as the setting of Daniel. 

Just because some Jews wanted to turn the prophecies away from Jesus, and just because some Catholics wanted to turn the Protestant spotlight away from the Pope, and just because some people don't like how Seventh-day Adventists hold to the 2300 evenings-mornings, just because people have ulterior motives from wanting Daniel to stand as it says, does not make their excuses to explain away Daniel the truth about Daniel. 

[phkrause]

On 6/7/2025 at 10:11 PM, Kevin H said:

Some of the Jews, wanting to distance Jesus from the prophecies of Daniel, looked for a different approach, and latched on to how the book was a comfort in the time of Antiochus, and changed the focus of the book.

Exactly!! Like I've mentioned a few times I have no confidence in any of these Jewish Rabbis or philosophers(sp?), etc.!!

 

On 6/7/2025 at 10:11 PM, Kevin H said:

As Protestants were using Daniel against the Papacy, the counter reformation came out with saying that the Protestants were wrong and gave two possible ways for it to be incorrect to apply Daniel to the Papacy. One way was to say that Daniel was writing about things far in the future, and not the world Luther, Calvin and others were living in. The second possibility was to make Daniel about the Antiochus situation. 

I Definitely agree!!