Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 89101112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 311

Thread: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    3,534
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, it's a recap because the withdrawal in vs 30 *follows* the battle in vs. 29. Also, the withdrawal in vs 44 *follows* the battles in vss. 40-43.
    Your claim is unsupported by the actual texts.

    Dan 11:29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

    30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

    The above leaves no doubt that v29 occurred BEFORE v30. The key is that (a) he came to the south (b) but this campaign wasn't as successful as before. Verse 30 gives the reason for this failure. Verses 29-30 are therefore in progressive order. Further, I see no withdrawal in v44.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't see this discussion of the King of the North vs. the King of the South suddenly being disrupted by mention of a mysterious new king! If this new king was Herod it would be a huge leap out of the context of Antiochus 4's time to 150 years later, which seems utterly absurd to me! Some of the circumstances may appear to fit, but I think fitting Herod in there is too far beyond the context.
    The 150-year gap is true. Antiochus kingdom greatly diminished after their loss to the Maccabees. The Hasmoneans reigned thereafter for over 100 years, even after capitulating to Pompey they still managed to hold on close to the 1st advent of Christ. It would help if you can recognize that the battle in v40 is the battle of Actium (recorded in detail by the Roman historian, Plutarch) you'll then accept that Antiochus was long dead before that war (v40).

    penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/lives/antony*.html

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, Antiochus 4 invaded Cyprus first, and then when he pursued his 2nd invasion of Egypt he was halted by the Romans. The battle mentioned in vs. 40 is a little puzzling to me, but it may be a general description of Antiochus 4's overall pursuit of Egypt.
    The battle in v40 is the war between Mark Antony with the Ptolemaic queen, Cleopatra and Octavius Caesar called at Actium, near Greece. Here is a relevant excerpt from the link above showing Herod in the war.

    71 1 These are a few things out of many concerning Timon. As for Antony, Canidius in person brought him word of the loss of his forces at Actium, and he heard that Herod the Jew, with sundry legions and cohorts, had gone over to Caesar, and that the other dynasts in like manner were deserting him and nothing longer remained of his power outside of Egypt.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not claiming that Antiochus 4 sailed to Cyprus *after* being restrained by Rome. Rather, I'm saying that Antiochus 4 sailed to Cyprus *before* proceeding to Egypt during his 2nd Egyptian campaign. It was only after arriving in Egypt that Rome warned Antiochus 4 to cease and desist.
    This may well be the case, but the fact remains that he (Antiochus) was not involved in v40.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It gives me a little pause, but the overall record appears to be consistent with Antiochus 4's campaign vs. Egypt. He wrecks havoc on Egypt, both in his initial campaign and later in his 2nd campaign, attacking Egypt's rule in Cyprus and then proceeding with his cavalry to Egypt.

    The bulk of Antiochus' attack on Egypt during his 2nd campaign may have been on Cyprus, and merely an attempt to reinforce his earlier victories in Egypt. But as we know he was diverted by Rome and went forth to fight both Israel and Persia in the last part of his rule. This is basically what the account indicates.

    In 11.40 we have an indication that Antiochus 4's power begins to wane at the time of his 2nd Egyptian campaign. But then following we have basically a recap, or summary, of Antiochus 4's achievements in battle. He conquered Egypt and several countries, including areas under Egyptian control, Israel, and Persia. However, after the Romans warned him, his power receded. Rome was, I think, the 4th great Kingdom in Daniel's dream, and destined to overcome Greece, the 3rd great Kingdom.
    I just happen to disagree that Antiochus is the king of the north in v40 for the reasons already given.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The prophecy is not saying that Antiochus put his royal tent where he died in Babylon. Rather, it says he established what I think was his royal military tent near Jerusalem to fight the Jews. Then, he went East to fight the Persians, and died on his return journey.
    If you read v45 you will see that "planting the tabernacle of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain" is closely associated with his death. The assumption that he pitched his "military tent near Jerusalem" and went to off to fight the Persians and died thereafter is not a genuine reflection of the passage. How did Antiochus fulfil v44?

  2. #272

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Your claim is unsupported by the actual texts.

    Dan 11:29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

    30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

    The above leaves no doubt that v29 occurred BEFORE v30. The key is that (a) he came to the south (b) but this campaign wasn't as successful as before. Verse 30 gives the reason for this failure. Verses 29-30 are therefore in progressive order. Further, I see no withdrawal in v44.
    I don't know what the source of the confusion is? I've been telling you from the beginning that vs 29, the battle w/ Egypt, occurs *before* vs 30, the withdrawal! And yes, vs 44 is for me the same thing, the withdrawal prompted by the Romans, who brought pressure to bear on Antiochus' northern holdings. Israel was apparently emboldened to revolt against Antiochus due to Rome's challenge to Antiochus' territories outside of Syria.

    11.44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    The 150-year gap is true. Antiochus kingdom greatly diminished after their loss to the Maccabees. The Hasmoneans reigned thereafter for over 100 years, even after capitulating to Pompey they still managed to hold on close to the 1st advent of Christ. It would help if you can recognize that the battle in v40 is the battle of Actium (recorded in detail by the Roman historian, Plutarch) you'll then accept that Antiochus was long dead before that war (v40).
    As I said, I cannot accept this because of the 150 year gap! I cannot justify making such a leap from one section (vss. 21-35) to the other section (vss. 36-45). There is no basis for doing so!

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/lives/antony*.html

    The battle in v40 is the war between Mark Antony with the Ptolemaic queen, Cleopatra and Octavius Caesar called at Actium, near Greece. Here is a relevant excerpt from the link above showing Herod in the war.

    71 1 These are a few things out of many concerning Timon. As for Antony, Canidius in person brought him word of the loss of his forces at Actium, and he heard that Herod the Jew, with sundry legions and cohorts, had gone over to Caesar, and that the other dynasts in like manner were deserting him and nothing longer remained of his power outside of Egypt.
    Why should I jump ahead 100 years to fit Rome into this passage when Antiochus 4 fits it equally well, if not better? I'm not arguing that you can't fit Rome into the passage. I'm just arguing that you cannot justify doing so, based on the natural flow of ideas.

    It is the same with those who want to jump ahead 2000 years and find "the king" in vs. 36 to be the Antichrist. There is absolutely no justification for doing so based on the flow of ideas. The whole section has to do with Antiochus 4, and naturally continues to refer to him as "the king" in vss. 36-44. Your concerns are noted, but are not overwhelming to me. They do not "tip the balance" against Antiochus in favor of Rome in my mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    This may well be the case, but the fact remains that he (Antiochus) was not involved in v40.
    That has not been determined in my mind, and thus is purely an assertion on your part, as far as I'm concerned. It makes far more sense to have Antiochus in vs 40 than to have either Rome or Antichrist in vs 40, far, far removed from what the entire passage has been talking about!

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    I just happen to disagree that Antiochus is the king of the north in v40 for the reasons already given.
    That's okay, brother. We don't have to solve all of the world's problems, or answer every biblical question right now. We can look at the problems presented and think about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    If you read v45 you will see that "planting the tabernacle of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain" is closely associated with his death. The assumption that he pitched his "military tent near Jerusalem" and went to off to fight the Persians and died thereafter is not a genuine reflection of the passage. How did Antiochus fulfil v44?
    Again, the passage does not speak in linear fashion. Anybody who studies style in literature will understand that there is no necessity to speak or write in geometric, linear fashion! One does not have to proceed, like a mathematician or philosopher, from point a to point b to point c, starting in 2010, proceeding to January of 2011, and ending at December of 2012.

    That is because writers tend to move around in their conversation, reflecting, recapitulating, summarizing, etc. This passage is replete with this kind of thing.

    The passage, in my view, talks about Antiochus 4 and his very important place at this time in history. He is a great threat to Egypt, and thus, to territory around Egypt, like Israel, Cyprus, and Persia. He begins great, but then suffers a severe decline, responding to it with great rage directed against God.

    The elements of the story, such as the campaigns in Egypt, and the desecration committed against Israel, is repeated several different times. And if so, none of this can be put in linear fashion, and viewed as a strictly linear sequence of events.

    But that's just how I look at it.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    3,534
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't know what the source of the confusion is? I've been telling you from the beginning that vs 29, the battle w/ Egypt, occurs *before* vs 30, the withdrawal! And yes, vs 44 is for me the same thing, the withdrawal prompted by the Romans, who brought pressure to bear on Antiochus' northern holdings. Israel was apparently emboldened to revolt against Antiochus due to Rome's challenge to Antiochus' territories outside of Syria.

    11.44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him.
    There is NO battle in v29 so you're effectively manufacturing one.

    Dan 11:28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

    The passage above tells us that Antiochus has already gone home with his spoils from the last campaign. Now, contrast the above with v29-30:

    Dan 11:29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
    Dan 11:30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

    So where is this battle you believe occurred in v29? 11.44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him.

    Let's look at v44; from Egypt where you believe Antiochus is at this time, Israel is neither the east nor the north. The centre will be more befitting, wouldn't you say? From Egypt, the north will be his home base Syria, but the problem is that no news of record came from Syria to trouble him, so your explanation doesn't fit.

    On the other hand, the text fits Herod: the news from the east is the Maggi going to Bethlehem to see baby Jesus (Matt 2:2-3). With the power shift since the near collapse of the Seleucid kingdom, the north at this time is Rome with the Romans now fully entrenched in Jerusalem. Herod heard that his son, Antipater who was then in Rome, was planning to usurp his throne.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As I said, I cannot accept this because of the 150 year gap! I cannot justify making such a leap from one section (vss. 21-35) to the other section (vss. 36-45). There is no basis for doing so!
    The Six Syrian wars spanned 103 years if you start from the first in 271 BC and walk back to the last in 168BC when Antiochus encountered the Romans. If you remove 103 years, you have 47 years left to the battle of Actium. So the leap is not that much.

    1 First Syrian War (274–271 BC)
    2 Second Syrian War (260–253 BC)
    3 Third Syrian War (246–241 BC)
    4 Fourth Syrian War (219–217 BC)
    5 Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BC)
    6 Sixth Syrian War (170–168 BC)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Wars

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Why should I jump ahead 100 years to fit Rome into this passage when Antiochus 4 fits it equally well, if not better? I'm not arguing that you can't fit Rome into the passage. I'm just arguing that you cannot justify doing so, based on the natural flow of ideas.

    It is the same with those who want to jump ahead 2000 years and find "the king" in vs. 36 to be the Antichrist. There is absolutely no justification for doing so based on the flow of ideas. The whole section has to do with Antiochus 4, and naturally continues to refer to him as "the king" in vss. 36-44. Your concerns are noted, but are not overwhelming to me. They do not "tip the balance" against Antiochus in favor of Rome in my mind.
    Talking about free flow, over 100 years has gone since Antiochus was summarily forced out of Egypt, so the 40 or so odd years to the battle of Actium in v40 is not illogical as you make it.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That has not been determined in my mind, and thus is purely an assertion on your part, as far as I'm concerned. It makes far more sense to have Antiochus in vs 40 than to have either Rome or Antichrist in vs 40, far, far removed from what the entire passage has been talking about!
    Once you recognise that v40 is not a recapitulation as you have believed and accept that it occurred several years AFTER Antiochus' death, the disconnect (with regards to Antiochus) between vss 21-35 and 36-45 becomes very clear. Why don't you research the battle of Actium; confirm the date it was fought and compare it with the recorded death of Antiochus and see if they correspond?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That's okay, brother. We don't have to solve all of the world's problems, or answer every biblical question right now. We can look at the problems presented and think about them.
    True. We can't solve every problem or agree on ALL topics. But I've always known you to be apt to research, I, therefore, cannot understand why you seem reluctant to explore this?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Again, the passage does not speak in linear fashion. Anybody who studies style in literature will understand that there is no necessity to speak or write in geometric, linear fashion! One does not have to proceed, like a mathematician or philosopher, from point a to point b to point c, starting in 2010, proceeding to January of 2011, and ending at December of 2012.

    That is because writers tend to move around in their conversation, reflecting, recapitulating, summarizing, etc. This passage is replete with this kind of thing.

    The passage, in my view, talks about Antiochus 4 and his very important place at this time in history. He is a great threat to Egypt, and thus, to territory around Egypt, like Israel, Cyprus, and Persia. He begins great, but then suffers a severe decline, responding to it with great rage directed against God.

    The elements of the story, such as the campaigns in Egypt, and the desecration committed against Israel, is repeated several different times. And if so, none of this can be put in linear fashion, and viewed as a strictly linear sequence of events.

    But that's just how I look at it.
    You are entitled to your interpretation of the text, even though I don't agree with it, I have to respect it

  4. #274

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    There is NO battle in v29 so you're effectively manufacturing one.
    Not at all. I'm referring to what is written there--not what I'm imagining.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    Dan 11:28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

    The passage above tells us that Antiochus has already gone home with his spoils from the last campaign. Now, contrast the above with v29-30:
    We were talking about vs. 29--not vs. 28.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    Dan 11:29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
    How is it that you're missing this? How is it that this is said, and you then say I'm "manufacturing" this out of nowhere. Read it: "At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south."

    If this isn't a "battle," what is it? It is a trip to the south, towards Egyptian territory. That is beyond question a maneuver being taken in a *conflict!*

    Now it may be argued about what the conflict consisted of, but it is undoubtedly a maneuver designed as part of a conflict--a strategic move. As Antiochus turned his sights back towards Egypt, during his 2nd Egyptian campaign, which was in 168 BC, he planned and executed an attack on Egyptian territory in Cyprus. But I've already mentioned this. This was a *naval conflict.* This was a *battle!*

    And then Antiochus turned towards Egypt proper with his cavalry, and was stopped short of Alexandria. But he apparently did take a large part of Egypt, including Memphis. This is a *battle!* This is a conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    Dan 11:30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

    So where is this battle you believe occurred in v29? 11.44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him.
    Once again, here is the passage, and I will insert the battle, which precedes the diversion by Rome. It is following that that Antiochus begins the desecration of Jerusalem and his eastern battles.

    Dan 11.28 The king of the North [Antiochus 4] will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant [Antiochus plunders the temple at Jerusalem in 169 BC]. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.
    29 “At the appointed time he will invade the South again [2nd Egyptian campaign--battle--in 168 BC], but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart [Roman intervention on behalf of Egypt]. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant [desecration of the temple in Jerusalem]. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.
    31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice."


    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    Let's look at v44; from Egypt where you believe Antiochus is at this time, Israel is neither the east nor the north.
    On the contrary, Israel is both east and north of Egypt!

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    The centre will be more befitting, wouldn't you say? From Egypt, the north will be his home base Syria, but the problem is that no news of record came from Syria to trouble him, so your explanation doesn't fit.
    My argument is that news of Rome's warning is what troubled Antiochus. He was concerned about how Rome's resistance to him would affect Israel and Persia, as well as his home in Syria. Antiochus fought in both Israel and Persia in order to solidify his power and presence, due to the decline in power he faced following Egypt's successful resistance to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    On the other hand, the text fits Herod: the news from the east is the Maggi going to Bethlehem to see baby Jesus (Matt 2:2-3). With the power shift since the near collapse of the Seleucid kingdom, the north at this time is Rome with the Romans now fully entrenched in Jerusalem. Herod heard that his son, Antipater who was then in Rome, was planning to usurp his throne.
    Before looking at Herod please try to understand properly what I'm saying about Antiochus 4, because I think you've seriously distorted how I'm seeing him in this passage! Herod appears to be far outside of the context of these Syrian battles, which is the context. Antiochus 4, therefore, much better fits the context, if he is seen properly in these verses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    The Six Syrian wars spanned 103 years if you start from the first in 271 BC and walk back to the last in 168BC when Antiochus encountered the Romans. If you remove 103 years, you have 47 years left to the battle of Actium. So the leap is not that much.
    It is too much to be included in that actual context of the passage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    1 First Syrian War (274–271 BC)
    2 Second Syrian War (260–253 BC)
    3 Third Syrian War (246–241 BC)
    4 Fourth Syrian War (219–217 BC)
    5 Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BC)
    6 Sixth Syrian War (170–168 BC)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Wars



    Talking about free flow, over 100 years has gone since Antiochus was summarily forced out of Egypt, so the 40 or so odd years to the battle of Actium in v40 is not illogical as you make it.

    Once you recognise that v40 is not a recapitulation as you have believed and accept that it occurred several years AFTER Antiochus' death, the disconnect (with regards to Antiochus) between vss 21-35 and 36-45 becomes very clear. Why don't you research the battle of Actium; confirm the date it was fought and compare it with the recorded death of Antiochus and see if they correspond?
    You don't have my story right yet. So perhaps you've dismissed Antiochus 4 too soon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    True. We can't solve every problem or agree on ALL topics. But I've always known you to be apt to research, I, therefore, cannot understand why you seem reluctant to explore this?
    For the reasons I gave you. Herod is far beyond the conflicts being discussed in Dan 11. It is *out of context!* Antiochus 4 may not fit for you because you are not seeing it properly. At least you are certainly not representing my own position properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    You are entitled to your interpretation of the text, even though I don't agree with it, I have to respect it
    I have all the respect in the world for you too. So none of this is personal. Neither am I committed to anything, when presented with reasonable alternatives. However, in this occasion you do not yet understand my position. Not blaming you for that--that's just the reality. Until you demonstrate an actual understanding of my position I do see Antiochus 4 as the more reasonable fit. But thanks for the discussion.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,267
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    There is no naval battle in Dan 11. There are ships mentioned but no battle with those ships. IOW it speaks of invasion.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    3,534
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    We were talking about vs. 29--not vs. 28.
    Sometimes it is necessary to go back a verse or two to get perspective. Remember that the vision is a continuous story before it was broken down into verses?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    How is it that you're missing this? How is it that this is said, and you then say I'm "manufacturing" this out of nowhere. Read it: "At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south."

    If this isn't a "battle," what is it? It is a trip to the south, towards Egyptian territory. That is beyond question a maneuver being taken in a *conflict!*

    Now it may be argued about what the conflict consisted of, but it is undoubtedly a maneuver designed as part of a conflict--a strategic move. As Antiochus turned his sights back towards Egypt, during his 2nd Egyptian campaign, which was in 168 BC, he planned and executed an attack on Egyptian territory in Cyprus. But I've already mentioned this. This was a *naval conflict.* This was a *battle!*

    And then Antiochus turned towards Egypt proper with his cavalry, and was stopped short of Alexandria. But he apparently did take a large part of Egypt, including Memphis. This is a *battle!* This is a conflict.
    1. There is nothing in "At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south." that suggests a battle actually took place. For example, a) the general took his troops to the south. b) the general to his troops to the south and fought the enemy. In which of the two statements did the army fight? Verse 30 (ships of Chittim) says he was "grieved and returned". There would have been a battle had the king of the south not played his trump card. Insisting a battle took place is a disregard for the texts.

    2. Your account of the event is not in proper sequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Once again, here is the passage, and I will insert the battle, which precedes the diversion by Rome. It is following that that Antiochus begins the desecration of Jerusalem and his eastern battles.

    Dan 11.28 The king of the North [Antiochus 4] will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant [Antiochus plunders the temple at Jerusalem in 169 BC]. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.
    29 “At the appointed time he will invade the South again [2nd Egyptian campaign--battle--in 168 BC], but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart [Roman intervention on behalf of Egypt]. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant [desecration of the temple in Jerusalem]. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.
    31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice."
    What you said here is what I've been arguing all along. The only difference is that you want to force v40 into vss 28-31 in the name of recapitulation despite evidence to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    On the contrary, Israel is both east and north of Egypt!
    Israel cannot be north and east of Egypt. If Antiochus heard the news from Judea while in Egypt, the passage wouldn't have said he heard the news from east or north. Moreover, why would Antiochus actions against the sanctuary already stated in detail in vss 30-34 be mentioned in vs 44, but only that the news troubled him? Your recapitulation argument doesn't add up.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    My argument is that news of Rome's warning is what troubled Antiochus. He was concerned about how Rome's resistance to him would affect Israel and Persia, as well as his home in Syria. Antiochus fought in both Israel and Persia in order to solidify his power and presence, due to the decline in power he faced following Egypt's successful resistance to him.
    You're certainly confusing the two: verse 30 is a face-to-face encounter with the Romans that "grieved" him. It should not be confused with "tidings" (news) he heard.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    3,534
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Before looking at Herod please try to understand properly what I'm saying about Antiochus 4, because I think you've seriously distorted how I'm seeing him in this passage! Herod appears to be far outside of the context of these Syrian battles, which is the context. Antiochus 4, therefore, much better fits the context, if he is seen properly in these verses.
    Believe me, I fully understand your argument. Perhaps, you are the one who misunderstands me. I am not arguing that Herod was involved in any of the six Syrian wars in the sense that the battle he was involved in in v40 was not part of the Syrian wars. In fact, no Seleucid king was involved in the battle (Actium 31 BC), whereas Antiochus IV died in 165 BC.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It is too much to be included in that actual context of the passage.
    How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You don't have my story right yet. So perhaps you've dismissed Antiochus 4 too soon?
    Not at all. On the contrary, I've presented a true account of his presence in Dan 11 - which is from vss 21-35. But you want to stretch it down to 45 which is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    For the reasons I gave you. Herod is far beyond the conflicts being discussed in Dan 11. It is *out of context!* Antiochus 4 may not fit for you because you are not seeing it properly. At least you are certainly not representing my own position properly.
    Please brother, give me some credit. No one will ever accuse you of incoherence. Disagreeing with your *position* doesn't amount to "not seeing your case properly or not representing your position properly". I fully understand your position because you always present your case with clarity, I just don't agree with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I have all the respect in the world for you too. So none of this is personal. Neither am I committed to anything, when presented with reasonable alternatives. However, in this occasion you do not yet understand my position. Not blaming you for that--that's just the reality. Until you demonstrate an actual understanding of my position I do see Antiochus 4 as the more reasonable fit. But thanks for the discussion.
    OK. Since you're convinced I didn't understand your position, kindly correct me where am wrong. In summary, you believe:

    1. That the battle in v40 is the same in v29-30.
    2. That the 6th and last of the Syrian wars are found in vss 29,30 and 40.
    3. You see Antiochus IV in Dan 11 extending from vs 21-45.
    4. Therefore, the "king" in v36 (without the description of north or south) is Antiochus.

    I believe these are the salient points, but if I missed any or stated any out of context, feel free to correct me.

    In my view, you need to ascertain whether the battle in v40 is actually that of Actium or part of the Syrian wars. I believe that's the key.

  8. #278

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Believe me, I fully understand your argument. Perhaps, you are the one who misunderstands me. I am not arguing that Herod was involved in any of the six Syrian wars in the sense that the battle he was involved in in v40 was not part of the Syrian wars. In fact, no Seleucid king was involved in the battle (Actium 31 BC), whereas Antiochus IV died in 165 BC.




    How so?



    Not at all. On the contrary, I've presented a true account of his presence in Dan 11 - which is from vss 21-35. But you want to stretch it down to 45 which is incorrect.



    Please brother, give me some credit. No one will ever accuse you of incoherence. Disagreeing with your *position* doesn't amount to "not seeing your case properly or not representing your position properly". I fully understand your position because you always present your case with clarity, I just don't agree with it.



    OK. Since you're convinced I didn't understand your position, kindly correct me where am wrong. In summary, you believe:

    1. That the battle in v40 is the same in v29-30.
    2. That the 6th and last of the Syrian wars are found in vss 29,30 and 40.
    3. You see Antiochus IV in Dan 11 extending from vs 21-45.
    4. Therefore, the "king" in v36 (without the description of north or south) is Antiochus.

    I believe these are the salient points, but if I missed any or stated any out of context, feel free to correct me.

    In my view, you need to ascertain whether the battle in v40 is actually that of Actium or part of the Syrian wars. I believe that's the key.
    I guess you did understand my position then. A few of your statements appeared to indicate you had things a bit backwards, such as the order of the battle *before* the withdrawal. But you do apparently understand this. I appreciate that. You normally have a polite congenial way of dealing with differences--I appreciate that also. I don't mind your being blunt, if I display something thoughtless or mean-spirited, however. We all need a little "wake up" prodding.

    I don't think I have your position out of sorts either. I suppose we'll have to call it a draw for now?

  9. #279

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Sometimes it is necessary to go back a verse or two to get perspective. Remember that the vision is a continuous story before it was broken down into verses?
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    1. There is nothing in "At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south." that suggests a battle actually took place. For example, a) the general took his troops to the south. b) the general to his troops to the south and fought the enemy. In which of the two statements did the army fight? Verse 30 (ships of Chittim) says he was "grieved and returned". There would have been a battle had the king of the south not played his trump card. Insisting a battle took place is a disregard for the texts.

    2. Your account of the event is not in proper sequence.
    So here is where I thought you were misunderstanding me. For simplicity let me just place the whole 6th Syrian War in two phases, the 1st Egyptian Campaign of 170 BC and the 2nd Egyptian Campaign of 168 BC. We are here talking largely about the 2nd Egyptian Campaign of 168 BC. in Dan 11.29 and in Dan 11.40.

    I do understand that the words "at the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south" do not necessarily imply a battle or conflict took place. However, *history records* that conflict did take place, and that a large swath of Egypt was retaken, including the city of Memphis. It seems that only Alexandria and a small area of Egypt was not reconquered--Egypt had largely been conquered in the 1st Campaign.

    You can simply consult an encyclopedia online to verify that this was so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    What you said here is what I've been arguing all along. The only difference is that you want to force v40 into vss 28-31 in the name of recapitulation despite evidence to the contrary.
    Your "evidence" appears to deny that what I'm calling the "2nd Egyptian Campaign" involved a battle. But it did! It involved both the naval invasion of Cyprus and the invasion of Egypt proper. Most of Egypt was taken! How can this not be a "battle?"

    If indeed the 2nd Egyptian Campaign of 168 BC was a battle, and can legitimately fit as a "battle" into Dan 11.29, then it can certainly apply as well to Dan 11.40!

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    Israel cannot be north and east of Egypt. If Antiochus heard the news from Judea while in Egypt, the passage wouldn't have said he heard the news from east or north. Moreover, why would Antiochus actions against the sanctuary already stated in detail in vss 30-34 be mentioned in vs 44, but only that the news troubled him? Your recapitulation argument doesn't add up.
    It does for me. But I would dispute your notion that Israel is not north and east *both* from Egypt. Consulting a map would prove this to be true! Are you saying that because Israel is NE from Egypt that Israel cannot be either north or east of Egypt?

    I live in the Pacific NW of the United States. Would that mean that being in the state of Washington I am neither north nor west of Texas, simply because I'm NW of Texas?

    Neither do I understand your protest of two separate mentions of the same event. I've already suggested that the common use of recapitulations would explain this! Adding further details to an event already mentioned *requires* the use of recapitulation.

    Why would Antiochus be "troubled" in vs. 44, when it has already been mentioned that "ships of the western coastland will oppose him" in vs. 30? Well, the vs. 30 reference also mentions that "he will lose heart" as well. In other words, both verses are saying the same thing--just adding more detail. In one case Antiochus "loses heart" and in the other case he is "troubled." This is a recapitulation of the same event, simply adding more details.

    Verse 44 adds that not only this in verse 30--"ships of the western coastland will oppose him," but "reports from the east and the north" will be involved as well. What this tells me is that not only will a Roman fleet bring opposition to Antiochus (vs 30), but it will instigate thoughts of rebellion vs. Antiochus in Israel and in Persia as well--in the north and in the east (vs 44). In fact that is precisely what happened. Following the Roman warning to Antiochus there was rebellion vs. Antiochus in Israel and in Persian territories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    You're certainly confusing the two: verse 30 is a face-to-face encounter with the Romans that "grieved" him. It should not be confused with "tidings" (news) he heard.
    That is what's being debated here. And I would certainly appeal my case to other interested parties? I'm not necessarily asking for agreement--just a vote on how reasonable the argument is.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    3,534
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    So here is where I thought you were misunderstanding me. For simplicity let me just place the whole 6th Syrian War in two phases, the 1st Egyptian Campaign of 170 BC and the 2nd Egyptian Campaign of 168 BC. We are here talking largely about the 2nd Egyptian Campaign of 168 BC. in Dan 11.29 and in Dan 11.40.

    I do understand that the words "at the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south" do not necessarily imply a battle or conflict took place. However, *history records* that conflict did take place, and that a large swath of Egypt was retaken, including the city of Memphis. It seems that only Alexandria and a small area of Egypt was not reconquered--Egypt had largely been conquered in the 1st Campaign.

    You can simply consult an encyclopedia online to verify that this was so.
    I'm not doubting that Antiochus embarked on two separate campaigns. My argument is where you placed them. Whereas you believe they occurred in vss 29 and 40, my position is that A4E's first campaign was covered between v23-27 (remember he just came on the scene in v21)?

    Dan 11:25 "He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South with a great army. And the king of the South shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for they shall devise plans against him."

    In 170 BC, when Antiochus IV felt secure about the state of his own kingdom, he decided to take Egypt by force in what came to be known as the Sixth Syrian War. He regarded Ptolemy VI as a weak ruler and therefore not capable of successfully waging war against him. Antiochus IV was able to move his army to the border of Egypt before he was met by the Egyptians at Pelusium, which is near the Nile Delta. The Egyptians had a large army arrayed against him there. Antiochus, risking death by riding into the midst of the battle of Pelusium, ordered the Egyptians to be taken alive instead of slain. By this policy, he gained Pelusium and later took Memphis.

    Dan 11:26 "Yes, those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain.

    Ptolemy VI's army, although large, was not able to withstand Antiochus IV. In large part, this was due to the intrigues of Antiochus IV, who corrupted several of the Egyptian ministers and officers. This was one of the main causes of the defeat of Ptolemy VI. Those who were in his confidence and possessed the secrets of the state betrayed him to Antiochus IV. For example, Ptolemy Macron (also called "Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes") had been appointed by Ptolemy VI as governor of Cyprus. However, sensing the young king's weakness, he deserted to Antiochus IV, who made him governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia.

    Notice above that he gained Cyprus in his FIRST campaign and NOT the second as you claim (as you finally agree that no battle took place in v29)?

    Dan 11:28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

    He returns to Syria with the spoils from the first campaign.

    But v29 is his Second Egyptian Campaign and ostensibly the battle that never was! The chronological significance of this account is that Antiochus IV's second campaign and 6th Syrian war ALL ended in v30 with his humiliating retreat. This confirms that the battle in v40 is neither part of the Syrian wars nor was it a Seleucid war. Exactly what I've been arguing from the start.

    I have checked out online encyclopedia as you directed, but it immediately becomes clear that the account is inaccurate:

    1. The encyclopedia account claim that Cyprus was won before the Roman ambassadors ordered Antiochus back. But a close look at the numerous typo errors and other mistakes should convince any avid reader not to take that version seriously.

    2. Second and most important, even inaccurate as it is, it doesn't place the battle in v40 as you insist.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Your "evidence" appears to deny that what I'm calling the "2nd Egyptian Campaign" involved a battle. But it did! It involved both the naval invasion of Cyprus and the invasion of Egypt proper. Most of Egypt was taken! How can this not be a "battle?"

    If indeed the 2nd Egyptian Campaign of 168 BC was a battle, and can legitimately fit as a "battle" into Dan 11.29, then it can certainly apply as well to Dan 11.40!
    On the contrary, no battle was fought in the 2d campaign (vide 29-30) and the sticking point is your attempt to use recapitulation to force v40 where it doesn't belong. We may not agree on this for now, but I do hope you will in due course reconsider this when you study better accounts than the encyclopedia.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It does for me. But I would dispute your notion that Israel is not north and east *both* from Egypt. Consulting a map would prove this to be true! Are you saying that because Israel is NE from Egypt that Israel cannot be either north or east of Egypt?

    I live in the Pacific NW of the United States. Would that mean that being in the state of Washington I am neither north nor west of Texas, simply because I'm NW of Texas?

    Neither do I understand your protest of two separate mentions of the same event. I've already suggested that the common use of recapitulations would explain this! Adding further details to an event already mentioned *requires* the use of recapitulation.

    Why would Antiochus be "troubled" in vs. 44, when it has already been mentioned that "ships of the western coastland will oppose him" in vs. 30? Well, the vs. 30 reference also mentions that "he will lose heart" as well. In other words, both verses are saying the same thing--just adding more detail. In one case Antiochus "loses heart" and in the other case he is "troubled." This is a recapitulation of the same event, simply adding more details.

    Verse 44 adds that not only this in verse 30--"ships of the western coastland will oppose him," but "reports from the east and the north" will be involved as well. What this tells me is that not only will a Roman fleet bring opposition to Antiochus (vs 30), but it will instigate thoughts of rebellion vs. Antiochus in Israel and in Persia as well--in the north and in the east (vs 44). In fact that is precisely what happened. Following the Roman warning to Antiochus there was rebellion vs. Antiochus in Israel and in Persian territories.
    I am not arguing that Antiochus heard the news in Egypt. My position is that the 'king' is Herod the Great and he was in Jerusalem when heard the tidings from the east (the Maggi) and from the north, Rome (his son Antipater plotting to usurp his throne). While your articulate presentation appears logical, fortunately, these events are in our past, therefore, persuasive as your argument is, it doesn't fit the factual narrative.

    Verse 44 is unequivocal that what troubled him was "news" not an incident he encountered against Rome (v30). Also in v30, we are told that "he had indignation against the holy covenant...and had intelligence", this "intelligence" presumably was news filtering back to him of the revolt against him in Judea. Since I have identified the war in v40 as the battle of Actium, I see no reason to accept that it was mentioned as a recapitulation of the former accounts.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That is what's being debated here. And I would certainly appeal my case to other interested parties? I'm not necessarily asking for agreement--just a vote on how reasonable the argument is.
    I certainly share the same hope. The only problem is not very many have researched the historical fulfilment of Dan 11 to enable them to argue from an informed position. Unfortunately, I don't have your persuasive talent and if a reader were to judge on the basis of our presentation alone, they'll be more inclined to believe you.

  11. #281

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I'm not doubting that Antiochus embarked on two separate campaigns. My argument is where you placed them. Whereas you believe they occurred in vss 29 and 40, my position is that A4E's first campaign was covered between v23-27 (remember he just came on the scene in v21)?
    I agree that A4E's 1st campaign was covered in the 1st section 11.21-28. I believe his 2nd campaign begins in 11.29, and is covered in the section 11.29-45.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    Dan 11:25 "He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South with a great army. And the king of the South shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for they shall devise plans against him."

    In 170 BC, when Antiochus IV felt secure about the state of his own kingdom, he decided to take Egypt by force in what came to be known as the Sixth Syrian War. He regarded Ptolemy VI as a weak ruler and therefore not capable of successfully waging war against him. Antiochus IV was able to move his army to the border of Egypt before he was met by the Egyptians at Pelusium, which is near the Nile Delta. The Egyptians had a large army arrayed against him there. Antiochus, risking death by riding into the midst of the battle of Pelusium, ordered the Egyptians to be taken alive instead of slain. By this policy, he gained Pelusium and later took Memphis.

    Dan 11:26 "Yes, those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain.

    Ptolemy VI's army, although large, was not able to withstand Antiochus IV. In large part, this was due to the intrigues of Antiochus IV, who corrupted several of the Egyptian ministers and officers. This was one of the main causes of the defeat of Ptolemy VI. Those who were in his confidence and possessed the secrets of the state betrayed him to Antiochus IV. For example, Ptolemy Macron (also called "Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes") had been appointed by Ptolemy VI as governor of Cyprus. However, sensing the young king's weakness, he deserted to Antiochus IV, who made him governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia.

    Notice above that he gained Cyprus in his FIRST campaign and NOT the second as you claim (as you finally agree that no battle took place in v29)?
    I did not agree that no battle took place in vs 29! What I agreed to is that it is not spelled out as a battle, though the context certainly allows for it.

    11.29 “At the appointed time he will invade the South again."

    An invasion implies that a battle likely would take place. You might argue that the invasion did not involve a battle--that is arguable. However, history records that battles did in fact take place in this 2nd Egyptian Campaign of Antiochus. He reconquered territory he held from his previous Campaign. Even if he had some control of Cyprus I believe he had to invade Cyprus in his 2nd Campaign to reassert his authority there.

    So what does history record that Antiochus 4 reconquered? He reconquered most of Egypt, along with Memphis. And I believe prior to this march of his cavalry down into Egypt proper he had sailed into Cyprus, conquering that Egyptian territory as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    Dan 11:28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

    He returns to Syria with the spoils from the first campaign.

    But v29 is his Second Egyptian Campaign and ostensibly the battle that never was! The chronological significance of this account is that Antiochus IV's second campaign and 6th Syrian war ALL ended in v30 with his humiliating retreat. This confirms that the battle in v40 is neither part of the Syrian wars nor was it a Seleucid war. Exactly what I've been arguing from the start.
    This is where we disagree. The history I've read indicates that his 2nd Campaign involved a reconquest of territory he had lost to Egypt. He recaptured his control over Cyprus by sailing there. And he marched into Egypt proper, reconquering most of Egypt, including Memphis. He was stopped before capturing Alexandria. This is not a battle that never was. It was a humiliating conquest of Egypt that was stopped short of complete victory by the Roman ambassador. That prompted Antiochus to return to other territories under his control in Israel and in Persia. Apparently he heard news of rebellion there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    I have checked out online encyclopedia as you directed, but it immediately becomes clear that the account is inaccurate:

    1. The encyclopedia account claim that Cyprus was won before the Roman ambassadors ordered Antiochus back. But a close look at the numerous typo errors and other mistakes should convince any avid reader not to take that version seriously.

    2. Second and most important, even inaccurate as it is, it doesn't place the battle in v40 as you insist.

    On the contrary, no battle was fought in the 2d campaign (vide 29-30) and the sticking point is your attempt to use recapitulation to force v40 where it doesn't belong. We may not agree on this for now, but I do hope you will in due course reconsider this when you study better accounts than the encyclopedia.

    I am not arguing that Antiochus heard the news in Egypt. My position is that the 'king' is Herod the Great and he was in Jerusalem when heard the tidings from the east (the Maggi) and from the north, Rome (his son Antipater plotting to usurp his throne). While your articulate presentation appears logical, fortunately, these events are in our past, therefore, persuasive as your argument is, it doesn't fit the factual narrative.

    Verse 44 is unequivocal that what troubled him was "news" not an incident he encountered against Rome (v30). Also in v30, we are told that "he had indignation against the holy covenant...and had intelligence", this "intelligence" presumably was news filtering back to him of the revolt against him in Judea. Since I have identified the war in v40 as the battle of Actium, I see no reason to accept that it was mentioned as a recapitulation of the former accounts.

    I certainly share the same hope. The only problem is not very many have researched the historical fulfilment of Dan 11 to enable them to argue from an informed position. Unfortunately, I don't have your persuasive talent and if a reader were to judge on the basis of our presentation alone, they'll be more inclined to believe you.
    I don't know--you're as persuasive, logical, and compelling as I am. I'm just relying on facts to tell the story--I don't care who's right in the end. I want to follow the truth wherever it leads us.

    Sounds like I need to verify the history at this point. Obviously, I'm not going to accept the argument that Herod has to fulfil this just because. So I need to see what appears more logical to me, that Antiochus had these two campaigns, with an emphasis on the 2nd campaign. Either I have it right, or I don't. If I have it right I hope you'll reconsider the possibility of my scenario?

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    16,813

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    If fulfilled ancient history actually explains Dan 11:21:45 like some would have us to believe, why then is there more than one historic view to consider? Doesn't this clearly show that one can read into Dan 11 whatever they desire? Even alleged fulfilled ancient history? It seems to me if Dan 11:21-45 is past fulfilled ancient history, then all who hold a view like that would be coming to the exact same conclusions. I guess I'm different than most around here. I take these to be clues that fulfilled ancient history does not explain Dan 11:21-45, because if it did, ones such as RandyK and Trivalee would be coming to the exact same conclusions about the texts in question. Yet they obviously are not. Wonder why? Probably because they are both wrong.

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    3,534
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    If fulfilled ancient history actually explains Dan 11:21:45 like some would have us to believe, why then is there more than one historic view to consider? Doesn't this clearly show that one can read into Dan 11 whatever they desire? Even alleged fulfilled ancient history? It seems to me if Dan 11:21-45 is past fulfilled ancient history, then all who hold a view like that would be coming to the exact same conclusions. I guess I'm different than most around here. I take these to be clues that fulfilled ancient history does not explain Dan 11:21-45, because if it did, ones such as RandyK and Trivalee would be coming to the exact same conclusions about the texts in question. Yet they obviously are not. Wonder why? Probably because they are both wrong.
    Randy and I unequivocally agree that Dan 11:21-45 is COMPLETELY fulfilled. Our point of dissent is the character that's in the context.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    3,534
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I agree that A4E's 1st campaign was covered in the 1st section 11.21-28. I believe his 2nd campaign begins in 11.29, and is covered in the section 11.29-45.
    Obviously, we are yet to reach consensus on this, so let's keep it aside for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I did not agree that no battle took place in vs 29! What I agreed to is that it is not spelled out as a battle, though the context certainly allows for it.

    11.29 ďAt the appointed time he will invade the South again."

    An invasion implies that a battle likely would take place. You might argue that the invasion did not involve a battle--that is arguable. However, history records that battles did in fact take place in this 2nd Egyptian Campaign of Antiochus. He reconquered territory he held from his previous Campaign. Even if he had some control of Cyprus I believe he had to invade Cyprus in his 2nd Campaign to reassert his authority there.

    So what does history record that Antiochus 4 reconquered? He reconquered most of Egypt, along with Memphis. And I believe prior to this march of his cavalry down into Egypt proper he had sailed into Cyprus, conquering that Egyptian territory as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I do understand that the words "at the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south" do not necessarily imply a battle or conflict took place. However, *history records* that conflict did take place, and that a large swath of Egypt was retaken, including the city of Memphis.
    I quoted from your last post where you appeared to accept that the text doesn't affirm that a battle took place. Nevertheless, it looks like part of our problem is down to semantics.

    Dan 11:29 29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. KJV

    KJV doesn't don't say "invade". So would you please advise your Bible version?

    No, "history" doesn't say a battle took place on his second campaign in Egypt, rather it was in his first. The encyclopedia you're relying upon is inaccurate. Why not try other sources; the records abound in Wikipedia. You need to read an average of five accounts to ascertain which are accurate, it's time-consuming I know, but essential if one is desirous of the truth and accuracy.

    I am not arguing that Antiochus did not conquer large swathes of Egyptian territories so your recapitulation here is not necessary. My argument is that he achieved that feat in his FIRST, not the second campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is where we disagree. The history I've read indicates that his 2nd Campaign involved a reconquest of territory he had lost to Egypt. He recaptured his control over Cyprus by sailing there. And he marched into Egypt proper, reconquering most of Egypt, including Memphis. He was stopped before capturing Alexandria. This is not a battle that never was. It was a humiliating conquest of Egypt that was stopped short of complete victory by the Roman ambassador. That prompted Antiochus to return to other territories under his control in Israel and in Persia. Apparently he heard news of rebellion there.
    My own history sources don't say that Antiochus lost the gains he made in his earlier campaign. You used the words "lost and recapture' to indicate he had lost control of his earlier gains, this, unfortunately, is not true. So let's try another approach. Since your opinion is that A4E victories were mainly in his second campaign, what then, were his conquests in the first campaign?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't know--you're as persuasive, logical, and compelling as I am. I'm just relying on facts to tell the story--I don't care who's right in the end. I want to follow the truth wherever it leads us.

    Sounds like I need to verify the history at this point. Obviously, I'm not going to accept the argument that Herod has to fulfil this just because. So I need to see what appears more logical to me, that Antiochus had these two campaigns, with an emphasis on the 2nd campaign. Either I have it right, or I don't. If I have it right I hope you'll reconsider the possibility of my scenario?
    Since none of us lived 2,500 odd years ago to witness these events first-hand and can only rely on historical accounts (which some, unfortunately, have been embellished over the years) it will be foolhardy to ignore a better logical account. I am glad your interest lies in pursuing the "truth" wherever it leads; I share the same objective. So I'm up for what you come up with.

    Always a pleasure and rewarding to discuss matters with you.

  15. #285

    Re: Prince titles for Christ that are in capital letters in the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    If fulfilled ancient history actually explains Dan 11:21:45 like some would have us to believe, why then is there more than one historic view to consider? Doesn't this clearly show that one can read into Dan 11 whatever they desire? Even alleged fulfilled ancient history? It seems to me if Dan 11:21-45 is past fulfilled ancient history, then all who hold a view like that would be coming to the exact same conclusions. I guess I'm different than most around here. I take these to be clues that fulfilled ancient history does not explain Dan 11:21-45, because if it did, ones such as RandyK and Trivalee would be coming to the exact same conclusions about the texts in question. Yet they obviously are not. Wonder why? Probably because they are both wrong.
    It could be that yes, several positions can fit into the language of Dan 11 here. And that is not strange because Scriptures tend to use similar language for similar events. Disagreement certainly doesn't imply that both positions are wrong. But you are right to say that it isn't easy to assign a definite historical event into this ancient prophecy. But that's true of many OT prophesies!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 2 guests)

  1. Keraz,
  2. Trivalee

Similar Threads

  1. Bad with titles...Hello ok?
    By Questionyourself in forum Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Feb 11th 2011, 03:36 AM
  2. God gives all of us titles, use them !
    By MoreMercy in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jan 28th 2011, 02:07 AM
  3. Song Titles Encore! (2)
    By kayte in forum Christians Answer
    Replies: 972
    Last Post: Nov 14th 2009, 02:09 AM
  4. Why do some think the 'prince' in Ezekiel 45 is Christ?
    By moonglow in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: May 10th 2009, 12:11 AM
  5. Need Advice: Titles
    By djh22 in forum Tech Questions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Mar 18th 2009, 09:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •