Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
Again you miss what you said in the sentence preceding.
You also miss the point that NEITHER is more immediate than the other.
In BOTH situations Daniel is dead.
perhaps you mean that A4E will happen before the AC, yet there is no mention of the AC in Dan 12.
Again, you try to interpret what I mean! Brother, you're way out of bounds. You said I *didn't* say "more immediate," and I showed you I did.

Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
There is no mention of Daniel's BOOK!
I gave you the verses which SPECIFIC what Book is in view in that mention:
Dan 12:1* “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.*
Dan 12:2* And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.*
Dan 12:3* And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.*
Dan 12:4* But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

This is the SAME Book in view and it is in relation to the events of A4E. CONTEXT tells us this very clearly. Absolutely nothing about Daniel writing a Book, or Daniel summarising any visions.
You can beg as much as you want, it won;t change what is written in Dan 11 and 12, which is one combined vision.
The conclusion has NOTHING to do with any future AC, but about the conclusion of the matter which has just been given.
You said there was no reference to a "book," and I showed you there was.

Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
How you can split this into TWO separate things within ONE account is BIZARRE.
Yet when you have TWO separate accounts speaking of TWO separate things, you DEMAND they are the SAME.
I wonder how you work things out?
It is very confusing to try to follow any semblance of logic, as very clearly ONE thing is being talked about in Dan 12 and there is NO shift in focus or change of vision.
You do worse, brother! You try to have the AoD and the siege of Jerusalem mean two different things in the same place in the Olivet Discourse!

There is nothing bizarre about closing out a book by summarizing the essential elements in the book. There were 2 major figures in the book, and they were reiterated for Daniel. 12.7 refers to the Antichrist. And 12.11 refers to Antiochus 4. Two different events. And both events loomed large in the contents of the book of Daniel. Dan 2 and 7 referred to the end of the age. Dan 8 and 11 referred to Antiochus 4.

Daniel was obviously confused because there was great detail on *future* events. Daniel was told not to worry because they have to do with the *future.* He was told the end of it all would be after the reign of Antichrist. But he was told another event would be "more immediate" in the history of his people, and that would be Antiochus 4.

Antiochus 4 is very important, I believe, because he presents a prototype of both the Roman siege and the reign of Antichrist. It was a lesson God wanted the Jews to learn just before Jesus came on the scene, so that Jews would know to choose faith over Hellenism. The Jews who doubled down on their false application of the Law sold out, and were judged. Those who repented at the coming of Jesus were saved.