Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 64

Thread: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Agreed and a Mede is NOT a Persian. No Mede rules over Persia, only had positions of power over a portion of it.
    You're assuming what you wish to prove. The Scriptures plainly have a Mede ruling over Persia.

    Dan 5.30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, 31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.
    Dan 10.20 So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 11.1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)"


    Darius and Cyrus operated together in a co-regency, apparently, controlling both Babylon and Persia. It doesn't matter the origins of Darius--he may even have been related to Cyrus. The point is that both ruled this large area, and being softened by angelic influence Darius pursued a course that resulted in Cyrus' decree to restore both the temple and the city of Jerusalem.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You're assuming what you wish to prove. The Scriptures plainly have a Mede ruling over Persia.

    Dan 5.30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, 31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.
    Dan 10.20 So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 11.1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)"


    Darius and Cyrus operated together in a co-regency, apparently, controlling both Babylon and Persia. It doesn't matter the origins of Darius--he may even have been related to Cyrus. The point is that both ruled this large area, and being softened by angelic influence Darius pursued a course that resulted in Cyrus' decree to restore both the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
    No, I am not assuming what I wish to prove.
    You have not posted a scripture which supports your view at all.
    Firstly, Daniel 5:30 refers to a kingdom. Which kingdom is being referenced? The answer is the kingdom of Babylonia, for it states Belshazzar the king of the Babylonians was slain and Darius took over the kingdom, which means the kingdom of Belshazzar, that is the kingdom of the Babylonians.
    Secondly, Daniel 10:1 states "In the third year of Cyrus King of Persia". So the referent kingdom, the kingdom in view is that of Persia in this chapter, and the succeeding chapters. Darius the Mede was a king of part of the Persian kingdoms, which also included Elam and Lydia as well as Anshan.

    If you do not pay attention to what is actually said or written then you will make many mistakes. We do NOT have a single scripture, having a Mede ruling over the Persian kingdom, we only have a Mede ruling over a portion of it, which is specifically that which was previously ruled by the Babylonians.
    The Medes HAD ruled over Persia BEFORE Cyrus the Great but at the time of these revelations it was not the case.
    Please stick to scripture and not your own assumption. Darius and Cyrus were not in a co-regency as equals, but rather Darius was under Cyrus as a sub-king, the ruler of one portion of Cyrus' kingdom of Persia.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No, I am not assuming what I wish to prove.
    You have not posted a scripture which supports your view at all.
    Firstly, Daniel 5:30 refers to a kingdom. Which kingdom is being referenced? The answer is the kingdom of Babylonia, for it states Belshazzar the king of the Babylonians was slain and Darius took over the kingdom, which means the kingdom of Belshazzar, that is the kingdom of the Babylonians.
    Secondly, Daniel 10:1 states "In the third year of Cyrus King of Persia". So the referent kingdom, the kingdom in view is that of Persia in this chapter, and the succeeding chapters. Darius the Mede was a king of part of the Persian kingdoms, which also included Elam and Lydia as well as Anshan.

    If you do not pay attention to what is actually said or written then you will make many mistakes. We do NOT have a single scripture, having a Mede ruling over the Persian kingdom, we only have a Mede ruling over a portion of it, which is specifically that which was previously ruled by the Babylonians.
    The Medes HAD ruled over Persia BEFORE Cyrus the Great but at the time of these revelations it was not the case.
    Please stick to scripture and not your own assumption. Darius and Cyrus were not in a co-regency as equals, but rather Darius was under Cyrus as a sub-king, the ruler of one portion of Cyrus' kingdom of Persia.
    This isn't just a matter of quoting Scriptures. Some of it is history. We are only given a little, and must draw conclusions based on as much as we know. All I know is that these 4 kingdoms are involved, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. And at some point Belteshazzar of Babylon falls to the Persians.

    Part of this process is explained to be the involvement of angels, who both oppose and support Persian rulers. The idea is to restrain the pagan influence of Persia, while at the same time enabling the restoration of Israel through Persia.

    I cannot say that the Medan ruler, Darius, was *not* a co-regent with Cyrus. Clearly, the idea was to get Persia to get authority over Israel in order to release her from bondage. To do this Darius the Mede had to obtain authority over the area of Babylon, and Cyrus had to be induced to make his decree of Israel's restoration.

    You are demanding that I draw specific conclusions beyond what I know. I can't do that.

    I did provide Scriptures in support of my view. If that doesn't meet your standards of "proof," fine.

    Dan 5.30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, 31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.
    Dan 10.20 So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 11.1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)"


    As you will notice, Darius the Mede is in both passages, Dan 5 and Dan 10. In Dan 5 Darius took over Babylonia. In Dan 10 the angel supports Darius before he turns against the Persian Kingdom. As we know in history, God initially gave support to Cyrus' decree to restore Israel. Later, God gave the Greeks dominance over the Persians. This is both in these Scriptures and in history. It is a matter of interpretation.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You're assuming what you wish to prove. The Scriptures plainly have a Mede ruling over Persia.

    Dan 5.30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, 31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.
    Dan 10.20 So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 11.1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)"


    Darius and Cyrus operated together in a co-regency, apparently, controlling both Babylon and Persia. It doesn't matter the origins of Darius--he may even have been related to Cyrus. The point is that both ruled this large area, and being softened by angelic influence Darius pursued a course that resulted in Cyrus' decree to restore both the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
    No, I am not assuming what I wish to prove.
    You have not posted a scripture which supports your view at all.
    Firstly, Daniel 5:30 refers to a kingdom. Which kingdom is being referenced? The answer is the kingdom of Babylonia, for it states Belshazzar the king of the Babylonians was slain and Darius took over the kingdom, which means the kingdom of Belshazzar, that is the kingdom of the Babylonians.
    Secondly, Daniel 10:1 states "In the third year of Cyrus King of Persia". So the referent kingdom, the kingdom in view is that of Persia in this chapter, and the succeeding chapters. Darius the Mede was a king of part of the Persian kingdoms, which also included Elam and Lydia as well as Anshan.

    If you do not pay attention to what is actually said or written then you will make many mistakes. We do NOT have a single scripture, having a Mede ruling over the Persian kingdom, we only have a Mede ruling over a portion of it, which is specifically that which was previously ruled by the Babylonians.
    The Medes HAD ruled over Persia BEFORE Cyrus the Great but at the time of these revelations it was not the case.
    Please stick to scripture and not your own assumption.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This isn't just a matter of quoting Scriptures. Some of it is history. We are only given a little, and must draw conclusions based on as much as we know. All I know is that these 4 kingdoms are involved, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. And at some point Belteshazzar of Babylon falls to the Persians.
    If you want to discuss history and ignore the Bible then you will flail around a lot as we have limited amounts of history.

    Part of this process is explained to be the involvement of angels, who both oppose and support Persian rulers. The idea is to restrain the pagan influence of Persia, while at the same time enabling the restoration of Israel through Persia.
    I cannot say that the Medan ruler, Darius, was *not* a co-regent with Cyrus. Clearly, the idea was to get Persia to get authority over Israel in order to release her from bondage. To do this Darius the Mede had to obtain authority over the area of Babylon, and Cyrus had to be induced to make his decree of Israel's restoration.
    Actually based on "history" you CAN, in fact you MUST say that Darius the Mede was NOT a co-regent with Cyrus.
    Trawl through any historical or archaeological records and you will find no mention of Darius the Mede (at this present time - maybe someone will find something).
    This then requires us to look at possible alternatives, such as Astyages, who you mentioned. However Astyages doesn't fit with what scripture states, and so you are elevating a person from the historical record ABOVE what scripture states.
    There should be NO reason to claim history takes precedence over scripture.
    This then leads to reviewing the base assumptions, such as the idea that Darius the Mede ruled the WHOLE of the Persian kingdom, which scripture itself does NOT support.
    As for Darius having to obtain and Cyrus having to be induced, suggests that Darius didn't already have authority, in fact probably in Dan 10 Darius the Mede is dead, which is why he is NOT mentioned at the start of that chapter. Cyrus being induced, begs what you mean by "induced". Tradition seems to have Cyrus quite happy to be mentioned by name in Isaiah 44:28, written around 200 years before Cyrus conquered Babylon, and so would be willing to do what was written about him in those scriptures.

    You are demanding that I draw specific conclusions beyond what I know. I can't do that.
    If you do not know something then you should not claim that you do know.
    If you have information which does NOT support your view then you should accept that the view has holes in it.

    I did provide Scriptures in support of my view. If that doesn't meet your standards of "proof," fine.

    Dan 5.30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, 31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.
    Dan 10.20 So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 11.1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)"

    As you will notice, Darius the Mede is in both passages, Dan 5 and Dan 10. In Dan 5 Darius took over Babylonia. In Dan 10 the angel supports Darius before he turns against the Persian Kingdom. As we know in history, God initially gave support to Cyrus' decree to restore Israel. Later, God gave the Greeks dominance over the Persians. This is both in these Scriptures and in history. It is a matter of interpretation.
    Actually Darius the Mede is NOT referenced in Daniel 10 anywhere. In Daniel 10:1 it is Cyrus who is in view. Now Darius the Mede is mentioned, and his first year is under Cyrus' rule.
    As for what constitutes "proof" it isn't the words of the scripture, but actually what they say.
    You claim it to say something it does not. Therefore it doesn't provide the proof you are claiming it does.
    In Dan 10 it is DANIEL who is being strengthened
    Dan 10:19* And he said, “O man greatly loved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage.” And as he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.”

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    If you want to discuss history and ignore the Bible then you will flail around a lot as we have limited amounts of history.
    I never once said I would "ignore the Bible." I said the Scriptures limit the amount of historical detail, and so we must turn to history.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually based on "history" you CAN, in fact you MUST say that Darius the Mede was NOT a co-regent with Cyrus.
    No, I don't have to say that. I obtained that information somewhere--I didn't make it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Trawl through any historical or archaeological records and you will find no mention of Darius the Mede (at this present time - maybe someone will find something).
    This time happens to be when Belteshazzar is falling, and the Medo-Persians take over Babylonia in 539 BC. The Persians had assumed power over the Medes in 549 BC, and the resulting empire became a dual empire.

    Dan 8. 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.

    Jer 51.11 The Lord has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon.

    Gubaru could've been the Mede ruler appointed by Cyrus. Or Darius the Mede may have been a co-regent, Cyaxares.

    This was the thesis by Steven Anderson in https://truthonlybible.com/2016/01/0...-his-identity/ :
    Cyrus was Darius’s co-regent, the hereditary king of the realm of Persia, the crown prince of Media, and the commander of the Medo-Persian army—yet it was still Darius who was officially recognized as the highest power in the realm.

    In Barnes notes in Bible Hub on Dan 11.1:
    Cyrus was, indeed, the one through whom the edict for their return was promulgated; but as he reigned under his uncle Cyaxares or Darius, and as Cyaxares was the source of authority, it is evident that his mind must have been influenced to grant this favor, and it is to this that the angel here refers.

    Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:
    first year of Darius—Cyaxares II; the year of the conquest of Babylon (Da 5:31). Cyrus, who wielded the real power, though in name subordinate to Darius, in that year promulgated the edict for the restoration of the Jews, which Daniel was at the time praying for.

    Gill:
    see Daniel 5:30, the Septuagint and Arabic versions render it, "in the first year of Cyrus"; which was the same time; for Darius and Cyrus reigned together.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This then requires us to look at possible alternatives, such as Astyages, who you mentioned. However Astyages doesn't fit with what scripture states, and so you are elevating a person from the historical record ABOVE what scripture states.
    There should be NO reason to claim history takes precedence over scripture.
    This then leads to reviewing the base assumptions, such as the idea that Darius the Mede ruled the WHOLE of the Persian kingdom, which scripture itself does NOT support.
    Where does Scripture prohibit Darius the Mede from ruling part of the Persian Empire?

    I know there are a lot of questions from historians, questioning Daniel's authority. However, I accept Daniel's authenticity. Darius may be a Mede name for the ruler, and the ruler's actual name may have been Cyaxares II, son of Astyages.

    As I said, details are skimpy, and your "positive" attitude about your own deductions doesn't seem appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As for Darius having to obtain and Cyrus having to be induced, suggests that Darius didn't already have authority, in fact probably in Dan 10 Darius the Mede is dead, which is why he is NOT mentioned at the start of that chapter. Cyrus being induced, begs what you mean by "induced". Tradition seems to have Cyrus quite happy to be mentioned by name in Isaiah 44:28, written around 200 years before Cyrus conquered Babylon, and so would be willing to do what was written about him in those scriptures.
    The angel induces the proclamation of Cyrus to restore Jerusalem and the temple of the Jews. Daniel is shown than angels are governing the events surrounding the Medes, the Persians, and the Greeks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If you do not know something then you should not claim that you do know.
    If you have information which does NOT support your view then you should accept that the view has holes in it.

    I did provide Scriptures in support of my view. If that doesn't meet your standards of "proof," fine.

    Actually Darius the Mede is NOT referenced in Daniel 10 anywhere. In Daniel 10:1 it is Cyrus who is in view. Now Darius the Mede is mentioned, and his first year is under Cyrus' rule.
    If all you can do is pick out typos, you're showing a little too much emotion, brother. The passage is Dan 11.1--not 10.1. The end of ch. 10 leads into 11.1.

  7. #22

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    The kings of Daniel 11 are not named or identified. It is widely believed these passages refer to the century and a half of wars between the Ptolemies of Egypt (king of the south) and the Seleucids of Syria (king of the north). During these events Antiochus IV desecrated the temple in Jerusalem by setting up a statue of Zeus, the abomination, which set off the Maccabean Revolt, at the end of which the temple was cleansed.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    The kings of Daniel 11 are not named or identified. It is widely believed these passages refer to the century and a half of wars between the Ptolemies of Egypt (king of the south) and the Seleucids of Syria (king of the north). During these events Antiochus IV desecrated the temple in Jerusalem by setting up a statue of Zeus, the abomination, which set off the Maccabean Revolt, at the end of which the temple was cleansed.
    Yes, much of Dan 11 is devoted to the period between the defeat of Babylonia and the reign of Antiochus 4. The latter is a major character in the book of Daniel, and represented a grave threat to orthodox Jewish religion. His defeat may somehow be a foretaste of what will happen in the time of Antichrist, the "Little Horn" of Dan 7.

  9. #24

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, much of Dan 11 is devoted to the period between the defeat of Babylonia and the reign of Antiochus 4. The latter is a major character in the book of Daniel, and represented a grave threat to orthodox Jewish religion. His defeat may somehow be a foretaste of what will happen in the time of Antichrist, the "Little Horn" of Dan 7.
    Or he might be the little horn.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,209
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    Or he might be the little horn.
    I agree AE was the little horn

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    I agree AE was the little horn
    That isn't my view, but it is a common viewpoint.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I never once said I would "ignore the Bible." I said the Scriptures limit the amount of historical detail, and so we must turn to history.
    Your argument that scripture does not contain all of history is a valid argument and I have no dispute with you over this, or that we look to what we know from history. However we CANNOT allow history to ride roughshod over scripture and regulate scripture to a secondary place. SO when scripture speaks of Darius the Mede, we accept there was a Darius the Mede. What we then have to do is fit Darius the Mede into history, as it agrees with scripture.

    No, I don't have to say that. I obtained that information somewhere--I didn't make it up.
    To claim something and yet not have scripture or history support the claim means you are making it up.

    This time happens to be when Belteshazzar is falling, and the Medo-Persians take over Babylonia in 539 BC. The Persians had assumed power over the Medes in 549 BC, and the resulting empire became a dual empire.
    Dan 8. 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.
    Jer 51.11 The Lord has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon.

    Gubaru could've been the Mede ruler appointed by Cyrus. Or Darius the Mede may have been a co-regent, Cyaxares.

    This was the thesis by Steven Anderson in https://truthonlybible.com/2016/01/0...-his-identity/ :
    Cyrus was Darius’s co-regent, the hereditary king of the realm of Persia, the crown prince of Media, and the commander of the Medo-Persian army—yet it was still Darius who was officially recognized as the highest power in the realm.

    In Barnes notes in Bible Hub on Dan 11.1:
    Cyrus was, indeed, the one through whom the edict for their return was promulgated; but as he reigned under his uncle Cyaxares or Darius, and as Cyaxares was the source of authority, it is evident that his mind must have been influenced to grant this favor, and it is to this that the angel here refers.

    Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:
    first year of Darius—Cyaxares II; the year of the conquest of Babylon (Da 5:31). Cyrus, who wielded the real power, though in name subordinate to Darius, in that year promulgated the edict for the restoration of the Jews, which Daniel was at the time praying for.

    Gill:
    see Daniel 5:30, the Septuagint and Arabic versions render it, "in the first year of Cyrus"; which was the same time; for Darius and Cyrus reigned together.
    Sorry, but NONE of these quotes actually have Darius the Mede mentioned in HISTORY, which was the point I made. Instead we have SPECULATION as to possible solutions to who Darius was.
    Now SPECULATION is 100% valid, but we must ALWAYS note that it is SPECULATION and NOT fact.
    Cyaxares was NOT a co-regent with Cyrus. Someone not checking the historical records there.
    Gubaru might be the same person as Darius, for Darius itself simply means "Lord." So could be the Medean Lord.

    Steven Anderson is trying to create a solution for a problem which doesn't exist and by doing so bends what we know of history very badly. Cyrus did NOT have a co-regent. He had sub-ordinate rulers.
    Barnes is wrong to claim that Cyrus reigned under his uncle. Cyaxarxes ruled until 585 BC, and then followed by his son Astyages from 585 - 549, who was then defeated by Cyrus.
    JFB also makes a false claim that Cyrus was under Darius or that Darius was an unknown Cyaxares II.
    Gill, at least correctly notes that Darius the Mede and Cyrus ruled at the same time.
    The problem is that they all see Darius as being the MAIN ruler, rather than recognising that he is a sub-ordinate ruler under Cyrus, and ONLY ruled over the former Babylonian kingdom.

    The Persians had taken over the Medes 20 years earlier.

    Where does Scripture prohibit Darius the Mede from ruling part of the Persian Empire?
    Actually Darius the Mede DID rule over a portion of the Persian Empire, which was that part conquered by Cyrus, which had formerly been known as the Babylonian Kingdom. But Darius the Mede was sub-ordinate to Cyrus.

    I know there are a lot of questions from historians, questioning Daniel's authority. However, I accept Daniel's authenticity. Darius may be a Mede name for the ruler, and the ruler's actual name may have been Cyaxares II, son of Astyages.
    As I said, details are skimpy, and your "positive" attitude about your own deductions doesn't seem appropriate.
    Cyaxares II like "Darius the Mede" isn't found historically. The one is simply entirely made up, the other finds support from scripture.
    However scripture ONLY connects Darius the Mede with the Babylonian Kingdom and does NOT state that Darius the Mede ruled over the entire Persian Kingdom.
    Further in Daniel Darius the Mede is ONLY mentioned in connection with the first year of his reign, when he is 62. No further mention of him is made in connection with a second or third year, though Daniel 10 mentions Cyrus' third year. So for Daniel Cyrus' rule and Darius' rule are connected.

    The angel induces the proclamation of Cyrus to restore Jerusalem and the temple of the Jews. Daniel is shown than angels are governing the events surrounding the Medes, the Persians, and the Greeks.
    WOW! Do you love to make things up. The words stated by the angel is to fight AGAINST the prince of Persia. Is that what you mean by induce? Daniel is shown that angels are involved, but that there are various battles ahead. Greece is mentioned, but that is about 200 years later.

    If all you can do is pick out typos, you're showing a little too much emotion, brother. The passage is Dan 11.1--not 10.1. The end of ch. 10 leads into 11.1.
    As I wasn't highlighting typos but full blown errors in your claims, it seems you don't like to consider truths presented to you.
    You claimed Daniel 10 now if you meant Daniel 11, then this is an incorrect reference by you and not simply a typo.
    Yes Dan 10 leads into Dan 11.
    However neither Dan 10 nor Dan 11 has the angel supporting Darius the Mede. The angel is fighting against the prince of Persia (which Darius as a subordinate ruler may be considered a prince of Persia), or did you not pay attention to Dan 10:20 which you quoted.
    Dan 11:1, you need to consider WHO the "I" is in that verse and who the "him" is in that verse.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Your argument that scripture does not contain all of history is a valid argument and I have no dispute with you over this, or that we look to what we know from history. However we CANNOT allow history to ride roughshod over scripture and regulate scripture to a secondary place. SO when scripture speaks of Darius the Mede, we accept there was a Darius the Mede. What we then have to do is fit Darius the Mede into history, as it agrees with scripture.


    To claim something and yet not have scripture or history support the claim means you are making it up.


    Sorry, but NONE of these quotes actually have Darius the Mede mentioned in HISTORY, which was the point I made. Instead we have SPECULATION as to possible solutions to who Darius was.
    Now SPECULATION is 100% valid, but we must ALWAYS note that it is SPECULATION and NOT fact.
    Cyaxares was NOT a co-regent with Cyrus. Someone not checking the historical records there.
    Gubaru might be the same person as Darius, for Darius itself simply means "Lord." So could be the Medean Lord.

    Steven Anderson is trying to create a solution for a problem which doesn't exist and by doing so bends what we know of history very badly. Cyrus did NOT have a co-regent. He had sub-ordinate rulers.
    Barnes is wrong to claim that Cyrus reigned under his uncle. Cyaxarxes ruled until 585 BC, and then followed by his son Astyages from 585 - 549, who was then defeated by Cyrus.
    JFB also makes a false claim that Cyrus was under Darius or that Darius was an unknown Cyaxares II.
    Gill, at least correctly notes that Darius the Mede and Cyrus ruled at the same time.
    The problem is that they all see Darius as being the MAIN ruler, rather than recognising that he is a sub-ordinate ruler under Cyrus, and ONLY ruled over the former Babylonian kingdom.

    The Persians had taken over the Medes 20 years earlier.

    Actually Darius the Mede DID rule over a portion of the Persian Empire, which was that part conquered by Cyrus, which had formerly been known as the Babylonian Kingdom. But Darius the Mede was sub-ordinate to Cyrus.


    Cyaxares II like "Darius the Mede" isn't found historically. The one is simply entirely made up, the other finds support from scripture.
    However scripture ONLY connects Darius the Mede with the Babylonian Kingdom and does NOT state that Darius the Mede ruled over the entire Persian Kingdom.
    Further in Daniel Darius the Mede is ONLY mentioned in connection with the first year of his reign, when he is 62. No further mention of him is made in connection with a second or third year, though Daniel 10 mentions Cyrus' third year. So for Daniel Cyrus' rule and Darius' rule are connected.

    WOW! Do you love to make things up. The words stated by the angel is to fight AGAINST the prince of Persia. Is that what you mean by induce? Daniel is shown that angels are involved, but that there are various battles ahead. Greece is mentioned, but that is about 200 years later.


    As I wasn't highlighting typos but full blown errors in your claims, it seems you don't like to consider truths presented to you.
    You claimed Daniel 10 now if you meant Daniel 11, then this is an incorrect reference by you and not simply a typo.
    Yes Dan 10 leads into Dan 11.
    However neither Dan 10 nor Dan 11 has the angel supporting Darius the Mede. The angel is fighting against the prince of Persia (which Darius as a subordinate ruler may be considered a prince of Persia), or did you not pay attention to Dan 10:20 which you quoted.
    Dan 11:1, you need to consider WHO the "I" is in that verse and who the "him" is in that verse.
    I'm not going to argue a mistaken chapter reference!

    I told you that the Scriptures are not clear about the rule of Darius the Mede. We must try to make sense of known history, even though we lack historical info. There are a number of logical choices, to fill in the blanks. It isn't certain. Some things are clear. I tend to not "write books" on the most ambiguous parts of Scriptures. You're demanding that I take your choices over the choices of other eminent scholars. Unless you have information deeper than they had, that's not likely to happen. I don't have enough to go on myself.

    Yes, the account of angels governing the affairs of men, and controlling events surrounding important rulers, did make me conclude that the use of Cyrus and Darius the Mede to restore Israel involved angels. These angels were also used to put down certain rulers and kingdoms on behalf of Israel. Sometimes God favored certain rulers. At other times He opposed them.

    The verse in question is concerned with angelic opposition to certain rulers, yes. But we also know that God favored those same rulers at certain points in time. Angels were used to accomplish these things. That seems certain.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    5,052
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    Dan 8

    7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
    8 Therefore the he goat (Grecia) waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

    20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
    21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia:

    The four kings would come forth from Greece not Persia.

    Persia never conquered Greece.

    Thus the premise of the OP is in error.

    The question should be who were the 4 kings of Grecia?
    Last edited by ross3421; Sep 20th 2019 at 03:04 PM.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    234

    Re: Who are the three, rather 4 Persian kings of Daniel 11,12?

    If you want to say that Daniel 11 is about 4 Greek kings that were to arise, I guess you would also be wanton to say that Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and Hayes succeeded Jefferson Davis to the confederate presidency. There were no more Persian kings after Alexander defeated Darius III. TO make Daniel 11 about the Seleucid king Antiochus, is to make Daniel 11 of a total irrelevance. But Persia will be a relevant kingdom in the last days. Just like thete were 4 Persian kings involved in the rebuilding of thee temple in Daniels day, there will be 4 Persian kings involved in the last days' temple construction.

    Be Blessed
    The PuP

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jun 13th 2019, 07:23 AM
  2. Replies: 117
    Last Post: Apr 22nd 2019, 08:53 PM
  3. Persian Period Timeline
    By Cyberseeker in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Apr 27th 2018, 10:57 PM
  4. Daniel 7 - visions of kings and kingdoms/leopard rises twice
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 28th 2011, 03:33 PM
  5. Daniel 7 - kings and kingdoms/visions/ had yet four heads
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sep 14th 2011, 03:12 PM

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
  •