Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

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

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Lincoln, ca
    Posts
    13

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

    Dan. 11:44
    But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to take away many.
    Dan. 11:45
    And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
    Dan. 12:1
    And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children
of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was
    a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

    {44} “During the sixth trumpet, the 144,000 will announce three messages to the world: (a) the approaching end of salvation’s offer, (b) that everyone who worships the devil will be punished during the seven bowls, and (c) that Jesus’ return is imminent. These announcements will make the devil very angry. In a rage, he will attempt to kill everyone he can find who worships the Creator of Heaven and Earth.
    {45} “Lucifer will establish his throne ‘in the middle of mankind’ and he will rule over human beings as Almighty God. His achievement will be short lived because the seven bowls will immediately begin. During the fifth bowl, the devil will be unmasked and the wicked will clearly see that the glorious being they have been worshiping is the devil himself. During the seventh bowl, the devil and his angels will be returned to the Abyss. His defeat will surely come, but not by human hands.

    {12:1} “When the devil finally sits down to rule the world from his throne, a sovereign Jesus (Michael), who rules from God’s throne in Heaven, will stand up. When Jesus stands up, 6,000 years of intercession for sinners will come to an end. On that day, Jesus will pronounce condemnation upon all who refused His offer of salvation and received the mark of the beast. The wicked will be doomed to receive the wrath of God (the seven bowls) which will be poured out without mercy. The pain and suffering inflicted on the wicked cannot be described, but everyone who has faith like Daniel, everyone whose name is found written in The Book of Life, will be delivered from the suffering which the seven bowls contain. When Jesus stands up, the persecution of the saints will cease and there will never be another Christian martyr, ever!

    Dan. 12:2-3
    And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
    Dan. 12:4
    But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
    Dan. 12:5-6
    Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

    {2} “A few days before the Second Coming, all of the martyrs who died during the fifth seal will be resurrected to everlasting life. Those who crucified Jesus will also be resurrected so that they can see the Son of Man coming in clouds of glory. Their shame will never end and they will perish with the wicked who will be destroyed a few days later when Jesus appears in clouds of glory. {3} “Those who love righteousness will shine with the radiant glory of God. In fact, the 144,000 will shine like stars forever and ever.”

    Epilogue
    {4} “But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of this book. This information is reserved for the final generation. There will be enormous advances in travel and knowledge, but the Most High God has sealed up this book until the final generation arrives.”
    {5} Then I looked and saw two glorious angels, one stood on this side of the river and the other stood on the opposite bank. {6} One of the angels said to Jesus, the glorious man clothed in bright linen who I saw earlier standing above the waters of the Tigris, “How long will it be before the astonishing events in these visions are fulfilled?”

    Dan. 12:7
    And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left handunto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be
    for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
    Dan. 12:8
    And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
    Dan. 12:9
    And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
    Dan. 12:10
    Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

    {7} Jesus lifted His right and left hand toward Heaven, and I heard him say, I swear by myself, who lives forever and ever,“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached throughout the whole world during the 1,260 days granted to my Two Witnesses.( Rev.10:5,6; 11:3) After my 144,000 servants have been killed, all of these things will be completed.”(Rev.11:2; 13:5-7)
    {8} I heard these words, but I could not understand why God’s servants will be killed. So I asked the angel, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?”
    {9} He replied, “Do not worry about these matters, Daniel, because the words of this prophecy are closed up and sealed until the time just before the end. The saints living at the time of the end will understand this vision as it pertains to them, just like the saints living at the destruction of Jerusalem will understand the portion of this vision that pertains to them.
    {10} “Many years will come and go. God’s people will be purified, made spotless and refined, and the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand these things because spiritual things are spiritually understood. At the appointed time of the end, people who are spiritually awake will be able to understand the importance of these things.

    Dan. 12:11-12
    And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
    Dan. 12:13
    But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.
    of the end, people who are spiritually awake will be able to understand the importance of these things.

    {11} “Daniel, write down everything that you have seen and heard because God’s people will need to know these things during the Great Tribulation. A time is coming when the corporate intercession of Jesus on behalf of the world will end. On that day, Jesus will cease from His daily corporate intercession. He will no longer stand between the wrath of God and sinners. The end of the daily, that is, His corporate ministry in Heaven’s temple, will be marked by peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and a great worldwide earthquake. (Rev. 8: 3-5) These events will announce the beginning of the Great Tribulation. From this somber worldwide event, the saints will count down the days to the return of Jesus. From the day the daily service at the Altar of Incense in Heaven ends until the devil establishes a universal death decree for all of God’s people (an abomination that causes desolation), there will be 1,290 days. {12} Blessed is the person who waits for and reaches the 1,335th day, for he shall see Jesus and hear His voice saying, ‘My grace is sufficient for you!’
    {13} “As for you Daniel, go on with your business until the end of your life. You will rest in sleep, and then at the end of the 1,335 days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance with all the other saints. You will be rewarded beyond your wildest imagination for your faithfulness.”









  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    "... the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there."
    Posts
    67

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

    Hi randyk, perhaps the following will explain in some detail what I mean about the repetition of history. Link.

    Please see the Appendix 7.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinyGospelShoes View Post
    Hi randyk, perhaps the following will explain in some detail what I mean about the repetition of history. Link.

    Please see the Appendix 7.
    Sorry, I don't download files like that. I prefer looking at one item at a time, anyway. Looking forward to a better explanation as to what you mean. Again, I agree that history is cyclical, that things repeat--nothing is new under the sun. But when viewing a particular prophetic fulfillment, such as who the 4 kings are, I don't know what you mean by looking at an earlier parallel? What do you see prior to these Persian kings that aids in their identification?

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    "... the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there."
    Posts
    67

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

    randyk said: "Sorry, I don't download files like that. ..."

    My reply, Then my apologies brother, then it must for now remain a mystery to you, though I have many wonderful things to say unto you from Him who sent me.

    The file is clean. You can test it, by copying the link location and by going to and plugging it in: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

    Thank you for your time. I am presently done with this thread.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinyGospelShoes View Post
    randyk said: "Sorry, I don't download files like that. ..."

    My reply, Then my apologies brother, then it must for now remain a mystery to you, though I have many wonderful things to say unto you from Him who sent me.

    The file is clean. You can test it, by copying the link location and by going to and plugging it in: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

    Thank you for your time. I am presently done with this thread.
    For sure. But I would warn you that in the future I'm here to discuss issues directly--not read websites. I've read plenty of books. Now it's time to get down to individual issues.

  6. #51
    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
    Point well taken--we do have more info today than many years ago. However, I think their arguments, in this case, are still reasonable. In any case, I don't have reason to upset what for me works. If you have major new info to share, I'm open...
    Actually we HAVE a lot of reasons to note their arguments are NOT reasonable.
    They don;t work as they do NOT agree with scripture NOR history. This means they were a best attempt, but now they need reviewing.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually we HAVE a lot of reasons to note their arguments are NOT reasonable.
    They don;t work as they do NOT agree with scripture NOR history. This means they were a best attempt, but now they need reviewing.
    The only thing I don't like about your approach is that you seem to treat your own views as the only possible ones. So when you say their work does not agree with Scripture or History what you're actually saying is that *you* don't agree with those views.

    They may very well agree with both Scripture and History. It's just that *you* think that new evidence renders their old views outdated because in view of today's evidence *you* disagree with them.

    As you know I'm not going to agree with *your word,* which means nothing--absolutely nothing--to me, unless you present real evidence. So give me this new evidence that you claim outdates their work? Then I will consider not your *word,* but your *evidence?*

    I respect you to some degree. But you treat every subject the same way, with a complete lack of humility. And some of your positions just reek of personal bias, and a complete dismissal of objective criticism.

    I can't tell you which individual issue you have is the product of "over-confidence" on your part, because I'm subject to biases as well. However, in view of the fact that you tend to deal with *every issue* with complete self-assurance, I cannot think you've covered every subject so thoroughly that you're absolutely certain you're right.

    I don't think any scholar is so sure he's right on every position. And yet, that's how you seem to treat every issue.

  8. #53
    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
    The only thing I don't like about your approach is that you seem to treat your own views as the only possible ones. So when you say their work does not agree with Scripture or History what you're actually saying is that *you* don't agree with those views.
    It isn't only me who doesn't agree with their views.
    Nor do I treat my view as the ONLY possible view.
    What I note are the CLEAR errors in their view, which they may have noted but felt they had no other means to resolve.
    We NOW know they are wrong as we have more information than they did.

    They may very well agree with both Scripture and History. It's just that *you* think that new evidence renders their old views outdated because in view of today's evidence *you* disagree with them.
    As you know I'm not going to agree with *your word,* which means nothing--absolutely nothing--to me, unless you present real evidence. So give me this new evidence that you claim outdates their work? Then I will consider not your *word,* but your *evidence?*
    I respect you to some degree. But you treat every subject the same way, with a complete lack of humility. And some of your positions just reek of personal bias, and a complete dismissal of objective criticism.
    I can't tell you which individual issue you have is the product of "over-confidence" on your part, because I'm subject to biases as well. However, in view of the fact that you tend to deal with *every issue* with complete self-assurance, I cannot think you've covered every subject so thoroughly that you're absolutely certain you're right.
    I don't think any scholar is so sure he's right on every position. And yet, that's how you seem to treat every issue.
    I offer my view up to scrutiny and you can highlight where my view is wrong. However you don't actually do this. If you could THEN you could say I am wrong because... instead your ONLY response is - well someone from some time ago thought this, and therefore because they were a scholar I will accept it.
    You also choose to ignore what we DO know from those times, which these scholars did NOT know.
    You also choose to ignore the issues WITHIN scripture their view forces, such as their bizarre take on Ezra 4.
    One should be properly humble and NOT falsely humble.
    If there is something wrong with a view which means the way of interpreting a piece of scripture is INCONSISTENT and CONTEXTUALLY incorrect, and we have an alternative which does NOT have this issue, then a person should have the HUMILITY to consider the alternative. However you have no such humility, and then accuse others of not being humble.

    I have presented real evidence, but because it comes form me you reject it - just as you rejected real evidence in other threads, simply because it didn;t fit with what you had predetermined MUST be the truth regardless of the FACTS.

    Now instead of this becoming a slinging match between us, which ultimately edifies nobody, how about actually getting into what you claim is reasonable and note what is NOT reasonable - such as the weird distortion of time given by your "experts" rendering of Ezra 4.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It isn't only me who doesn't agree with their views.
    Nor do I treat my view as the ONLY possible view.
    What I note are the CLEAR errors in their view, which they may have noted but felt they had no other means to resolve.
    We NOW know they are wrong as we have more information than they did.


    I offer my view up to scrutiny and you can highlight where my view is wrong. However you don't actually do this. If you could THEN you could say I am wrong because... instead your ONLY response is - well someone from some time ago thought this, and therefore because they were a scholar I will accept it.
    You also choose to ignore what we DO know from those times, which these scholars did NOT know.
    You also choose to ignore the issues WITHIN scripture their view forces, such as their bizarre take on Ezra 4.
    One should be properly humble and NOT falsely humble.
    If there is something wrong with a view which means the way of interpreting a piece of scripture is INCONSISTENT and CONTEXTUALLY incorrect, and we have an alternative which does NOT have this issue, then a person should have the HUMILITY to consider the alternative. However you have no such humility, and then accuse others of not being humble.

    I have presented real evidence, but because it comes form me you reject it - just as you rejected real evidence in other threads, simply because it didn;t fit with what you had predetermined MUST be the truth regardless of the FACTS.

    Now instead of this becoming a slinging match between us, which ultimately edifies nobody, how about actually getting into what you claim is reasonable and note what is NOT reasonable - such as the weird distortion of time given by your "experts" rendering of Ezra 4.
    Sure, I *always* want to move beyond the "personal stuff." Thanks. My view of Ezra 4 is that it *isn't* strange or weird. We've dealt with this before. Rather than looking up that conversation, let me just say in a nutshell: Ezra is dealing with the same characters I've been talking about, Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. In the general time of Cyrus, or immediately afterwards, in Darius' reign, Zerubbabel and the associated prophets worked toward the rebuilding of the temple.

    Ezra 4 deals with the general subject of opposition to the temple project, which covers a period including all of these kings. Ezra 4.24 is placed at end of the chapter, in preparation for a different set of documents with a brand new time frame.

    At any rate, documents placed as such together, to cover a particular subject, does not have to present a linear order. The 1st set of documents may cover a time frame from Darius to Artaxerxes. The next document may go back to retrace steps leading to Darius, in particular. Please notice that Ezra 4 compiles different documents with one time frame, and Ezra 4.25 - Ezra 6 compiles a set of documents with its own time frame, even if both time frames overlap.

  10. #55
    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
    Sure, I *always* want to move beyond the "personal stuff." Thanks. My view of Ezra 4 is that it *isn't* strange or weird. We've dealt with this before. Rather than looking up that conversation, let me just say in a nutshell: Ezra is dealing with the same characters I've been talking about, Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. In the general time of Cyrus, or immediately afterwards, in Darius' reign, Zerubbabel and the associated prophets worked toward the rebuilding of the temple.
    OK, here is where you have a problem. IN Ezra 4 he finishes in the time of Darius.
    Darius was Artaxerxes Longimanes grandfather. So you are introducing a 50 year gap into Ezra 4 without a SINGLE clue within Ezra 4 to suggest it.
    The ONLY reason to suggest the gap is because there was difficult finding out who the kings were. However in Ezra 4 there is ZRERO suggestion of a 50 year gap or some flashback like a modern movie.

    Ezra 4 deals with the general subject of opposition to the temple project, which covers a period including all of these kings. Ezra 4.24 is placed at end of the chapter, in preparation for a different set of documents with a brand new time frame.
    Does NOT include Artaxerxes Longimanes. That is an INSERTION made because they didn't know all the kings of that kingdom.

    At any rate, documents placed as such together, to cover a particular subject, does not have to present a linear order. The 1st set of documents may cover a time frame from Darius to Artaxerxes. The next document may go back to retrace steps leading to Darius, in particular. Please notice that Ezra 4 compiles different documents with one time frame, and Ezra 4.25 - Ezra 6 compiles a set of documents with its own time frame, even if both time frames overlap.
    It is PRESENTED as linear AND presented in DIRECT connection. To claim otherwise is to abuse the language most strongly AND to introduce someone COMPLETELY outside the framework of the chapter whihc is the COMPLETION of the building of the temple, which Ezra 4 clearly states is COMPLETED in the reign of Darius!

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    OK, here is where you have a problem. IN Ezra 4 he finishes in the time of Darius.
    Darius was Artaxerxes Longimanes grandfather. So you are introducing a 50 year gap into Ezra 4 without a SINGLE clue within Ezra 4 to suggest it.
    The ONLY reason to suggest the gap is because there was difficult finding out who the kings were. However in Ezra 4 there is ZRERO suggestion of a 50 year gap or some flashback like a modern movie.


    Does NOT include Artaxerxes Longimanes. That is an INSERTION made because they didn't know all the kings of that kingdom.


    It is PRESENTED as linear AND presented in DIRECT connection. To claim otherwise is to abuse the language most strongly AND to introduce someone COMPLETELY outside the framework of the chapter whihc is the COMPLETION of the building of the temple, which Ezra 4 clearly states is COMPLETED in the reign of Darius!
    I'll try to explain to you the reason for the order given, which indeed is a little difficult. I think there are two main foci in this narrative--one, the rebuilding of the temple, and two, the rebuilding of the city.

    The temple rebuilding project focuses on the reign of Darius, who completes the project. But the historical background provided includes the history from Zerubbabel and Cyrus up until the time of Darius. As such we have record of opposition both in the time of Zerubbabel and in the time of Darius. Again, the focus is on Darius, in whose reign opposition continued, but ultimately, was put to rest for the purpose of completing the temple project.

    The city rebuilding project is focused on next, and recognizes the temple rebuilding project that underlay it. And so it refers back to the time of Zerubbabel, where the original vision began with the rebuilding of the temple. But then the emphasis comes to be not so much the temple rebuilding project as the city rebuilding project, and the opposition that preceded it.

    Therefore, I think the focus in Ezra 4-7 is initially on the successful completion of the temple in the time of Darius, and on the history leading up to the completion of that project. And then the history generally shifts to the emphasis on completing the city project under Artaxerxes.

    However, in Ezra 4 we have both the temple opposition and the city opposition placed together, leading all the way from Zerubbabel to Artaxerxes. But in Ezra 5 we return to the temple project under Darius, before proceeding, once again, to the time of Artaxerxes. And although we initially hear of opposition to the city project under Artaxerxes, he released documents to eventually let the project continue to completion.

    It may be the different documents, involving 2 distinct projects--the temple and the city--that cause the timeline in the narrative to deviate somewhat. When documents are provided it can be necessary to lay the groundwork for explaining what they meant. The temple and the city projects sort of blend together. Opposition existed for both. But they were completed separately under different kings.

  12. #57
    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'll try to explain to you the reason for the order given, which indeed is a little difficult. I think there are two main foci in this narrative--one, the rebuilding of the temple, and two, the rebuilding of the city.
    Nope, your initial starting point is wrong.
    Ezra 1 has what the whole book is about - the fulfillment of the Word of the Lord (as given to Jeremiah).
    Ezra 2 list those who returned after Cyrus' edict - who has made his edict in response to God's edict.
    Ezra 3 tells us about the STARt of the rebuilding of the temple, the altar, the restart of sacrifices and the laying of the foundation for the entire temple
    Ezra 4 then tells us about the opposition to that rebuilding of the temple and states the kings under whom this opposition to the rebuilding occurs as STIPULATED in Ezra 4:5 - Cyrus to Darius. Ezra 4 concludes with the work stopped UNTIL the 2nd year of Darius (v24)

    So for YOUR claim to be correct, that this includes Artaxerxes Longimanes, then this would be referring to the Darius who came AFTER that Artaxerxes. Yet clearly you are NOT agreeing that.

    The temple rebuilding project focuses on the reign of Darius, who completes the project. But the historical background provided includes the history from Zerubbabel and Cyrus up until the time of Darius. As such we have record of opposition both in the time of Zerubbabel and in the time of Darius. Again, the focus is on Darius, in whose reign opposition continued, but ultimately, was put to rest for the purpose of completing the temple project.
    Ezra 5 focuses on the restart under Darius, but initially with Haggai and Zechariah prophesying to exhort them to complete the work, and this is clearly stated in verse 2 as being the work of Zerubbabel, which puts BOTH Haggai and Zechariah as prophesying at this time. It then looks at the fresh opposition.
    Ezra 6 then has that opposition defeated by Darius.

    The city rebuilding project is focused on next, and recognizes the temple rebuilding project that underlay it. And so it refers back to the time of Zerubbabel, where the original vision began with the rebuilding of the temple. But then the emphasis comes to be not so much the temple rebuilding project as the city rebuilding project, and the opposition that preceded it.
    Now IF you want to possibly consider a cit rebuilding, this doesn't come into any possible focus until Ezra 7.
    However this actually doesn't make sense to be about Artaxerxes Longimanes for the very specific reason that Ezra is seen as being a brother of Jehozadak and is now an old man.
    Nehemiah 12:1 has Ezra as returning with Zerubbabel, but Ezra himself has himself returning a few years later in the time of Cyus' son Cambyses II (called Artaxerxes).

    Therefore, I think the focus in Ezra 4-7 is initially on the successful completion of the temple in the time of Darius, and on the history leading up to the completion of that project. And then the history generally shifts to the emphasis on completing the city project under Artaxerxes.
    Actually nowhere in Ezra 4 - 7 do we have mention of the rebuilding of the city EXCEPT in the ORIGINAL complaint in Ezra 4 where it is stated the work on the temple was stopped because of this complaint AND remained so UNTIL the 2nd year of Darius.

    It may be the different documents, involving 2 distinct projects--the temple and the city--that cause the timeline in the narrative to deviate somewhat. When documents are provided it can be necessary to lay the groundwork for explaining what they meant. The temple and the city projects sort of blend together. Opposition existed for both. But they were completed separately under different kings.
    Actually Ezra 4 is VERY clear, and is the reason why the work on the TEMPLE stopped.
    What you are trying to do is MOVE Ezra 4 out of its relationship with everything stated and try to put it AFTER Ezra 6.
    The ONLY reason to do so is based on the name of the king as Artaxerxes.
    However the NARRATIVE puts this particular Artaxerxes as being in between Cyrus and Darius.
    Furthermore, the name Artaxerxes is used for many kings as a TITLE.
    Basically you move away from what is actually stated, a very clear and simple narrative, to a made up narrative, because you have fixated on the name of Artaxerxes and determined which Artaxerxes this must be referring to.
    The language used throughout Ezra 4 though precludes such a possibility.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, your initial starting point is wrong.
    Ezra 1 has what the whole book is about - the fulfillment of the Word of the Lord (as given to Jeremiah).
    Ezra 2 list those who returned after Cyrus' edict - who has made his edict in response to God's edict.
    Ezra 3 tells us about the STARt of the rebuilding of the temple, the altar, the restart of sacrifices and the laying of the foundation for the entire temple
    Ezra 4 then tells us about the opposition to that rebuilding of the temple and states the kings under whom this opposition to the rebuilding occurs as STIPULATED in Ezra 4:5 - Cyrus to Darius. Ezra 4 concludes with the work stopped UNTIL the 2nd year of Darius (v24)

    So for YOUR claim to be correct, that this includes Artaxerxes Longimanes, then this would be referring to the Darius who came AFTER that Artaxerxes. Yet clearly you are NOT agreeing that.
    Most of what you said is precisely what I was saying. Reference to Artaxerxes extended the history of opposition to the rebuilding projects beyond the reign of Darius. Darius was the central figure, at this point in the narrative, because it was in his reign that the temple project got completed. Inasmuch as opposition continued past that project, in the matter of the city rebuilding project, the history of opposition was recounted beyond the reign of Darius.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Ezra 5 focuses on the restart under Darius, but initially with Haggai and Zechariah prophesying to exhort them to complete the work, and this is clearly stated in verse 2 as being the work of Zerubbabel, which puts BOTH Haggai and Zechariah as prophesying at this time. It then looks at the fresh opposition.
    Ezra 6 then has that opposition defeated by Darius.
    I don't know what you think you're refuting? This is what I've been saying, that emphasis is initially put on the completion of the temple in the time of Darius. However, opposition to the temple project also included opposition to the city project.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now IF you want to possibly consider a cit rebuilding, this doesn't come into any possible focus until Ezra 7.
    That's false. The prophecy and the decree had to do with the dual aspect of temple restoration and city restoration.

    Ezra 4.11 To King Artaxerxes,
    From your servants in Trans-Euphrates:
    12 The king should know that the people who came up to us from you have gone to Jerusalem and are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are restoring the walls and repairing the foundations.
    13 Furthermore, the king should know that if this city is built and its walls are restored, no more taxes, tribute or duty will be paid, and eventually the royal revenues will suffer.


    This is completely inclusive of the city rebuilding project! The focus initially was on the reconstruction of the temple. But all along, the focus was on both the reconstruction of the temple and on the reconstruction of the city.

    Isa 45.13 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.”

    In other places, eg 2 Chron 36.23 and Ezra 1.2, the emphasis is on the reconstruction of the temple. But the restoration of the temple obviously required restoration of the city, to protect and to defend, as well as to sustain, the temple.

    Dan 9.26 refers to a new destruction of the city and the temple together, indicating they are to be viewed together. This passage also indicates the decree in the time of Artaxerxes in which the completion of the temple/city project would be enabled, ie 457 BC.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However this actually doesn't make sense to be about Artaxerxes Longimanes for the very specific reason that Ezra is seen as being a brother of Jehozadak and is now an old man.
    Nehemiah 12:1 has Ezra as returning with Zerubbabel, but Ezra himself has himself returning a few years later in the time of Cyus' son Cambyses II (called Artaxerxes).
    This was obviously a different Ezra.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually nowhere in Ezra 4 - 7 do we have mention of the rebuilding of the city EXCEPT in the ORIGINAL complaint in Ezra 4 where it is stated the work on the temple was stopped because of this complaint AND remained so UNTIL the 2nd year of Darius.
    See above. The opposition was not just to prevent the reconstruction of the temple, but more, to prevent the reconstruction of the city. The adversaries of Israel were concerned not just with the temple, but with the rising political power of the nation, with its infrastructure. They claimed it was a threat to Persian authorities and posed the risk of rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually Ezra 4 is VERY clear, and is the reason why the work on the TEMPLE stopped.
    What you are trying to do is MOVE Ezra 4 out of its relationship with everything stated and try to put it AFTER Ezra 6.
    The ONLY reason to do so is based on the name of the king as Artaxerxes.
    However the NARRATIVE puts this particular Artaxerxes as being in between Cyrus and Darius.
    No, it doesn't. The narrative recites the opposition that began with the temple project and continuing through the city project. This requires an account from the time of Cyrus to Artaxerxes. Darius figures prominently because the temple project got finished during his reign. Artaxerxes figures prominently because he enabled the completion of the city project. The particular order in which kings are mentioned do not indicate a sequential timeline in their mention. There are different subjects to recount, requiring different timelines for each particular subject.

    Artaxerxes is mentioned, in the general timeframe from Cyrus to Artaxerxes, in the subject of opposition to both temple and city rebuilding projects. Then Darius is mentioned on the subject of opposition in his time to the temple rebuilding project. This does not constitute a linear time sequence in the mention of two different subjects. This is all the same basic timeframe, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes. The mention of general opposition throughout the whole time period, in Ezra 4, does not prohibit the zooming in on Darius time frame later, in Ezra 5.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Furthermore, the name Artaxerxes is used for many kings as a TITLE.
    Basically you move away from what is actually stated, a very clear and simple narrative, to a made up narrative, because you have fixated on the name of Artaxerxes and determined which Artaxerxes this must be referring to.
    The language used throughout Ezra 4 though precludes such a possibility.
    No, the way I view it has been over-complicated by several different views. We simply disagree.

  14. #59
    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
    Most of what you said is precisely what I was saying. Reference to Artaxerxes extended the history of opposition to the rebuilding projects beyond the reign of Darius. Darius was the central figure, at this point in the narrative, because it was in his reign that the temple project got completed. Inasmuch as opposition continued past that project, in the matter of the city rebuilding project, the history of opposition was recounted beyond the reign of Darius.
    The problem is you are CONFUSED as to WHICH Artaxerxes is referenced. This is the SOURCE of your error.
    What you do is INSERT a period of 50 years with an ENTIRE rule of Xerxes missing with no opposition or mention of it AND more importantly you miss out the kings who cam eBETWEEN Cyrus and Darius.
    There is NO reference to ANYONE beyond Darius. It is a COMPLETE fictitious requirement to somehow insert someone who doesn't even figure in the narrative.
    The narrative states FROM Cyrus TO Darius. You have FROM Cyrus THEN Artaxerxes BACK to Darius without the narrative even hinting at such a bizarre idea.

    I don't know what you think you're refuting? This is what I've been saying, that emphasis is initially put on the completion of the temple in the time of Darius. However, opposition to the temple project also included opposition to the city project.
    I am highlighting WHAT the chapters are speaking about.
    There is NO opposition in Ezra 1 - 6 to the building of the city EXCEPT within the claim in Ezra 4 which was made by the enemies to the building of the temple.. Actually you don't find it in Ezra 7 - 10 either.
    Why create fictitious claims?

    That's false. The prophecy and the decree had to do with the dual aspect of temple restoration and city restoration.
    Ezra 4.11 To King Artaxerxes,
    From your servants in Trans-Euphrates:
    12 The king should know that the people who came up to us from you have gone to Jerusalem and are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are restoring the walls and repairing the foundations.
    13 Furthermore, the king should know that if this city is built and its walls are restored, no more taxes, tribute or duty will be paid, and eventually the royal revenues will suffer.


    This is completely inclusive of the city rebuilding project! The focus initially was on the reconstruction of the temple. But all along, the focus was on both the reconstruction of the temple and on the reconstruction of the city.
    I did say that the ONLY claim was in Ezra 4, and this by those opposing the building of the temple.
    The SERIOUS problem for you is that the temple was COMPLETED in the reign of Darius therefore this complaint MUST be about that time:
    Ezr 4:1* Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the LORD, the God of Israel,*
    Ezr 4:2* they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers' houses and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here.”*
    Ezr 4:3* But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers' houses in Israel said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”*
    Ezr 4:4* Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build*
    Ezr 4:5* and bribed counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

    Very simple, it states unequivocally it is speaking about between Cyrus and Darius NOT AFTER Darius.

    Isa 45.13 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.”
    In other places, eg 2 Chron 36.23 and Ezra 1.2, the emphasis is on the reconstruction of the temple. But the restoration of the temple obviously required restoration of the city, to protect and to defend, as well as to sustain, the temple.
    Dan 9.26 refers to a new destruction of the city and the temple together, indicating they are to be viewed together. This passage also indicates the decree in the time of Artaxerxes in which the completion of the temple/city project would be enabled, ie 457 BC.
    The temple was COMPLETED first, the city later. It is NOT agreeing with scripture to try to say the city MUST be completed first and then the temple.

    This was obviously a different Ezra.
    Really? Based on what?


    See above. The opposition was not just to prevent the reconstruction of the temple, but more, to prevent the reconstruction of the city. The adversaries of Israel were concerned not just with the temple, but with the rising political power of the nation, with its infrastructure. They claimed it was a threat to Persian authorities and posed the risk of rebellion.

    No, it doesn't. The narrative recites the opposition that began with the temple project and continuing through the city project. This requires an account from the time of Cyrus to Artaxerxes. Darius figures prominently because the temple project got finished during his reign. Artaxerxes figures prominently because he enabled the completion of the city project. The particular order in which kings are mentioned do not indicate a sequential timeline in their mention. There are different subjects to recount, requiring different timelines for each particular subject.

    Artaxerxes is mentioned, in the general timeframe from Cyrus to Artaxerxes, in the subject of opposition to both temple and city rebuilding projects. Then Darius is mentioned on the subject of opposition in his time to the temple rebuilding project. This does not constitute a linear time sequence in the mention of two different subjects. This is all the same basic timeframe, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes. The mention of general opposition throughout the whole time period, in Ezra 4, does not prohibit the zooming in on Darius time frame later, in Ezra 5.
    Nope the narrative does NOT recite opposition AFTER the reign of Darius.
    It is you bringing things from OUTSIDE the passage which makes you claim this.
    There is a very clear, linear time sequence, and it is an absurdity to try to force an event 50+ years into this narrative. Take it as stated. There was an Artaxerxes between Cyrus and Darius and we know him as Cambyses II.
    As soon as you recognise and accept that THEN ALL of Ezra makes sense without weird insertions and flashbacks as if in a B-movie.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,629

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The problem is you are CONFUSED as to WHICH Artaxerxes is referenced. This is the SOURCE of your error.
    What you do is INSERT a period of 50 years with an ENTIRE rule of Xerxes missing with no opposition or mention of it AND more importantly you miss out the kings who cam eBETWEEN Cyrus and Darius.
    There is NO reference to ANYONE beyond Darius. It is a COMPLETE fictitious requirement to somehow insert someone who doesn't even figure in the narrative.
    The narrative states FROM Cyrus TO Darius. You have FROM Cyrus THEN Artaxerxes BACK to Darius without the narrative even hinting at such a bizarre idea.


    I am highlighting WHAT the chapters are speaking about.
    There is NO opposition in Ezra 1 - 6 to the building of the city EXCEPT within the claim in Ezra 4 which was made by the enemies to the building of the temple.. Actually you don't find it in Ezra 7 - 10 either.
    Why create fictitious claims?


    I did say that the ONLY claim was in Ezra 4, and this by those opposing the building of the temple.
    The SERIOUS problem for you is that the temple was COMPLETED in the reign of Darius therefore this complaint MUST be about that time:
    Ezr 4:1* Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the LORD, the God of Israel,*
    Ezr 4:2* they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers' houses and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here.”*
    Ezr 4:3* But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers' houses in Israel said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”*
    Ezr 4:4* Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build*
    Ezr 4:5* and bribed counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

    Very simple, it states unequivocally it is speaking about between Cyrus and Darius NOT AFTER Darius.


    The temple was COMPLETED first, the city later. It is NOT agreeing with scripture to try to say the city MUST be completed first and then the temple.


    Really? Based on what?


    See above. The opposition was not just to prevent the reconstruction of the temple, but more, to prevent the reconstruction of the city. The adversaries of Israel were concerned not just with the temple, but with the rising political power of the nation, with its infrastructure. They claimed it was a threat to Persian authorities and posed the risk of rebellion.


    Nope the narrative does NOT recite opposition AFTER the reign of Darius.
    It is you bringing things from OUTSIDE the passage which makes you claim this.
    There is a very clear, linear time sequence, and it is an absurdity to try to force an event 50+ years into this narrative. Take it as stated. There was an Artaxerxes between Cyrus and Darius and we know him as Cambyses II.
    As soon as you recognise and accept that THEN ALL of Ezra makes sense without weird insertions and flashbacks as if in a B-movie.
    I'm not confused. We just disagree. And neither of us is going to be able to beat it into the other!

    I believe you have the wrong narrative. The narrative involves discussion of the *entire period* of opposition, to both the temple project and the city project. This takes us from Cyrus to Artaxerxes.

    And so, in ch. 4 we have in the narrative both projects and the entire time period. But it begins with an emphasis on the temple project, which is completed in the reign of Darius.

    So even though Artaxerxes figures in the timeline of general opposition, throughout the entire time period, the narrative returns to Darius, because it is in his reign that the temple project is completed, and it is the temple project that comes before the city project.

    In my view this makes *perfect sense!* Ch. 4 is not inconsistent when it mentions 2 things here:
    1) There is the entire history of opposition, through both temple and city projects, and from Cyrus to Artaxerxes. Therefore, it is *not* inconsistent for ch. 4 to mention Artaxerxes.
    2) There is the focus, initially, on the the temple project. And so, a return is made, in ch. 4, to the reign of Darius, who finished the temple project before Artaxerxes arrived later to enable completion of the city project.

    Why you can't understand my perspective as logical here is mystifying? Are you going to say that no matter how logical my position is that it defies comprehension simply because I disagree with your position?

    Cambyses is not the Artaxerxes referred to in this discussion. I think there are as many holes in your position as you think there are in mine. Can we agree to disagree?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 9 guests)

  1. randyk

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
  •