Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 461

Thread: Daniel

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You're really not seeing my scenario, which I believe to be what the Scriptures are saying. The Scriptures are repeating in ch. 11 what they had said in ch. 8, that a terrible ruler would come to rule over Israel, and threaten both Israel's religion and Israel's existence. This was Antiochus 4, who was evidently a foreshadow of the Antichrist.

    Of course, Antiochus 4 was *not* the Antichrist, and would die, as all men do. And it was after his death that God was anticipating a time of approaching distress for Israel once again. In other words, Antiochus 4 was just the beginning of a time in Israel's history in which both their religion and their existence would be tested.

    And as I said, it was necessary for Michael to rise *at that time* because Rome arose at that time, to assume control over Israel, and to eventually destroy the Jewish religion, as well as Jerusalem, their holy city. This was the beginning of the Great Tribulation that Daniel is shown, and which lasts until the resurrection, or the end of the age.

    If you are going to represent my position as inept, please represent it properly. You're certainly not being rude, but seeing it as I do it doesn't appear to be a "stretch" at all. In fact, it seems to actually be what the Scriptures are saying.

    I don't see how you can interpret it any other way? To do so appears to insert a lot that just isn't there. There is no Antichrist at all.

    This is all about the time immediately following the reign of Antiochus 4. The leap ahead to the endtimes, and to the resurrection, is not in reference to the Antichrist at all. Antichrist is only found in ch. 7.

    And the Great Tribulation Jesus referred to in Luke 21.20-23 clearly was associated with the fall of Jerusalem and with the fall of the temple in 70 AD. That is clearly the context for the beginning of the Great Tribulation. And this Great Tribulation lasts throughout the NT era, as long as the Jews remain in Diaspora, until the end of the age, when the Son of Man returns to establish judgeship for those who are his disciples.

    Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

    I've regularly seen brothers rail against my position, in this respect, denounce it, speak of it derogatorily, or just ignore it. But it is what it is. And if you're going to interpret Dan 12 differently, you're going to have to explain it.
    I still don't see how a time of distress occurred at the time of the death of Antiochus. His death was a time of relief for Israel, not distress. This relief carried on for over 100 years. So certainly no distress occurred at the time of Antiochus death as required by the verse.

    You see a time gap between the rise of Michael and the time of distress, and then a later resurrection. Instead I see all these events occurring at the time of the death of that king. The phrase "at that time" is used twice to emphasize how this all occurs at the time of the death of that king. You seem to spread out events that the Bible emphasizes all occur at that time.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    5,052
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by az331 View Post
    Daniel 11 is indeed describing the antichrist
    Correct.

    The chapter describes the beast empire which has risen up in chapter 7 and when the 4th beast takes control upon the earth.

    The only 2 countries I can match to the south king and the north king is Saudi
    Arabia and Iran. Nothing else fits at all to me.
    To understand the north and south king one needs to look into the future still as this 4th kingdom has yet risen. One cannot look at today's landscape for the answer. When the events in chapter 11 take place the landscape in much different as W3 (Matt 24:6,7) has taken place, the world is a literal wilderness with billions of people killed and all countries removed. It will be a new world order. The north and south kings are part of the beast system.

    The new order will consist of four kings which will control the land; North, East, West, South. These are represented by the Lion, Bear, Leopard, Beast in Dan 7 AND the four horseman in the four seals Rev 6. These four kings will reign over 12 tribes each having control of 3 tribes a piece. Further, these four kings over 12 tribes will be divided into two parts, a northern kingdom and a southern kingdom. There will be a king of the north and the king of the south. We then ultimately see another (little horn of the 4th beast) take control of the kingdom (false lamb/Christ).

    Now this must all look familiar as it is a counterfeit of the holy kingdom to come upon the earth. One can only unlock the mystery when one understands Satan goes to counterfeit God's kingdom for the ultimate deception and then assuming king over it.

    There might be more years left than it seems..before Christ return.
    And I'm gettin old.
    All it is going to take is another world war to start the process then the end will be in less than 10 years. The war would need to be consumated involving those which can carry it out, ie USA, Russia. I believe there is a very high probability this war will take place sooner than later.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    5,052
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz View Post
    What you don't seem to see, is the forthcoming huge change to the world as we know it.
    7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

    But we Christians will not be a part of the OWG, we will live in all of the holy Land, under the Lord's protection. That is why the AC comes to us and makes a 7 year peace treaty. He will break it at the mid point, Daniel 9:27 This commences the Great Tribulation for the final 3 1/2 years, then Jesus Returns and reigns of the next 1000 years.
    Christian will not be protect from the first death, where the apostles? Rather we will be killed off as unbelievers to the OWG which is perceived as the God's kingdom upon the earth.

    BTW, I am 78, but I confidently expect to see it all happen.
    If you can hang in there for another 5 years I think you will see the start of it.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    5,052
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz View Post
    Thanks.

    This time around the reset of civilization will happen to a much bigger, worldwide population and most will survive it. Only the Middle East will be virtually depopulated.
    Rather the opposite most world wide population will be depopulated and become a wilderness. The middle east area will survive more than the rest.

    The following will depopulate the earth

    6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
    7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

    The Christians will be blamed for the above event.

    8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
    9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

    The sudden and shocking Day of the Lord's fiery wrath could happen tomorrow.
    But it will happen on an Appointed Day. Habakkuk 2:3 We are told of several Days of significance and there are other indicators.
    [/QUOTE]

    All the above need to occur before this day. The day of the Lord is the final event.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,250
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Thanks for the explanation of your view. Kindly clarify who the "he" is from v36? It is one character, yet you seem to involve both Rome and Herod.

    For example it was Rome who conquered Egypt, not Herod. Rome invaded Israel, not Herod. By the time Herod was in power these things had already been done. Yet Daniel 11 says the same "he" did all these things.

    Also you don't explain the resurrection that occurred at the time of his death:
    45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at[f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. AT THAT TIME Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But AT THAT TIME your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
    It is often easy to forget that there are THREE players in Daniel's narrative in chapter 11, i.e. the king(s) of the north and south and sandwiched in the middle are Daniel's people from whose perspective [focal point] we see the unfolding events. As I explained, the participation of A4E ended in verse 31. I am disheartened that despite my attention to detail and clarity, you didn't actually read my post given your questions.

    This is the king in v-36 as I explained yesterday. You couldn't have missed it if you had read my post because I covered your queries yesterday!

    "However, the stage changes from v-36 with the introduction of the 'king' without the prefix of either north or south. This new king is Herod the Great!"

    There are time gaps in Dan 11; it will be foolhardy to interpret the events as occurrences that followed one another in the timescale. What understandably confuses many and leads them down the wrong timeline is the use of "at that time" and "at the time of the end". The event and era often provide insight into the "time of the end" in question. Apart from Dan 12, chapter 11 deals with events that occurred during the 400 years of God's silence (Amos 8:11) between the OT and NT.

    So where the context permits, the 'at that time or at the time of the end' could mean the *end* of the OT age. Unfortunately, many have ignored the contexts in favour of arguing that these phrases constantly refer to the end times. But they couldn't be further from the truth if they tried.

    Chapter 12 starts with the Hebrew phrase uva'et, which is translated "at that time." When used in prophetic writings, this phrase always denotes the time of the appearance of Messiah to save Israel (Jer. 33:15; 50:4, 20; Joel 3:1; Zep. 3:20). The context of the first verses in chapter 12 shows that the prophecy has now jumped forward to the time of the ultimate salvation of Daniel's people at the eschaton, which includes a resurrection from the dead (Rev. 11:18; Rev 19:4-6).

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    It is often easy to forget that there are THREE players in Daniel's narrative in chapter 11, i.e. the king(s) of the north and south and sandwiched in the middle are Daniel's people from whose perspective [focal point] we see the unfolding events. As I explained, the participation of A4E ended in verse 31. I am disheartened that despite my attention to detail and clarity, you didn't actually read my post given your questions.

    This is the king in v-36 as I explained yesterday. You couldn't have missed it if you had read my post because I covered your queries yesterday!

    "However, the stage changes from v-36 with the introduction of the 'king' without the prefix of either north or south. This new king is Herod the Great!"

    There are time gaps in Dan 11; it will be foolhardy to interpret the events as occurrences that followed one another in the timescale. What understandably confuses many and leads them down the wrong timeline is the use of "at that time" and "at the time of the end". The event and era often provide insight into the "time of the end" in question. Apart from Dan 12, chapter 11 deals with events that occurred during the 400 years of God's silence (Amos 8:11) between the OT and NT.

    So where the context permits, the 'at that time or at the time of the end' could mean the *end* of the OT age. Unfortunately, many have ignored the contexts in favour of arguing that these phrases constantly refer to the end times. But they couldn't be further from the truth if they tried.

    Chapter 12 starts with the Hebrew phrase uva'et, which is translated "at that time." When used in prophetic writings, this phrase always denotes the time of the appearance of Messiah to save Israel (Jer. 33:15; 50:4, 20; Joel 3:1; Zep. 3:20). The context of the first verses in chapter 12 shows that the prophecy has now jumped forward to the time of the ultimate salvation of Daniel's people at the eschaton, which includes a resurrection from the dead (Rev. 11:18; Rev 19:4-6).
    You say that you have explained it, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Herod does not fit the events of v36-45. Hopefully others understand your position regarding Herod.

    You saying that the phrase "at that time" refers to the coming Messiah. I agree with that context. However I believe this is when the character of v36-45 dies, at the time of the second coming, day of the Lord, and resurrection. I see no hint of a change in subject by the angel. The phrase "at that time" also links Ch11 with Ch12, so on this too we shall have to disagree.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I still don't see how a time of distress occurred at the time of the death of Antiochus. His death was a time of relief for Israel, not distress. This relief carried on for over 100 years. So certainly no distress occurred at the time of Antiochus death as required by the verse.

    You see a time gap between the rise of Michael and the time of distress, and then a later resurrection. Instead I see all these events occurring at the time of the death of that king. The phrase "at that time" is used twice to emphasize how this all occurs at the time of the death of that king. You seem to spread out events that the Bible emphasizes all occur at that time.
    Yes, I know what you mean. I do spread things out, but I do so in conformity with how Jesus himself depicted this passage. He clearly said this Great Distress was a "fulfillment of all that is written" (Luke 21.22). And the way Jesus described it "stretches out" this Great Distress from the beginning point in 70 AD to the end point at the Return of Christ. Jesus stretches this out, or elongates it--not me!

    So why did this time of Distress get associated with Antiochus 4 and with the rise of Michael? I believe it was because Antiochus 4 presents a picture of Antichrist, of the worst kind of trial that Israel would have to face. Antiochus perverted the orthodox practice of the Jewish religion under the Law. He tried to force the Jews to turn to Hellenism, and to deface their holy religion. And in the process he murdered many thousands of Jews, who wanted to preserve both their religion and their independence.

    So while the death of Antiochus 4 was good news for Israel, the purpose of this prophecy seems to be that the trouble was not ending. After Antiochus 4 there would be an even greater challenge for the Jewish people, with respect to their religion and independence. Rome would rise to take control of the Jewish land, and in 70 AD would actually initiate a period of Great Distress beginning with the actual destruction of the Jewish temple and the holy city, Jerusalem. This period, according to Jesus, would last until "the times of the Gentiles are ended."

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Please note that Jesus seems to state that the Jewish Diaspora of the entire NT period is the fulfillment of what is described in Dan 12.

    Dan 12.1 At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.

    Clearly, the end point of the prophecy in Dan 12.1 is the end of the age, when the Son of Man comes, and the saints are raised from the dead. This is the final deliverance of Israel from her Gentile oppressors.

    Thus, this Great Tribulation involves the suffering of the Jewish People until the end of the age, when Christ comes back to deliver them. We see, as well, the beginning point of this Great Tribulation. It is when Michael, the angelic prince over Israel, rises to keep Israel alive and capable of receiving their final deliverance.

    Antiochus 4 was, as such, the beginning point of this prophecy of a coming Great Tribulation. He threatened the existence and religious hope of Israel. And since his death would not bring an end to this threat, Michael arose to safeguard the existence and hope of Israel.

    So we have the beginning point of the prophecy, following the death of Antiochus 4. And we have the end point at the coming of Christ, to save Israel. Clearly, the Great Tribulation is the thing Jesus explained in Luke 21 as the NT age of Jewish Diaspora.

    The Romans threatened Israel's existence and hope when they destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. And the ongoing scattering of Israel throughout the world has continued to threaten Israel's existence with the longest-lasting judgment in Israel's history!

    This is exactly as Jesus explained it, and indicated it was a fulfillment of the prophecy, I believe, in Dan 12.1 To explain the Great Tribulation in some other way goes against what Jesus said here, in my view. It is, I believe, the NT age of Jewish frustration, the Great NT Diaspora of the Jewish People.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, I know what you mean. I do spread things out, but I do so in conformity with how Jesus himself depicted this passage. He clearly said this Great Distress was a "fulfillment of all that is written" (Luke 21.22). And the way Jesus described it "stretches out" this Great Distress from the beginning point in 70 AD to the end point at the Return of Christ. Jesus stretches this out, or elongates it--not me!

    So why did this time of Distress get associated with Antiochus 4 and with the rise of Michael? I believe it was because Antiochus 4 presents a picture of Antichrist, of the worst kind of trial that Israel would have to face. Antiochus perverted the orthodox practice of the Jewish religion under the Law. He tried to force the Jews to turn to Hellenism, and to deface their holy religion. And in the process he murdered many thousands of Jews, who wanted to preserve both their religion and their independence.

    So while the death of Antiochus 4 was good news for Israel, the purpose of this prophecy seems to be that the trouble was not ending. After Antiochus 4 there would be an even greater challenge for the Jewish people, with respect to their religion and independence. Rome would rise to take control of the Jewish land, and in 70 AD would actually initiate a period of Great Distress beginning with the actual destruction of the Jewish temple and the holy city, Jerusalem. This period, according to Jesus, would last until "the times of the Gentiles are ended."
    Even though you have this historical view, do you agree that the antichrist will come to his end at the time of God's wrath at the second coming. And at that time the resurrection will occur?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,250
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    You say that you have explained it, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Herod does not fit the events of v36-45. Hopefully others understand your position regarding Herod.

    You saying that the phrase "at that time" refers to the coming Messiah. I agree this is when the character of v36-45 dies, at the time of the second coming, day of the Lord, and resurrection. However I see no hint of a change in subject by the angel. The phrase "at that time" also links Ch11 with Ch12, so on this too we shall have to disagree.
    I fully understand your confusion. As I pointed out before, the events of Dan 11 are more easily understood, viewed as Jewish religious history genre. Hence, none of the Books in the Bible's mainstream has the fulfilled records save, Maccabees which regretfully, is part of the Apocrypha. When I can spare the time, I will avail you with links to my detailed explanation of Dan 11 from verse one to the end.

    The Book of Daniel deals in two parts; events of the end times and the final struggle between the various Beasts that oppressed Daniel's people before the birth of Jesus. And when the record stopped, only Rome remained standing. Strangely, Rome did not immediately replace the Seleucids as beast or king of the north after the collapse of the Seleucid dynasty. This makes sense if we understand that Rome forced A4E out of Egypt in the era when the Roman senate held sway and had the ultimate power - a time before the advent of emperors. Thus they allowed the existing trade agreement between Rome and Jerusalem to continue thereby allowing Israel 102 years of absolute self-rule until Pompey's siege.

    Now, back to Dan 11:45 which you claim pits the future Antichrist as the bad guy in the text. The Bible's account of the end of the AC places his capitulation at Armageddon (Rev 19:18-21). A quick search (history, Wikipedia, Google, etc) shows that the area Armageddon is located in an arid/desert location between Israel and Jordan. It has no sea, whereas v-45 says that this king placed his palace *between the seas and the glorious mountains*. The point is there is zero river/sea in the area of Armageddon.

    But in contrast, Herod had many royal palaces throughout Judea, including two in Jerusalem. But as his illness worsened in March, 4 BC, he retired to his winter palace at Jericho, less than 10 miles northwest of the Dead sea and about 45 miles east of the Mediterranean sea. The final part of the prophecy shows that, in his last days, King Herod would seek relief from a protracted illness that threatened his life, but would not receive it. This was fulfilled at the end of Herod's life, as the Jewish historian Josephus vividly documented.

    The Roman historian, Plutarch, has a detailed account of the battle of Actium in 31 BC and King Herod's role.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,250
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Even though you have this historical view, do you agree that the antichrist will come to his end at the time of God's wrath at the second coming. And at that time the resurrection will occur?
    I don't know any believer that doubts this, brother...

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I fully understand your confusion. As I pointed out before, the events of Dan 11 are more easily understood, viewed as Jewish religious history genre. Hence, none of the Books in the Bible's mainstream has the fulfilled records save, Maccabees which regretfully, is part of the Apocrypha. When I can spare the time, I will avail you with links to my detailed explanation of Dan 11 from verse one to the end.

    The Book of Daniel deals in two parts; events of the end times and the final struggle between the various Beasts that oppressed Daniel's people before the birth of Jesus. And when the record stopped, only Rome remained standing. Strangely, Rome did not immediately replace the Seleucids as beast or king of the north after the collapse of the Seleucid dynasty. This makes sense if we understand that Rome forced A4E out of Egypt in the era when the Roman senate held sway and had the ultimate power - a time before the advent of emperors. Thus they allowed the existing trade agreement between Rome and Jerusalem to continue thereby allowing Israel 102 years of absolute self-rule until Pompey's siege.

    Now, back to Dan 11:45 which you claim pits the future Antichrist as the bad guy in the text. The Bible's account of the end of the AC places his capitulation at Armageddon (Rev 19:18-21). A quick search (history, Wikipedia, Google, etc) shows that the area Armageddon is located in an arid/desert location between Israel and Jordan. It has no sea, whereas v-45 says that this king placed his palace *between the seas and the glorious mountains*. The point is there is zero river/sea in the area of Armageddon.

    But in contrast, Herod had many royal palaces throughout Judea, including two in Jerusalem. But as his illness worsened in March, 4 BC, he retired to his winter palace at Jericho, less than 10 miles northwest of the Dead sea and about 45 miles east of the Mediterranean sea. The final part of the prophecy shows that, in his last days, King Herod would seek relief from a protracted illness that threatened his life, but would not receive it. This was fulfilled at the end of Herod's life, as the Jewish historian Josephus vividly documented.

    The Roman historian, Plutarch, has a detailed account of the battle of Actium in 31 BC and King Herod's role.
    Regarding the war on the DOTL , Joel 2 states "its eastern ranks will drown in the Dead Sea and its western ranks in the Mediterranean Sea. That war is not confined to the valley of Megiddo, but occurs in Jerusalem as well as the valley of Jehosaphat just outside of Jerusalem. The ruler of Dan 11 is "between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain." which fits In with the the various locations of that war.

    The following wording does not apply to Herod:
    "He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Cu****es[e] in submission."

    Sure he was allied to Anthony, but Cleopatra ruled Egypt, not Herod. Octavian returned some of his confiscated territories to him, after Anthony was defeated, nevertheless that just does not fit the text of Daniel 11 whatsoever. Not even slightly.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I don't know any believer that doubts this, brother...
    I'm glad to hear that, I believe there are so many overlaps between that ruler and the antichrist, it's hard not to see the match.

    The antichrist dies at the final battle in Israel. The invasion comes from the north, yet also the 200 million army from the east. North and East. The day of wrath is the greatest distress for earth. The resurrection occurs then.

    All these ingredients which occur on that final day, occur in Daniel 11 and 12. If we also look at the earlier mention of thecovenant, the abomination, the "time of the end", I regard this as more than enough overlap to be confident that it all points to the antichrist. It's good to exchange ideas, hopefully observers of our discussion will gain something from our exchange.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Even though you have this historical view, do you agree that the antichrist will come to his end at the time of God's wrath at the second coming. And at that time the resurrection will occur?
    As Triv. said, many of us who believe that certain prophecies were fulfilled historically also believe that prophecies will be fulfilled in the future. So we're not talking here of the "historical system of interpretation," but rather, divining which prophecies were fulfilled in history and which have yet to be fulfilled.

    I believe the Antichrist is only mentioned in one place in the OT, and that is the Little Horn of Dan 7. It is known as a period of "time, times and half a time,"which we see mentioned in Dan 12.7. We also see it mentioned in the book of Revelation, associated with the reign of the Beast.

    This 3.5 years period is not to be confused with other periods of time mentioned in Daniel, such as the 1290 days. I do believe that the reign of Antiochus 4 is deliberately made into a parallel with the reign of Antichrist, for purposes of foreshadowing the event.

    Antichrist is not mentioned in either Dan 8 or Dan 11. Those chapters sort of lead to the figure of Antiochus 4, a major figure in the book of Daniel. Therefore, by the end of ch. 11 we have the reign of Antiochus, and his demise, which leads in turn to a prophecy of the continuing trouble of Israel.

    In other words, the end of Antiochus is *not* the end of Israel's troubles. On the contrary, Israel's troubles were prophesied to increase in intensity such that the Roman period would bring upon Israel its period of Great Tribulation. This period began, I believe, in 70 AD, and will end at the Return of Christ.

    Instead of looking at this like an "historical interpretation," why not look at your "futurism" as void of historical meaning, since its focus is on Antiochus, and then on the Antichrist? It leaves most of history unexplained.

    On the other hand, my view, which I believe is Jesus' view, explains all of history both for the Jewish People and for Christians. We await the coming of the Kingdom when the King returns. Until that time Israel and the world remains in a perpetual state of unfulfillment, with pagan Gentiles ruling the world.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As Triv. said, many of us who believe that certain prophecies were fulfilled historically also believe that prophecies will be fulfilled in the future. So we're not talking here of the "historical system of interpretation," but rather, divining which prophecies were fulfilled in history and which have yet to be fulfilled.

    I believe the Antichrist is only mentioned in one place in the OT, and that is the Little Horn of Dan 7. It is known as a period of "time, times and half a time,"which we see mentioned in Dan 12.7. We also see it mentioned in the book of Revelation, associated with the reign of the Beast.

    This 3.5 years period is not to be confused with other periods of time mentioned in Daniel, such as the 1290 days. I do believe that the reign of Antiochus 4 is deliberately made into a parallel with the reign of Antichrist, for purposes of foreshadowing the event.

    Antichrist is not mentioned in either Dan 8 or Dan 11. Those chapters sort of lead to the figure of Antiochus 4, a major figure in the book of Daniel. Therefore, by the end of ch. 11 we have the reign of Antiochus, and his demise, which leads in turn to a prophecy of the continuing trouble of Israel.

    In other words, the end of Antiochus is *not* the end of Israel's troubles. On the contrary, Israel's troubles were prophesied to increase in intensity such that the Roman period would bring upon Israel its period of Great Tribulation. This period began, I believe, in 70 AD, and will end at the Return of Christ.

    Instead of looking at this like an "historical interpretation," why not look at your "futurism" as void of historical meaning, since its focus is on Antiochus, and then on the Antichrist? It leaves most of history unexplained.

    On the other hand, my view, which I believe is Jesus' view, explains all of history both for the Jewish People and for Christians. We await the coming of the Kingdom when the King returns. Until that time Israel and the world remains in a perpetual state of unfulfillment, with pagan Gentiles ruling the world.
    There are a lot of prophecies that have been fulfilled, I'm not proposing a preference for futurism, each prophecy should be taken at its own merits.

    It just so happens that many aspects of Dan 11:31-12:2 are a perfect overlap with the known events just prior the second coming.

    The overlap is so evident, that even if you do see some historical fulfillment, one should acknowledge a dual fulfillment, knowing that the antichrist will also be a boastful man who is alarmed by attacks from the north and east and comes to his end in Israel at the time of the day of wrath, at the time of the resurrection.

    The match is pretty impressive, and hard to deny some fulfillment in the antichrist.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: Oct 8th 2019, 04:47 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun 21st 2018, 03:12 PM
  3. Daniel 10:14.
    By divaD in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Oct 18th 2017, 11:31 AM
  4. How many times did Daniel watch the little horn? Daniel 7
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Sep 28th 2016, 09:44 PM
  5. Did Daniel see two leopard beasts in Daniel 7?
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Nov 21st 2011, 11:07 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
  •