Page 4 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 461

Thread: Daniel

  1. #46

    Re: Daniel

    Great post here. The endtimes are awesome. I'd just like to add that the antichrist is a duet. There will be the beast and a religious figure who is part of this dynamic duo. I also heard recently from a Bible teacher I respect that the antichrist will likely be Assyrian (Rev 17:11).

    Anyway, most theologians believe what you are talking about is Ptolemy Philadelphus (king of the south) making a treaty with Antiochus Theos (king of the north) by giving his daughter Berenice to Antiochus in marriage. However, there's a big problem. Antiochus was already married to Laodice. So, in order to accommodate this marriage and the treaty, Antiochus divorced Laodice and married Berenice. This strategic move essentially ended long wars between these two kings.

    The phrase “but she shall not retain the power of the arm,” etc., is interpreted as referring to the death of Ptolemy Philadelphus (king of the south) just two years after this alliance, and Antiochus Theos (king of the north) therefore divorcing Berenice and taking back Laodice. But Laodice poisoned Antiochus and killed Berenice and her son, and placed her own son, Seleucus Callinicus, on the throne.

    Historic drama at it's best!

    Here are some sources to take a look at:

    J. Vernon McGee’s Thru the Bible
    Adam Clarke’s Commentary
    Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

    God bless ya'll!

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    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.
    That used to be my view also. Now, I see the last part of Dan 11 is exactly what the history of Antiochus 4 was. He certainly is a picture, of sorts, of the Antichrist to come. But how on earth do we know that the precise things that happened to Antiochus 4 will also happen with the Antichrist? We don't. You have to *assume* that these things run exactly parallel. We certainly do know that the Kings from the East will gather to Armageddon in the endtimes. But that is distinct from Dan 11.

    I prefer to see each prophecy in its own context, rather than compare the prototype with the reality. But yes, there are definite parallels between Antiochus and the Antichrist. Most importantly, it is the satanic attack on orthodox religion that is something to be aware of. The attempt of Satan to destroy a declining religious society is precisely what Antichrist will do in Christian Europe, I believe. And that is exactly what Antiochus 4 taught us. So in this sense we certainly agree.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That used to be my view also. Now, I see the last part of Dan 11 is exactly what the history of Antiochus 4 was. He certainly is a picture, of sorts, of the Antichrist to come. But how on earth do we know that the precise things that happened to Antiochus 4 will also happen with the Antichrist? We don't. You have to *assume* that these things run exactly parallel. We certainly do know that the Kings from the East will gather to Armageddon in the endtimes. But that is distinct from Dan 11.

    I prefer to see each prophecy in its own context, rather than compare the prototype with the reality. But yes, there are definite parallels between Antiochus and the Antichrist. Most importantly, it is the satanic attack on orthodox religion that is something to be aware of. The attempt of Satan to destroy a declining religious society is precisely what Antichrist will do in Christian Europe, I believe. And that is exactly what Antiochus 4 taught us. So in this sense we certainly agree.
    We do know the facts regarding the antichrist. For example you mention the kings of the east, and Joel 2 refers to Northern Army on the DOTL. Some regard Gog of Ezekiel 39 as a DOTL prophecy, which describes a Turkish/Russian invasion from the North, but includes Iran from the East. So a surprise invasion from the north and east will surely begin with reports from those directions.

    In addition we know from Rev 19 read with Zechariah 14 that the final battle will not only be in Armageddon, but also in Jerusalem. This is where the antichrist will die, and so this day of distress and death of the boastful ruler at Mount Zion as per Dan 11 matches antichrist prophecy, which also involves a resurrection.

    These precise things will happen to the antichrist, we do know it from other clear prophecy, but thanks for acknowledging at least some parallels.

    In this sense, the death of a boastful ruler at the time of a great distress (the DOTL) at the time of the resurrection....... Involving reports from the east and north and a great final battle are more literally and more clearly fulfilled in the antichrist than Antiochus Epiphanes.

    In fact some aspects of the latter section of Daniel 11 do not apply to Antiochus who stopped short of conquering Egypt yet the boastful ruler does conquer Egypt. Antiochus supported Hellenism and Zeus, yet the boastful ruler has a new deity unlike his fathers. Antiochus did rule Moab and Ammon, yet v41 says the boastful ruler will not.

    So in summary, antichrist has a strong match with 11:36-12:2 in timing and literally, yet Antiochus fails to match some aspects, and matches others in an expanded non literal manner. These are the reasons I see the antichrist after v36, not Antiochus Epiphanes.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    We do know the facts regarding the antichrist. For example you mention the kings of the east, and Joel 2 refers to Northern Army on the DOTL. Some regard Gog of Ezekiel 39 as a DOTL prophecy, which describes a Turkish/Russian invasion from the North, but includes Iran from the East. So a surprise invasion from the north and east will surely begin with reports from those directions.

    In addition we know from Rev 19 read with Zechariah 14 that the final battle will not only be in Armageddon, but also in Jerusalem. This is where the antichrist will die, and so this day of distress and death of the boastful ruler at Mount Zion as per Dan 11 matches antichrist prophecy, which also involves a resurrection.

    These precise things will happen to the antichrist, we do know it from other clear prophecy, but thanks for acknowledging at least some parallels.

    In this sense, the death of a boastful ruler at the time of a great distress (the DOTL) at the time of the resurrection....... Involving reports from the east and north and a great final battle are more literally and more clearly fulfilled in the antichrist than Antiochus Epiphanes.

    In fact some aspects of the latter section of Daniel 11 do not apply to Antiochus who stopped short of conquering Egypt yet the boastful ruler does conquer Egypt. Antiochus supported Hellenism and Zeus, yet the boastful ruler has a new deity unlike his fathers. Antiochus did rule Moab and Ammon, yet v41 says the boastful ruler will not.

    So in summary, antichrist has a strong match with 11:36-12:2 in timing and literally, yet Antiochus fails to match some aspects, and matches others in an expanded non literal manner. These are the reasons I see the antichrist after v36, not Antiochus Epiphanes.
    Yea, it's a debatable subject. I did believe Antiochus may have initially taken all Egypt. Later, he returned and was stopped by the Roman emissary. I find the end of Dan 11 applies exclusively to Antiochus. But yes, many of the prophecies of the endtimes may appear in parallel--not exactly, but in some way. Thanks for the conversation.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yea, it's a debatable subject. I did believe Antiochus may have initially taken all Egypt. Later, he returned and was stopped by the Roman emissary. I find the end of Dan 11 applies exclusively to Antiochus. But yes, many of the prophecies of the endtimes may appear in parallel--not exactly, but in some way. Thanks for the conversation.
    Antiochus did war successfully against Egypt, but both times he never took Alexandria. You say the end of Dan 11 applies exclusively to Antiochus, yet Antiochus did not even die in a battle in Israel, he died near Ecbatana (western Iran) according to the Jewish book of Maccabees. Antiochus inherited Israel, yet this boastful ruler invades Israel. Antiochus followed Zeus, the boastful ruler follows an unknown god. Antiochus ruled over Moab and Ammon, yet that ruler does not rule over Moab and Ammon. So I don't see any exclusive application of Antiochus to the end of Daniel 11 as you claim.

    By using the phrase "applies exclusively to Antiochus" you exclude the antichrist who in fact is the only person who can fit the latter portion of Daniel 11 in a literal manner. No other figure in history has successfully invaded Egypt and Israel, never ruled Moab, and died in a battle in Israel at a time of distress and resurrection.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Antiochus did war successfully against Egypt, but both times he never took Alexandria. You say the end of Dan 11 applies exclusively to Antiochus, yet Antiochus did not even die in a battle in Israel, he died near Ecbatana (western Iran) according to the Jewish book of Maccabees. Antiochus inherited Israel, yet this boastful ruler invades Israel. Antiochus followed Zeus, the boastful ruler follows an unknown god. Antiochus ruled over Moab and Ammon, yet that ruler does not rule over Moab and Ammon. So I don't see any exclusive application of Antiochus to the end of Daniel 11 as you claim.

    By using the phrase "applies exclusively to Antiochus" you exclude the antichrist who in fact is the only person who can fit the latter portion of Daniel 11 in a literal manner. No other figure in history has successfully invaded Egypt and Israel, never ruled Moab, and died in a battle in Israel at a time of distress and resurrection.
    Dan 11.36-39 I interpret as introductory, with the last section revisiting this information in order to provide more details. The focus is on his attack on religion. And the last section explains in detail his exploits. He conquers Egypt--not conquering Alexandria by military force does not mean he did not come to control it. He did. He established the king there, and when they king defied him he returned to finish the job. But he was restrained by Rome. He also sent out a fleet to defeat Cypress. He had a military force stationed in Israel, even though he died elsewhere as he returned to lead his forces in Israel.

    The Antichrist is *not* in Dan 11 at all--not a single thing would bring us to jump from the time of Antiochus 4 to the endtimes. The only thing that connects from his time to the endtimes is the fact Israel would suffer an age-long period of great tribulation under Roman, or Gentile, domination.

    What you're doing is taking the endtime resurrection, and using that to impose a context upon the figure in Dan 11, when the truth is, that figure was Antiochus 4, who did these exploits and died. There is no other basis for seeing Antichrist in this passage. He is utterly unmentioned, and exists only in Dan 7. To superimpose the Antichrist in this passage simply by seeing various features as belonging to him violates the whole idea of interpretation by context. You need an actual reference to Antichrist to see him in the passage, and we don't have that!

  7. #52

    Re: Daniel

    How do I say this simply and clearly? I'll give it my best shot.
    Sometime around 540 BC the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel in Babylon and revealed to him that “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city." A "week," we believe, means seven so 70 times seven equals 490 years. So, this is to say that he was told there will be 490 years left of the Jews and Jerusalem. He was also told, "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks."
    From the decree to restore Jerusalem to the Messiah is 69 weeks, or 69 times seven, which would be 483 years. In spite of the certainty some will profess as to the identity of the "decree to restore Jerusalem" we have several choices, and they cover a wide range of time.
    The edict of Cyrus in 539/8 BC, the decree of Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BC, the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445/4 BC, or Nehemiah's second term to restore the temple practices (ending ca. 400 BC) all qualify as the decree to restore Jerusalem.
    That gives us a range of the Messiah returning between 55 BC to 90 AD. We all know there was a Messiah within that range. But here is where the problem arises. The final seven years, according to scripture, must then start between the years 54 BC and 91 AD, and finish between 48 BC and 97 AD. Within this time frame the Messiah will be "cut off" and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. There will be war and desolations, and that same prince will make a firm covenant with the many at the start of the final seven-year period, but in the middle of that "week" he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering in the temple; and there will be abominations and complete destruction.
    We know from history that Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian, literally the prince of Rome, did come and destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. He did stop the offerings and sacrifices and did set up abominations on the Holy of Holies site. Now, if 70 AD is in the middle of the last seven years then the period started in 67 AD and finished in 74 AD, well within the allotted time frame.
    So why not acknowledge this as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy? Proof that prophecy is confirmed by history and God is true and real?
    Because we want prophecy to be about our future, we are limited to two choices; either none of Daniel has happened yet, or all of Daniel has happened.
    We believe the Messiah did come, and we know the offerings were stopped and the city was destroyed. How do we make this about our future? We are forced to alter the meaning of scripture to match what we want it to be.
    We insert a gap between the 69th and 70th week, thereby extending the 490 years to infinity. As a byproduct we also declare God a liar. Instead of Gabriel saying Daniel's people in their city had only 490 years to the end, we now are saying he said everything but that.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,251
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    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.
    1. There is no scripture that the Antichrist will die in Israel. Instead, he will be defeated and taken alive to be cast into the lake of fire at Armageddon, not Jerusalem (Rev 19:19-20).
    2. There is a zero overlap between the king in Dan 11:36 with the future AC.
    3. Israel will first fall to the AC's onslaught (Zech 14:2) BEFORE the theatre of battle moves to Armageddon where he confronts the returning Messiah and his saints and his ultimate defeat.
    4. The army coming from the north and east are the Beast's army and therefore doesn't explain why he was distressed by news from these regions. Can you please explain what these distressing news to AC are?
    5. You are wildly speculating on how "all these ingredients fit Dan 11 & 12" since you've provided nothing substantial as proof.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Dan 11.36-39 I interpret as introductory, with the last section revisiting this information in order to provide more details. The focus is on his attack on religion. And the last section explains in detail his exploits. He conquers Egypt--not conquering Alexandria by military force does not mean he did not come to control it. He did. He established the king there, and when they king defied him he returned to finish the job. But he was restrained by Rome. He also sent out a fleet to defeat Cypress. He had a military force stationed in Israel, even though he died elsewhere as he returned to lead his forces in Israel.

    The Antichrist is *not* in Dan 11 at all--not a single thing would bring us to jump from the time of Antiochus 4 to the endtimes. The only thing that connects from his time to the endtimes is the fact Israel would suffer an age-long period of great tribulation under Roman, or Gentile, domination.

    What you're doing is taking the endtime resurrection, and using that to impose a context upon the figure in Dan 11, when the truth is, that figure was Antiochus 4, who did these exploits and died. There is no other basis for seeing Antichrist in this passage. He is utterly unmentioned, and exists only in Dan 7. To superimpose the Antichrist in this passage simply by seeing various features as belonging to him violates the whole idea of interpretation by context. You need an actual reference to Antichrist to see him in the passage, and we don't have that!
    Thanks for your input. Context and detail fit the antichrist, I already stated my case for that.

    The detail contradicts the life of Antiochus, I already stated the multiple ways his life does not fit the text of Daniel 11:36-45.

    No need to delve further I guess.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,251
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    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.
    Your first error is your use of the "DOTL" because it is not a 24hr timeline but instead, spread over an extended period during the final 3.5 years before Jesus Christ' return. Example, the wrath of the Lamb (Rev 6:16-17) is also part of the DOTL despite being occurring long before his earthly return.

    I will appreciate it if you give me specifics rather than vague passages e.g. "Joel 2 states..."I need the specific verse(s) to follow your argument. As I have already explained in an earlier post, the AC will subdue Jerusalem (Zech 12:2-4) and slaughter the unbelieving among the Jews that failed to heed the warning to flee into the desert. After his brisk victory, the battleground then moves to Armageddon several miles away, where there is no sea.

    You are not the first to try to fit a square hole with a circular one by conjuring unfounded theories about the AC in Dan 11. Dan 11:43 refers to the route Octavius Caesar followed after his defeat of Mark Antony when the treasures Alexandra (the richest city in Egypt at the time) lay before him.

    To make a case for the AC remotely worth considering, you must explain who this king from Egypt (south of Jerusalem) might be? The Bible is emphatic that the whole world will be given to the Beast during his 15 minutes (3.5yrs) of fame. Matter of fact, Apostle John asks rhetorically, who is able to make war (fight) with the Beast (Rev 13:4)? Yet you will ignore this and manufacture a king or Egypt strong enough to stand up against the AC?

    Brother, it's been a pleasure to exchange these ideas with you. I'm not asking you to believe me, only that you continue to research on Dan 11 with an open mind. Don't fall into the common pitfall as many have done, by jumping to the conclusion that the AC as the bad guy because he's not. With this, I bow out.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,251
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by dailyprayerwarrior View Post
    Great post here. The endtimes are awesome. I'd just like to add that the antichrist is a duet. There will be the beast and a religious figure who is part of this dynamic duo. I also heard recently from a Bible teacher I respect that the antichrist will likely be Assyrian (Rev 17:11).
    There is nothing in scripture that describes the Antichrist as the "beast that was, and is not". The Bible Teacher you heard this claim from is obviously wrong. Instead, Rev 17:8 &11 refer to the Abaddon/Apollyon, the beast from the bottomless pit.

    Rev 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    How do I say this simply and clearly? I'll give it my best shot.
    Sometime around 540 BC the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel in Babylon and revealed to him that “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city." A "week," we believe, means seven so 70 times seven equals 490 years. So, this is to say that he was told there will be 490 years left of the Jews and Jerusalem. He was also told, "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks."
    From the decree to restore Jerusalem to the Messiah is 69 weeks, or 69 times seven, which would be 483 years. In spite of the certainty some will profess as to the identity of the "decree to restore Jerusalem" we have several choices, and they cover a wide range of time.
    The edict of Cyrus in 539/8 BC, the decree of Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BC, the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445/4 BC, or Nehemiah's second term to restore the temple practices (ending ca. 400 BC) all qualify as the decree to restore Jerusalem.
    That gives us a range of the Messiah returning between 55 BC to 90 AD. We all know there was a Messiah within that range. But here is where the problem arises. The final seven years, according to scripture, must then start between the years 54 BC and 91 AD, and finish between 48 BC and 97 AD. Within this time frame the Messiah will be "cut off" and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. There will be war and desolations, and that same prince will make a firm covenant with the many at the start of the final seven-year period, but in the middle of that "week" he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering in the temple; and there will be abominations and complete destruction.
    Everything was cool up until now. You suggested "that same prince," ie the prince whose people would destroy Jerusalem and the temple, would "make a firm covenant with the many at the start of the final seven-year period, but in the middle of that "week" he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering in the temple; and there will be abominations and complete destruction."

    Up to here much of what you said is pretty much agreed on by most. But your casual assumption that the Prince who destroys the temple is the "same prince" who 1) makes a covenant, and 2) ends sacrifices and offerings is very debatable. Just as debatable is the idea that the actual destruction of the temple takes place inside of the last 7 years.

    It is my view that the last "Week" is only a half week, because the Messiah, the "Anointed One," comes after the 483 years and makes a covenant for the final "Week." But he is cut off, terminating the efficacy of the sacrifices and offerings, in the "midst of the Week." The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem follows *after* the end of the 70 Weeks, in the generation in which Messiah is "cut off."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola
    We know from history that Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian, literally the prince of Rome, did come and destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. He did stop the offerings and sacrifices and did set up abominations on the Holy of Holies site. Now, if 70 AD is in the middle of the last seven years then the period started in 67 AD and finished in 74 AD, well within the allotted time frame.
    So why not acknowledge this as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy? Proof that prophecy is confirmed by history and God is true and real?
    Because we want prophecy to be about our future, we are limited to two choices; either none of Daniel has happened yet, or all of Daniel has happened.
    We believe the Messiah did come, and we know the offerings were stopped and the city was destroyed. How do we make this about our future? We are forced to alter the meaning of scripture to match what we want it to be.
    We insert a gap between the 69th and 70th week, thereby extending the 490 years to infinity. As a byproduct we also declare God a liar. Instead of Gabriel saying Daniel's people in their city had only 490 years to the end, we now are saying he said everything but that.
    I agree that the 70 Weeks has nothing to do with eschatology. It has to do with the 1st Coming of Christ, with his being "cut off," and with the aftermath, in which God brings judgment upon the Jews and Jerusalem. Temple worship is destroyed.

    But when was temple worship rendered effective--in 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed, or earlier, when Christ was "cut off?" I believe it was in approx. 30 AD, when Christ was "cut off." It was only after that event that the temple was destroyed.

    This would be somewhat debatable with me if it was not for the fact Jesus explained all this in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus said, in that Discourse, that "all these things will take place in this generation." That is, the destruction of the temple would take place in *his* generation.

    But he warned his disciples to flee when they saw these things begin to take place. In other words, when the Romans approached the holy place, trampling upon sacred Jewish territory, there would be time to flee. (The Romans had long been here. But this constituted a military invasion, and as such, a hostile incursion.)

    But we know that there was little time to flee in 70 AD, when the temple was actually destroyed, and Jews were trapped inside Jerusalem. So what are we to think?

    Actually the Roman Army appeared twice at Jerusalem, the 1st time withdrawing, allowing the Christians to flee. And then the Romans returned under Titus, in 70 AD, to destroy the temple. Even then, other Christians may have been able to flee from their fields. But those inside Jerusalem were trapped, and could not escape.

    This is a strong argument for the "abomination of desolation," in Dan 9.27, to be the 1st appearance of the Roman Army at Jerusalem. This took place in 66 AD. But there was no covenant, and the destruction of the temple did not bring a break in any covenant. It seems much more likely that the covenant refers to the confirmation of the covenant of Christ with the Jews, which appeared to be broken at the cross. God had no covenant with the Jews after the cross, aside from the Abrahamic Promise. And the Romans had made no covenant with the Jews that they then broke.

    Jesus explains that this desolation of the temple would take place, not as a broken covenant, and not as something inside the final seven years. Rather, he says it would take place later, in "this generation." In fact, the temple was destroyed by the end of 40 years from the time Christ predicted this. It appears the abomination of desolation took place in 66 AD, and the actual desolation took place in 70 AD, immediately after the 70 years prophecy was fulfilled in the death of Christ.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Thanks for your input. Context and detail fit the antichrist, I already stated my case for that.

    The detail contradicts the life of Antiochus, I already stated the multiple ways his life does not fit the text of Daniel 11:36-45.

    No need to delve further I guess.
    Well, I could delve further. But earlier today I made my comments on the way outside the door. I've dealt with all this before, in more detailed discussions with Forhisglory. I may present these things again later, since it appears not everybody knows the arguments. Your points are well taken. It's a matter of preference, I suppose?

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Thanks for your input. Context and detail fit the antichrist, I already stated my case for that.

    The detail contradicts the life of Antiochus, I already stated the multiple ways his life does not fit the text of Daniel 11:36-45.

    No need to delve further I guess.
    I've been through this with Trivalee, who is on this present thread: HERE For example, post #31.

    My argument is the the account of Antiochus 4 in Dan 11 constitutes a kind of parallelism. A basic outline of Antiochus is given, with an emphasis on what his major impact would be. And then the same material is gone over again, applying greater detail. Every single incident mentioned fits Antiochus 4 exactly. It just depends on whether you accept the explanations as to how they fit?

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,612

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I've been through this with Trivalee, who is on this present thread: HERE For example, post #31.

    My argument is the the account of Antiochus 4 in Dan 11 constitutes a kind of parallelism. A basic outline of Antiochus is given, with an emphasis on what his major impact would be. And then the same material is gone over again, applying greater detail. Every single incident mentioned fits Antiochus 4 exactly. It just depends on whether you accept the explanations as to how they fit?
    I gave my precise objections. Antiochus fits up until v35

    The new boastful ruler from v36:
    Invades Israel
    Does not rule Moab
    Follows an unknown God
    Comes to his end at the "beautiful holy mountain"

    Antiochus never conquered Israel, he inherited it.
    Antiochus followed Zeus
    Antiochus ruled Moab
    Antiochus died in Iran

    I see many incidents completely failing to match, you see every incident matching. Unless you have a really good explanation covering those discrepancies, Antiochus is not the boastful ruler of v36-45

    In addition there is also the immediacy of the "distress" and "resurrection" to deal with.

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
  •