- This topic has 649 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Please show me at least one reference to Rome in whole of Daniel as a world kingdom as you repeatedly stick to your traditional view.
Are you silly? The Roman Empire didn’t exist yet. Lol. You might need to revise your history.
Prophecy talks about the future. You test prophecy by seeing if it came to past.
That is what I am doing. Looking at history to see if there is a fit.
I say, yes it fits.
Here is a big allegation on the so called Apocalyptic book Daniel;
Faking a History and Pretending It’s Real
To illustrate, consider the apologetic attempted at Bible Gateway, which consists of an attempt to “invent” a history of Persia (actually, more than one, so you can pick and choose I guess) that exists nowhere in the sources, and which consists largely of outright ignoring contrary facts:
Darius the Mede…is not depicted in the book [of Daniel] as a universal monarch. His subordinate position (under Cyrus) is clearly implied in the statement that he “was made king (Heb. passive, homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans” (9:1 KJV). Also, the fact that Belshazzar’s kingdom was “given to the Medes and Persians” (5:28) and that Darius found himself incapable of altering the “law of the Medes and Persians” (6:15) renders the critical view [that Darius the Mede is a historical error] untenable.
Not a single thing claimed here is true.
We have extensive records from that period and there was never any such thing as a dual or subordinate “king” governing the Persian empire under Cyrus. This apologist is fabricating history that contradicts all primary records. A provincial satrap is not a king (even the authors of Daniel knew the difference). And there was never any such thing as a joint “rule” between Medes and Persians (Mede was a conquered province of Persia) nor any “law of the Persians and Medes” that governed that empire—this pairing of “Medes and Persians” here is a fabrication of (writer/Editors) Daniel; it is recorded nowhere else. Not even in Persia’s own laws, decrees, inscriptions and declarations; nor even in Greek histories of the period (neither Herodotus nor Xenophon mention any such thing). This apologist is thus, again, fabricating a history that contradicts all primary records. Notice they even, bizarrely, cite the author who makes this error (the author of Daniel) as evidence it’s not an error! This is not even remotely a sensible or sound way to do history.
Likewise, contrary to this apologist’s false claim, Daniel very clearly depicts “Darius the Mede” as a universal monarch, and never depicts him as a subordinate of anyone (Cyrus or otherwise). For example, Daniel credits this Darius with creating the satrapies the empire was divided into: “It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom” (Daniel 6:1) and “these administrators and satraps went as a group to the king and said: ‘May King Darius live forever!’” (Daniel 6:6). This is most definitely depicting a universal monarch. In fact, the universal monarch. There is no other in the story. This is unmistakable throughout Daniel 6: after already having made Daniel a satrap or administrator (“satraps…and administrators, one of whom was Daniel”), Darius is about to make Daniel administrator over the whole kingdom (“the king planned to set [Daniel] over the whole kingdom”), meaning all the satrapies (not just one of them), and all the satraps and administrators come to Darius to try and persuade him not to do this, and get him to issue a royal decree making Darius the sole recipient of prayers (“the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that [no one] prays to [anyone] except to you, Your Majesty”). They do not go over his head to his superior Cyrus to forestall any of this (and evidently no one blinks at Darius, a subordinate, condemning all who pray to Cyrus, his superior—not even, for some reason, this very Cyrus who is supposed to be here, outranking Darius)—so obviously no such person is imagined to exist by these authors. The only king in this story who governs all the satrapies and issues empire-wide decrees (“King Darius wrote to all the nations and peoples of every language in all the earth”) and can be appealed to as the empire’s ultimate authority and recipient of prayers is Darius. The authors of Daniel have unmistakably confused Darius the Great with Cyrus here. They even mention Daniel also serving under Cyrus, but seem to think Cyrus succeeded Darius (which is also not true), as they mention Daniel continuing to prosper under Darius and then under Cyrus (Daniel 6:28; in fact Daniel 1:21 implies Daniel would die sometime during the first year of Cyrus’s reign).
Real historical methods cannot produce this made-up, fact-contradicting history of Persia or these made-up, fact-contradicting claims about what the Book of Daniel says. Only apologetics can do this. Which exemplifies how apologetics is a methodology for avoiding, not finding the truth.
We see this again with the abuse of linguistics in this same paragraph. We’re told that in Daniel 9:1 homlak, the passive of “become a king,” means “made a king,” as it is commonly translated, but that’s not quite true in the sense the apologist requires. That is a loose translation into English, but “made” carries connotations in English here that are absent in the Hebrew, a common problem with translation generally. No translation is ever fully accurate to the original language, because words commonly carry different valences and connotations across languages and eras. So it is important to attend carefully to the original meaning of words when making an argument like this; you can’t just assume what you find in your English language Bible is exactly what the original meant. And when we look into this case we find it does not mean what the apologist wants it to mean (a reference to a superior appointing Darius to a position—a position, I’ll remind you, we can tell from contemporary records never existed). They are thus replacing facts with desires, through the methodological device of not even checking. As soon as anything sounds right, it is declared “right.” No actual method is deployed to find out if it is right. This is a method specifically designed to fail at determining the truth. It is thus the exact opposite of sound historical methods, which have entirely the opposite aim: to not fail at that.
So let’s do what we are supposed to do instead. I am not an expert in Hebrew, but I do know ancient languages and linguistics and understand how to read a lexicon. In the Strong’s lexicon the underlying word malak is indicated to mean to be or to become king. There is no connotation of making someone king (as an active causal event requiring an agent). This is even clearer in the more up-to-date Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon (p. 572, § 4427), which explains that malak is actually just the verb form of king. In other words, it means, simply, “to king.” Which the experts there explain is of uncertain meaning (as in, we do not know exactly what the word is supposed to denote; we can only infer). They propose it probably indicates something like “to possess, own exclusively” or “counsel, advise” supremely or decisively (these being the fundamental actions of kings). I would suggest we just stick to what it plainly is: the verb form of king. So it meant more or less simply to reign as a king. In the passive voice it could perhaps be understood as “to be kinged,” as something that happens to you. Hence a closer English idiom would be “he was crowned king,” meaning his official date of formal accession, which state documents would declare the actual day his reign formally began (as distinct from, say, the day of the battle he won that made it possible for him to assume power).
A passive form of this verb appears nowhere else in the Bible except here. So when apologists claim the passive of malak is used only for “appointed” rulers, they are lying: there is no instance of that usage anywhere. Since the only passive form appearing anywhere in the Bible is this one, to thus insist it refers to “appointment” is a circular argument, another common apologetic “method” of arguing. There is no example of that being the intended connotation. Since no agent is stated (Daniel does not say he was crowned “by” someone else or anything or anyone in particular), the author more likely intended the meaning of “crowned,” as simply an event that happened to Darius: he was made king by the course of events. Just as in English: “to be crowned” is in the passive voice, but does not mean some “superior” king did the crowning. It almost never means that. There could also be the implication of the agent being God (as in, God arranged for Darius to conquer Babylon and thus become its king; this is explicitly implied in Daniel 5:25-30), but the text does not say that either, so we can no more presume that than we can presume some unnamed other king (like Cyrus) was meant, or that any agent was meant (as with the word “crowned”). That is simply to go beyond the text, and to replace facts with wishes. All the same is true for Daniel 5:1 where Daniel is said to have “received” the kingdom, where the verb again does not imply receiving it by appointment rather than by fate, providence, or conquest. To assume any of these over the others is wishing that it be so, not establishing it’s so. You can’t get more out of a text than is there; but falsely thinking you can typifies apologetics. That the decision is always driven by what you want to see in the text, rather than any objective evidence, is why that method can never get to the actual truth of anything.
Are you silly? The Roman Empire didn’t exist yet. Lol. You might need to revise your history.
I am sorry brother it seems you are ignorant that the Greece Kingdom which also was future to the so called Biblical character Daniel but was mentioned clearly by this writer.
I just want to add few findings through my research on the book of Daniel;
1. The book was written by a Pseudo writer at the time of Antiochene crisis in the Second Century BCE.
2. This writer was not aware of the history of 6 & 5th BCE. The proof is the fictitious king of Media Darius.
3. He wanted to show four world empires through the image of Nebuchadnezzar. These four empires were Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
4. Some later Jewish scribes added Persia to Media to club these two kingdoms as one to include Rome as fourth kingdom. But they could not alter other narrations in the book except few places like Chap 5, 6, 8 stating “Medo-Persia”
I don’t want to continue on this ex-eventu prophecy further….
The third Beast and metal is Greece
I have already acknowledged that prophecy contains some interpretation and that this is great. But not all prophecy is interpreted and you need to acknowledge that. Prophecy to some degree is a mystery, but a mystery that can be solved in the right season. There is no expectation that the Roman Empire should be named in the Book of Daniel.
But we know that Greece split into four regions after the death of Alexander when his four generals took over. Cassander, Ptolemy, Antigonus, and Seleucus. So it matches the leopard.
A beast like a leopard with four wings of fowl and four heads
So now, we look at the fourth beast.
A fourth beast, with large iron teeth and ten horns
This is the next empire. Clearly it can’t be Greece as that is the third beast with four wings and heads. It has iron teeth just like the legs of the statue that are made of iron.
Here is a commentary on the third beast being Greece.
Daniel 7:6
The leopard, a predator, is the among the fastest of carnivores, and with the addition of four wings, becomes especially swift. This illustration describes the astounding pace of Alexander’s conquest from Greece to Egypt to India. In twelve years (334-323 BC ), he subjugated by conquest or voluntary submission the entirety of the Persian Empire and then some. This feat becomes especially astounding when it is known that this period included a seven-month siege of Tyre and three years subduing Bactria. Along with his military victories came Greek or Hellenistic culture and language, which later paved the way for the spreading of the Gospel throughout the world.
When Alexander suddenly died without an heir, his generals divided the empire into four primary kingdoms (the “four heads”). Ptolemy took Egypt and nearby lands. Seleucus received Syria, Asia Minor, and the conquered eastern nations. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and surrounding territories, and lastly, Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece.
We have extensive records from that period and there was never any such thing as a dual or subordinate “king” governing the Persian empire under Cyrus.
You are free to not believe that Media and Persia conquered Babylon. I guess you have let their squabbles baffle you into thinking that they are two empires. You are free to believe what you want. The Book of Daniel states what it states and the statue and interpretation is all in the Book of Daniel.
You say history didn’t play out like this? So you say that the Medes invaded Babylon alone or the Persians did? You can believe whatever you want.
But I would like to remind you that history is incomplete and often written by a victor. I found this in Wikipedia for example:
In 539 BCE, Cyrus invaded Babylonia. Historical reconstruction of the fall of Babylon to Persia has been problematic due to the inconsistencies between the various source documents. Both the Babylonian Chronicles and the Cyrus Cylinder describe Babylon being taken “without battle”, whereas the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon[6] report that the city was besieged. The biblical Book of Daniel notes that the king was killed.
According to Xenophon, Belshazzar was killed in this conflict, but his account is not widely accepted.[7] Nabonidus surrendered and was deported. Gutian guards were placed at the gates of the great temple of Bel, where the services continued without interruption. Cyrus did not arrive until 28/29 October, with Gobryas having acted for him in his absence. Gobryas was then made governor of the province of Babylon.
There is no historical consensus. So you either believe the biblical account or you believe accounts written by victors or others.
And to prove how incomplete history is, even in modern times, new kings and pharaohs are discovered.
I did a quick google search and found this discovery back in 2012 of a new Pharaoh.
https://www.foxnews.com/science/all-hail-the-new-king-new-ancient-egyptian-pharaoh-discovered
Your not really proving your case to me gadam. And it is not at all that clear what your case is exactly.
I just want to add few findings through my research on the book of Daniel;
1. The book was written by a Pseudo writer at the time of Antiochene crisis in the Second Century BCE.
2. This writer was not aware of the history of 6 & 5th BCE. The proof is the fictitious king of Media Darius.
3. He wanted to show four world empires through the image of Nebuchadnezzar. These four empires were Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
4. Some later Jewish scribes added Persia to Media to club these two kingdoms as one to include Rome as fourth kingdom. But they could not alter other narrations in the book except few places like Chap 5, 6, 8 stating “Medo-Persia”
I don’t want to continue on this ex-eventu prophecy further….
He wanted to show four world empires through the image of Nebuchadnezzar. These four empires were Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
But I’ve clearly proved to you that Media and Persia were considered one kingdom from the Book of Daniel itself. So any verses in that book that you reference need to be placed in that context. You can only change the context by quoting a source from outside that book and there are conflicts among those reports.
So the Book of Daniel places Greece as the third metal and the third beast. Even the descriptions match as I have already quoted. You are free to differ of course. But I cannot concur with whatever view you hold because you do not accept this fact and others that are very clear in the text.
To all……Rome, is the “fourth” kingdom and is the kingdom of Iron, it was completely destroyed, and then arouse out of that , the Present day “FIFTH” world ruling kingdom as it is “TODAY” , THE NEXT WORLD RULING KINGDOM WILL BE THE “SIXTH” the kingdom of Jesus Christ and the Saint’s , and last for a thousand years, then Satan who had been cast into the bottomless pit at the beginning of the Sixth kingdom period , will be released and go out into the world and (healed) the deadly wound that was inflicted on the Fifth Babylonian TYPE kingdom, and raise it up again, Rev 17, which is known as the “SEVENTH” world ruling KINGDOM, And from that will come the “EIGHTH” World Empire for a short time , and it will bring a very large Army against Jesus and the Saint’s at Jerusalem and fire from God the Father will come down from heaven and destroy them all, (the great battle of Armageddon) and Satan will go into THE LAKE OF FIRE AND GO INTO PERDITION . Then Jesus will offer up his kingdom to God the Father, and become subject to it as we all will, Then will come about the saying , “thy”kingdom come, “thy” will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, and our God will dwell and rule among us forever.
you must understand the “timeline” Given to us by Rev 17, or you will never get things right. John was transported in time to the day of the coming of the LORD our God, “NOT”, the day of the coming of Jesus Christ.
peace and love to you all………..gene
Gene, repeating your random theory over and over again doesn’t make it true. You need to show supporting evidence for your personal beliefs. Otherwise they will stay exclusively your personal beliefs.
What is the no1 proof you have according to you?
Please go through my same post for your no 1 query…..
Please show me at least one reference to Rome in whole of Daniel as a world kingdom as you repeatedly stick to your traditional view.
Are you silly? The Roman Empire didn’t exist yet. Lol. You might need to revise your history.
Prophecy talks about the future. You test prophecy by seeing if it came to past.
That is what I am doing. Looking at history to see if there is a fit.
I say, yes it fits.
Yes Protector! (oops I mean Proclaimer)
That is how we interpret Prophecy, trying to guess future events is futile.
WE know God’s word is certain for the future, as we see its certainty in the past
______________
God bless
Ed JEdj
666 IS THE NUMBER OF A MAN
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
God bless
Please go through my same post for your no 1 query…..
Your posts are too long. Perhaps because they are copied and pasted? I do not read them.
Please answer this. I don’t need an essay. It will take you 5 minutes. Point by point discussions are better.
What is your no1 reason for believing that the Book of Daniel doesn’t couple Media and Persia as one empire and metal (even though it does)?
What is your no1 reason for believing that the Book of Daniel doesn’t couple Media and Persia as one empire and metal (even though it does)?
I have already posted on this on your another thread which is more relevant for this question.
The problem is your posts are so long that you can never find anything and most will not read them.
A conversation is easier to follow than a series of essays.
So I will assume that you have no smoking gun evidence for what you say.
But if you do, feel free to make a post about it.
Keep the post on that subject and maybe put a heading 2 as the title.
The problem is your posts are so long that you can never find anything and most will not read them.
A conversation is easier to follow than a series of essays.
So I will assume that you have no smoking gun evidence for what you say.
But if you do, feel free to make a post about it.
Keep the post on that subject and maybe put a heading 2 as the title
The following are my observations on the textual variations in the book of Daniel;
1. Dan 5:28 peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”
Here the first editorial appears
Whereas
Dan 5:30 That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
The above clearly shows that the writer’s original narration was about Median king Darius being the successor to Chaldean kingdom and hence the second kingdom is Media not Medo-Persia as alleged by the later interpreters.
2. Dan 6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred twenty satraps, stationed throughout the whole kingdom.
Here no mention of Persia.
Dan 6: 8 Now, O king, establish the interdict and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked.”
Dan 6: 12….The king answered, “The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.”
15…“Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.”
Here again Persians added but the whole narration is about Median kingdom ruled by the king Darius. Please read the following for clarity on this.
Dan 6: 28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Here Persia is separate kingdom ruled by Cyrus apart from Darius the Median.
3. Dan 8: 20 As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia.
Here Media added to Persia which was the original when we read Daniel 11.
Dan 11:
1 As for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to support and strengthen him.
2 “Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia.
The above clearly shows us that Darius the Mede no where connected to Persia. Daniel 11 is the detailed interpretation of vision in chapter 8. This is clear how the editorial is made in Dan 8:20 which originally meant for kings of Persia only.
4. Dan 9:1 In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans..
The above clearly shows us that the second kingdom is of Medes which took over from Chaldean the Babylonian. Also please read
Dan 10:1 In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel..
Here the Persia is independent of Media.
Dan 10: 13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia,
No Media is mentioned here in these texts.
Dan 10: 20 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I must return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I am through with him, the prince of Greece will come.
Greece the fourth kingdom is mentioned here. Rome is no where mentioned in this book.
Daniel 11 clearly mentioned the second kingdom Media, third kingdom Persia and fourth the kingdom of Greece which was divided into four parts after Alexander the Great but the chapter 11 is much concentrated on Northern and Southern kingdoms of Greece. The Little horn Antiochus IV arose from the Northern Greece empire, Syria who was the reason for the so called abomination of desolation in the Temple of God in Jerusalem in the Second Century BCE.
Rest is mere speculation by Jews and Christians who want to protect these ancient writings from failure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
