Daniel's 70 Weeks Another Look

[Twospirits]

TheForgiven wrote,

Here are the lessons of Daniel 11:

They are in three parts, so I'm posting the links in order.

Henry, if you care to learn something, perhaps you'll see that these three videos explain Daniel chapter 11, and should finalized any thoughts you have on chapter 12.

(From my book Revealing EschatologyII 2009).

The final vision given to Daniel was recorded in Daniel chapters 10-12. Daniel 10:1 records, "In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia (536 B.C.). Daniel was told that the vision was true and that it referred to a "great war." What is recorded in Dan. 11:2-35 are the major events, with the major rulers of the Persian Empire and from there continuing to the major events of the Alexandrian period, ending with the prophecy which scholars say was about Antiochus Epiphanes IV from 175-164 B.C. All said to having been fulfilled in history by these rulers and events. Dan. 11:2. The prophecy begins by describing four kings of Persia (v. 2). "Now then I tell you the truth; three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece." Xerxes1 was the ruler who attempted to conquer Greece at the time and height of power of the Persian Empire. Xerxes1 had gathered an army of several hundred thousand and began a war against Greece (520 B.C.) in which his fleet and his troops were defeated. Persia never rose to great power after that. Dan. 11:3-4. Here Daniel prophecies the coming of Alexander the Great; "Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. After he has appeared, his Empire will be broken up and parceled out towards the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others" (verses 3-4). This prophecy spoke of the rise of Alexander and his conquering the Persian kingdom. As history records, when Alexander died in 323 B.C., his conquests was divided among his four generals.

Dan. 11:5-6. The passage concerned struggles between Syria as the king of the north and Egypt as the king of the south. Though Syria is not mentioned because it did not exist as a nation at that time and Egypt being a nation is referred to as king of the south. This passage clearly corresponds to history. Ptolemy 1 Sotor (323-285 B.C.) is the king of the south. The one who is stronger than he refers to Seleucus 1 Nicator (312-281 B.C.). Dan. 11:7-9. A later king of Egypt, Ptolemy III Euegetes (246-222 B.C.) was able to conquer the northern kingdom, seizing a great deal of booty as is described by Daniel. "---he will attack the forces of the king of the north---and be victorious. For some years he will leave the king of the north alone" (verses 7-8). Verse 9 indicated an attack of the king of the north against the king of the south which occurred about 240 B.C. and was led by Seleucus II Callinicus. However he was defeated and returned without conquering Egypt.

Dan. 11:10-12. Here history reveals Antiochus III attacked Egypt with some success. As ruler of the kingdom of the north, Antiochus III had several successful campaigns against Egypt during a period when the Egyptian ruler, Ptolemy Philopator (221-203 B.C.) could not raise enough resistance against him. Dan. 11:13-16. These prophecy passages correspond precisely to the history of the period which described these wars and the success of the kingdom of the north. The conquering of a fortified city (v.15) was fulfilled when the Egyptian armies were defeated at Paneas at the headwaters of the Jordan river, where there, Antiochus III was able to take Sidon which was captured 199-198 B.C. The result was that Syria controlled all the Holy land as far south as Gaza. Dan. 11:17-20. At this time, Rome began to grow in power, and it seemed best for Antiochus III to make peace with Egypt by marrying his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy V. Epiphanes (v.17). Antiochus III having settled things with Egypt, attempted to conquer Greece but was defeated in 191 B.C. at Thermopylae and in 189 B.C. was again defeated at Magnesia southeast of Ephesus, this time by Roman soldiers.

Daniel's prophecy now turns to two other rulers, Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175 B.C.), and Antiochus Epiphanes IV who was the famous persecutor of the Jews, and seen by most scholars as the little horn in Dan. 8:9-14. Seleucus IV Philopator is indicated in Dan. 11:20, "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle (v.20). He had to pay Rome a tribute each year. Dan. 11:21-35. The tax collector he appointed was named Heliodorus (2 Macc. 3-7). In these verses 21-35 a ruler of Syria, known as Antiochus Epiphanes IV now appears. In comparison to the earlier rulers of the northern kingdom, he is described as "a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue" (v.21). The attempt of Antiochus to destroy the Jewish religion was described by Daniel in these passages. "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him (verses 31-32). "but those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time" (Dan. 11:33-35).

(The above history corresponds with: Daniel chapter 11 part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVTH5oHZwn4

Daniel chapter 11 part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PqQKJZNrFo )

(The 3rd part is not the history of Antiochus Epiphanes IV).

The reference to "the time of the end" referred to the remaining prophecy beginning in verse 36, and was not the fulfillment of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV as many believe. The time gap between Antiochus ( verses 21-35) and the end time (verses 36-45) was common in the Old Testament, as many prophecies concerning the first and second coming of Christ though presented together, were separated by thousands of years in their fulfillment. The detailed prophecies of Dan. 10:1 to Dan. 11:35 were prophetic from Daniel's viewpoint in the 6th century B.C., and have now all been fulfilled. But beginning with verse 36, the prophecies given by Daniel relate to the period just before the second coming of Christ. Verses 33-35 indicate a large passage of time before the fulfillment of Dan. 11:36-45 would occur. 'So that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end,---.'

Dan. 11:36-45. This ruler is described by Daniel, "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard of things against the God of gods" (v.36). Some interpretors have attempted to relate this king to Antiochus mentioned in the earlier verses of this chapter. However, the evidence of history is that Antiochus died shortly after fulfilling the preceding verses in the year 164 B.C. He did not fulfill any of the events described in this last part of the chapter, beginning in verse 36.

God bless---Twospirits

[Twospirits]

TheForgiven wrote,

Get real! We've been debating against the idea of an AC for the last, how many posts now? And now, all of a sudden I've misunderstood you? And now the "man of sin" (which most Futurists refer to as the AC) is being implied in Dan 9:27? Gee, where did that come from? You know, debating with you is like debating with a Rubix Cube; flip one side and you never know what color you're going to get.

Now that I have time to answer this, you can rant all you want against me but the truth of scripture will win out, and not the spouting off of your mouth!! Your just peed off because you tried to mock and misrepresent me and failed. You put your foot in your mouth by posting your constant "assumptions." You can't beat me by debating so you continue with your attacks. Well if you think I'm just going to roll over and play dead, you better think again!

Henry

[TheForgiven]

You were doing well until you got to this part:

The reference to "the time of the end" referred to the remaining prophecy beginning in verse 36, and was not the fulfillment of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV as many believe. The time gap between Antiochus ( verses 21-35) and the end time (verses 36-45) was common in the Old Testament, as many prophecies concerning the first and second coming of Christ though presented together, were separated by thousands of years in their fulfillment. The detailed prophecies of Dan. 10:1 to Dan. 11:35 were prophetic from Daniel's viewpoint in the 6th century B.C., and have now all been fulfilled. But beginning with verse 36, the prophecies given by Daniel relate to the period just before the second coming of Christ. Verses 33-35 indicate a large passage of time before the fulfillment of Dan. 11:36-45 would occur. “So that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end,---.”

You are “inferring” the idea that there must be a time-gap of thousands of years combining both the first and second come of Christ in verses 36-45. You then state that Antiochus IV could not have fulfilled verses 36-45 without any reason at all; you merely state this on your own assumptions that are biased towards the Futurist paradigm; additionally, you use his supposed death before being able to fulfill verse 36-45 without any proof. This is not a logical reason to deny the fulfillment of verses 36-45 with Antiochus IV.

Using common sense alone, the phrase “time of the end” will cause any form of eschatology to interpret 36-45 solely on the basis of ones preconceived ideas; your presentation is an example. Before you can usurp the idea that verses 36-45 span some thousands of years, you must first explain why and how you arrived at that conclusion.

It’s understandable to see the phrase “so that they may be refined, purified, and made spotless until the time of the end” as a reference to a future return of Jesus. But this is not contextually logical by any means, for Daniel 11 said nothing about his first coming, much less His 2nd.

Was nut not possible to be refined and purified in the OC? Yes, it was. God refined them in the wilderness, having spent 40 years being preparing them as a Holy People before entering the promised-land. In the same way, God was refining the Jews who remained faithful to the Holy Covenant during the times of the Maccabee’s. Now you and I both know that no one is truly made spotless until the sacrifice of Jesus was completed. But is it not true that the sacrifice made by Jesus, purified not only Saints of our day, but those of the past; even prior to the days of Christ? His sacrifices were once and for all, and for any time. Thus Jews during the slaughter of Antiochus IV, who remained faithful to the Holy Covenant, were being refined in preparation for “the time of the end”, which the Angel affirms to Daniel was still “in the distant future”, from his day. But from the days of Antiochus, we’re only talking about 150 to 200 years, give or take, before the Messiah came to fulfill the Passover requirements of the Law. And from Daniel’s time, we’re talking about 500+/- years; a far cry from Henry’s supposed “thousands of years” gap from two simple paragraphs.

Now then, let’s discuss the heart of the matter.

Dan. 11:36-45. This ruler is described by Daniel, "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard of things against the God of gods" (v.36). Some interpretors have attempted to relate this king to Antiochus mentioned in the earlier verses of this chapter. However, the evidence of history is that Antiochus died shortly after fulfilling the preceding verses in the year 164 B.C. He did not fulfill any of the events described in this last part of the chapter, beginning in verse 36.

Henry here states that Antiochus IV could not have fulfilled verses 36-45 because he died after fulfilling verses 35 and prior. He lists no source or reason for this, and merely states this as his own opinion, while presenting this as fact. Henry, unfortunately, has missed one key fact. The very name “Epiphanes” means “god manifest”. It’s well known that Antiochus IV sacked the temple in Jerusalem, boiled swine’s flesh, and forced the Jews it. He then erected an image of Zeus, and declared himself to be a god: [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...anukkah!.aspx]

Daniel is told that this ruler will do as he pleases; he will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and will say unheard of things against God. I refer you to Maccabee’s IV:

13 Onias the high priest, induced by these words, although for other reasons anxious that king Seleucus should not suppose that Apollonius was slain by human device and not by Divine punishment, prayed for him; 14 and he being thus unexpectedly saved, departed to manifest to the king what had happened to him. 15 But on the death of Seleucus the king, his son Antiochus Epiphanes succeeds to the kingdom: a man of haughty pride and terrible. 16 Who having deposed Onias from the high priesthood, appointed his brother Jason to be high priest: 17 who had made a covenant, if he would give him this authority, to pay yearly three thousand six hundred and sixty talents.

18 And he committed to him the high priesthood and rulership over the nation. 19 And he both changed the manner of living of the people, and perverted their civil customs into all lawlessness. 20 So that he not only erected a gymnasium on the very citadel of our country, [but neglected] the guardianship of the temple. 21 At which Divine vengeance being grieved, instigated Antiochus himself against them. 22 For being at war with Ptolemy in Egypt, he heard that on a report of his death being spread abroad, the inhabitants of Jerusalem had exceedingly rejoiced, and he quickly marched against them. 23 And having subdued them, he established a decree that if any of them lived according to the laws of his country he should die.

24 And when he could by no means destroy by his decrees the obedience to the law of the nation, but saw all his threats and punishments without effect, 25 for even women, because they continued to circumcise their children, were flung down a precipice along with them, knowing beforehand of the punishment. 26 When, therefore, his decrees were disregarded by the people, he himself compelled by means of tortures every one of this race, by tasting forbidden meats, to abjure the Jewish religion.

Chapter 5

1:1 The tyrant Antiochus, therefore, sitting in public state with his assessors upon a certain lofty place, with his armed troops standing in a circle around him, commanded his spearbearers to seize every one of the Hebrews, and to compel them to taste swine's flesh, and things offered to idols. 2, 3 And should any of them be unwilling to eat the accursed food, they were to be tortured on the wheel, and so killed.

4 And when many had been seized, a foremost man of the assembly, a Hebrew, by name Eleazar, a priest by family, by profession a lawyer, and advanced in years, and for this reason known to many of the king's followers, was brought near to him.

5 And Antiochus seeing him, said, 6 I would counsel thee, old man, before thy tortures begin, to tasted the swine's flesh, and save your life; for I feel respect for your age and hoary head, which since you have had so long, you appear to me to be no philosopher in retaining the superstition of the Jews. 7 For wherefore, since nature has conferred upon you the most excellent flesh of this animal, do you loathe it? 8 It seems senseless not to enjoy what is pleasant, yet not disgraceful; and from notions of sinfulness, to reject the boons of nature.

9 And you will be acting, I think, still more senselessly, if you follow vain conceits about the truth. 10 And you will, moreover, be despising me to your own punishment. 11 Will you not awake from your trifling philosophy? and give up the folly of your notions; and, regaining understanding worthy of your age, search into the truth of an expedient course? 12 and, reverencing my kindly admonition, have pity upon your own years? 13 For, bear in mind, that if there be any power which watches over this religion of yours, it will pardon you for all transgressions of the law which you commit through compulsion.

There is so much more than needs to be written, but it’s obvious that Daniel 11:36-45 was easily fulfilled with the events that occurred during the Maccabean revolt. This revolt led to the celebration the Jews called “Hanukkah”, in honor of the temple being purified and cleaned from the desecration caused by the tyrannical madness of Antiochus IV Epiphanies. Jews were being purified by by the hand of God, as God has always dealt with His children. But God did not spare Antiochus IV of his horrible sinds committed against God's chosen people. God caused Antiochus IV to suffer a serious injury to his bowels, thereby causing a nasty smelly infection, to the point that even he couldn't stand his own smell. Antiochus IV died a horrible death, in recompence to the horrible tortures he inflicted on the Jews.

In conclusion, Antiochus IV fulfilled the events spoken of by Daniel, some 300 +/- years later from Daniel’s time. This mad man committed an abomination to the temple of God, and murdered more than 40,000 Jews who refused to accept him as a god, or to partake of sacrificial meat. Henry’s attempt to push Daniel 11:36-45 into even our future is absurd, and shows he will do anything, and say anything, to justify his own theology; a theology that has bits and pieces of modern day Futurism, but contained in his little own world of delusion.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Now that I have time to answer this, you can rant all you want against me but the truth of scripture will win out, and not the spouting off of your mouth!! Your just peed off because you tried to mock and misrepresent me and failed. You put your foot in your mouth by posting your constant "assumptions." You can't beat me by debating so you continue with your attacks. Well if you think I'm just going to roll over and play dead, you better think again!

Henry

Scripture always wins Henry. You're the liar. You've been busted here, and you've been exposed of your false-hood from even your own website. Accusing our country of being a Beast, and then accusing our Presidents of comprising the horns of....well, it doesn't matter. It's obvious you are a liar, and a fake. I pray that God will grant you mercy for the untruths you have presented to God's people.

Finally, to accuse the confirmation of the Covenant as a deal caused by "the man of sin", not knowing that this prophesy is about the accomplishment of Christ, is in itself, blasphemy.

Joe

[Twospirits]

TheForgiven wrote,

Henry here states that Antiochus IV could not have fulfilled verses 36-45 because he died after fulfilling verses 35 and prior. He lists no source or reason for this, and merely states this as his own opinion, while presenting this as fact. Henry, unfortunately, has missed one key fact. The very name “Epiphanes” means “god manifest”. It’s well known that Antiochus IV sacked the temple in Jerusalem, boiled swine’s flesh, and forced the Jews it. He then erected an image of Zeus, and declared himself to be a god: [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...anukkah!.aspx]

Daniel is told that this ruler will do as he pleases; he will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and will say unheard of things against God.

You are the one who constantly give opinions as though they were fact. Source: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/...piphanies.html (By the way you gave a bad link, it doesn't work).

“Most critical scholars as well as a few evangelicals interpret [Dan] 11:36-45 as applying to Antiochus. Yet there are several problems with a simple identification of the king in 11:36-45 with Antiochus IV. First of all, there is no indication that Antiochus exalted and magnified ‘himself over every god,’ did ‘not favor the god of his fathers,’ or honored ‘a god whom his fathers did not know’ (11:36-38). Antiochus had his coins inscribed “King Antiochus, God Manifest,” so he did claim to be a god. However, at the same time, some of these coins bore the likeness of Zeus on the reverse, while other coins depicted Apollo, so he venerated some other gods. Moreover, Antiochus was known for his devotion to the Greek gods in general, and in Jerusalem he most likely had erected a statue of Olympian Zeus and ordered sacrifices to be offered to it. He also promoted the worship of Dionysius in Jerusalem (2 Macc 6:7). Polybius reports that (in 166 BC) Antiochus held a festival at Daphne where he honored ‘all the gods or spirits mentioned or worshipped by people.’ In addition, Apollo was honored on the festival’s coinage,” ibid. 536-37.

“Second, there is no agreement by critics as to what the phrase ‘desire of women,’ refers (see the second textual note on 11:37). Critics generally take it to refer to one of the pagan gods whose cult was especially popular with women. Since the late nineteenth century, critics have tended to view this as a reference to Tammuz/Adonis (cf. Ezk 8:14), although some have claimed Dionysius was intended. The problem with this is that there is no evidence that Antiochus ever discouraged women from expressing their natural affection for men or suppressed the cult of either of these gods. He promoted Dionysius in Jerusalem itself 2 Macc 6:7),” ibid. 537.

Even scholars who apply these verses to Antiochus admit that 11:40-45 do not fit what is known about Antiochus from other historical sources. So it is very probable that it is the Antiochene theory, and not some distortion of him by the author of Daniel, that is the cause of these problems. The attempt to rescue the Antiochene interpretation of 11:36-45 by resorting to the theory that extreme polemics distort its depiction of Antiochus is more special pleading than reasoned exegesis. The author accurately predicts historical facts about other Greek rulers in his polemics against them elsewhere (e.g. 11:11-12,17-18 about Antiochus III). Those other polemics do not distort the depiction of the other kings so as to make the identifications of those kings problematic for scholars of any stripe. Even though Antiochus IV was the most reviled Hellenistic king among Jews because of his blasphemous actions and sacrilegious policies, the polemic against him in 11:21-35 does not distort the portrait of him. The identity of the king of the north in 11:21-35 clearly was Antiochus IV, as all scholars easily conclude,” ibid. 538.

The traditional Christian interpretation understands 11:36-45 as applying to an eschatological king, which in NT terms is the Antichrist or ‘the man of lawlessness’ (2 Thes 2:3-13)…There are two plain indications in the text that the king who is the focus in 11:35-45 is not the same as the king of the north in 11:21-35. First, 11:35 ends with the notice that the persecution of Antiochus will refine God’s people ‘until the time of the end.’ From that, it is reasonable to infer that the prophecy will begin a discussion about ‘the time of the end,’ in keeping with the catch-concept organizing principle which is evident elsewhere in this fourth vision (chapters 11-12). In fact, three more times in the final part of the vision the timeframe is called ‘the time of the end’ (11:40; 12:4,9). Nowhere else besides these four verses (11:35,40; 12:4,9) does the fourth vision refer to ‘the time of the end.’ Earlier examples of a sudden shift to a later time support this view of the shift between 11:35 and 11:36. Earlier the prophecy skips from a Persian emperor who stirred up Greece to a Greek king (11:2-3) and from the breakup of the Greek Empire into four kingdoms (‘toward the four winds of heaven’) to only two of those kingdoms and their kings, the king of the north and the kind of the south (11:4-6),” ibid. 538-39.

Second, 11:36 introduces the king in a unique way. He is simply referred to as “the king.” No Hellenistic king prior to 11:36 is ever referred to simply as “the king,” even when he has been recently mentioned. For example, 11:25 refers to the northern king’s designs ‘against the king of the south’, and then the next clause in the same verse does not refer to the southern king as “the king,’ but instead as ‘the king of the south’ again. Alexander the Great is called ‘a warrior king.’ Various Seleucid kings are always called ‘the king of the north’ (11:6-8,11,13,15). Various Ptolemaic kings are always called ‘the king of the south’ (11:5-6,8,11,14,25 [twice]),” ibid. 539.

“Therefore, there are good indicators that there is a change of both timeframe and subject between 11:35 and 11:36. When ‘the king’ is introduced at 11:36, it is after the transition to the end times (11:35b) and he is introduced in a unique, dramatic way. This signals that this king is not a Hellentistic king, but an eschatological king who will arise at ‘the time of the end’ (11:35,40; 12:4,9),” ibid. 539.

The glue that ties all this evidence together is Dan 12:1-2 to the chapter's end. “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (Rev. 20:15). And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting abhorrence.”

Those who attempt to place Dan. 11:36-45 as fulfilled by Antiochus do so in order to meet there own agenda and paradigm.

God bless---Twospirits

[Twospirits]

TheForgiven wrote,

Scripture always wins Henry. You're the liar. You've been busted here, and you've been exposed of your false-hood from even your own website. Accusing our country of being a Beast, and then accusing our Presidents of comprising the horns of....well, it doesn't matter. It's obvious you are a liar, and a fake. I pray that God will grant you mercy for the untruths you have presented to God's people.

Yes, scripture always wins as I have shown. But how dare I accuse your gods of being a beast! As for who is busted and exposed of falsehood, let the record show on Biblewheel who spews out falsehoods.

'Woe unto you, hypocrite! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.'

'Woe unto you, hypocrite! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourself.'

Henry

[TheForgiven]

“Most critical scholars as well as a few evangelicals interpret [Dan] 11:36-45 as applying to Antiochus. Yet there are several problems with a simple identification of the king in 11:36-45 with Antiochus IV. First of all, there is no indication that Antiochus exalted and magnified ‘himself over every god,’ did ‘not favor the god of his fathers,’ or honored ‘a god whom his fathers did not know’ (11:36-38).

This is not entirely correct. I've already stated (as is explained in the video) that Zeus was not a common god worshipped by the Seleucids. When reading the Maccabee’s (spelling), there's an account of him wanting to "spare" an old Jew from torture. He boasts and exalts himself as being merciful. But by the grace of God, he remained faithful and suffered terribly for it. This man was skinned alive, with all of his joints pulled apart, from finger-tip to toe. He tried to get them to eat pork, which was not lawful for them to do. He sacrificed a pig on the altar, which was not lawful for him to do. He entered the Holy of Hollies, which was not lawful for him to do. The very name “Epiphanies” means “god manifest”, although the Jews referred to him as a “mad” man. And as you correctly pointed out, the coins mimic him as being a god, of which he also claimed to be relation to Apollos; the son of Zeus. So the theory that Antiochus IV did not try to present himself as a god is not entirely accurate. Finally, he also erected an image of Zeus and had him placed in Jerusalem (which was not lawful for him to do), and turned that area into a gymnasium, as the fighters who trained there, did so naked.

Antiochus had his coins inscribed “King Antiochus, God Manifest,” so he did claim to be a god. However, at the same time, some of these coins bore the likeness of Zeus on the reverse, while other coins depicted Apollo, so he venerated some other gods.

Thus proving that he equated himself to be ken to Zeus, as is believed by many Christians. More importantly, it is not merely Christians who believe Antiochus IV to fit the catagory mentioned in Daniel 11:36-45, ancient Jews, as well as modern Jews, believe this as well. With regards to his title, “Epiphanies”, which in Greek is translated “god manifest”, Antiochus IV was the only Seleucid to use this title. Thus proves that he boasts and exalts himself as not only god, but more than his forefathers. He assumed the “divine epithets”, and is the only Hellenistic king to have done this [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes]. The Jews referred to him as Epimanes, which means “the mad one”.

Moreover, Antiochus was known for his devotion to the Greek gods in general, and in Jerusalem he most likely had erected a statue of Olympian Zeus and ordered sacrifices to be offered to it.

As you correctly point out, Zeus is a Greek god, and that is the god he adapted to; his fathers did not worship gods from Greek mythology.

He also promoted the worship of Dionysius in Jerusalem (2 Macc 6:7). Polybius reports that (in 166 BC) Antiochus held a festival at Daphne where he honored ‘all the gods or spirits mentioned or worshipped by people.’ In addition, Apollo was honored on the festival’s coinage,” ibid. 536-37.

I'll have to research this. You may be correct, but then again you may be quoting a source that may not be accurate; more to come.

“Second, there is no agreement by critics as to what the phrase ‘desire of women,’ refers (see the second textual note on 11:37).

That depends on how you look at it. I believe this phrase is simply saying that women would not cause him to be merciful; he would spare no one; neither women nor children; all were tortured by his madness.

Critics generally take it to refer to one of the pagan gods whose cult was especially popular with women. Since the late nineteenth century, critics have tended to view this as a reference to Tammuz/Adonis (cf. Ezk 8:14), although some have claimed Dionysius was intended. The problem with this is that there is no evidence that Antiochus ever discouraged women from expressing their natural affection for men or suppressed the cult of either of these gods. He promoted Dionysius in Jerusalem itself 2 Macc 6:7),” ibid. 537.

OK so we have more opinions from critics, but this doesn't justify your position; it only means you have critics you agree with, but this by no means strengthens your position.

The traditional Christian interpretation understands 11:36-45 as applying to an eschatological king, which in NT terms is the Antichrist or ‘the man of lawlessness’ (2 Thes 2:3-13)…There are two plain indications in the text that the king who is the focus in 11:35-45 is not the same as the king of the north in 11:21-35. First, 11:35 ends with the notice that the persecution of Antiochus will refine God’s people ‘until the time of the end.

That's not how I view this. I believe that the refinement process has never changed by God. Refinement has to do with God's chastening hand through hardship. Spiritual purification was not possible until Jesus, but being chastened has always been a tool used by God to discipline his children. So I see no problem with accepting Antiochus IV as the tool used by God to chasten his children. He did the same thing with Nero Caesar, and even warned the Churches in Asia (who needed to be chastened) to prepare themselves for the time of testing that was about to come upon them. Even in our day, God chastens his people through hardship; this is something that will never change.

From that, it is reasonable to infer that the prophecy will begin a discussion about ‘the time of the end,’ in keeping with the catch-concept organizing principle which is evident elsewhere in this fourth vision (chapters 11-12). In fact, three more times in the final part of the vision the timeframe is called ‘the time of the end’ (11:40; 12:4,9). Nowhere else besides these four verses (11:35,40; 12:4,9) does the fourth vision refer to ‘the time of the end.’

If I'm not mistaken, the Angel states that the "time of the end" was not yet, and that it was still at the appointed time.

Second, 11:36 introduces the king in a unique way. He is simply referred to as “the king.” No Hellenistic king prior to 11:36 is ever referred to simply as “the king,” even when he has been recently mentioned. For example, 11:25 refers to the northern king’s designs ‘against the king of the south’, and then the next clause in the same verse does not refer to the southern king as “the king,’ but instead as ‘the king of the south’ again. Alexander the Great is called ‘a warrior king.’ Various Seleucid kings are always called ‘the king of the north’ (11:6-8,11,13,15). Various Ptolemaic kings are always called ‘the king of the south’ (11:5-6,8,11,14,25 [twice]),” ibid. 539.

None of this presentation means anything; this is nothing more than playing with words. A king is a king, as indeed there are many kinds and typs of kings. So I see no point in trying to use this as an anti-fulfillment of Antiochus IV.

The glue that ties all this evidence together is Dan 12:1-2 to the chapter's end. “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (Rev. 20:15). And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting abhorrence.”

I believe Daniel 11 shifts to Daneil 12 which speaks more on a first century fulfillment. Thus the passage you quote above is, in my opinion, referring to the first coming of Christ.

Those who attempt to place Dan. 11:36-45 as fulfilled by Antiochus do so in order to meet there own agenda and paradigm.

God bless---Twospirits

That's a negative my friend. We do so because it makes sense; no agenda is perpetuated here. Notice that I do not have to insert large Millennial gaps merely to make "end times" fit the "end of the world" category. Any phrase with the word "time" or "end" to the Futurist always means the end of time, or the end of the world. THAT is their agenda, which has no Biblical merit, logical, Holy Inspiration, or truth. And every lie is exposed by the truth, and it's the truth that all fathers who have taught, lived, breathed, and explained from the Futurist paradigm, have constantly been bombarded with failed predictions OR estimations. Henry will not be the exception, but a contribution to the falsehood of failed theologies and predictions. He believes that Daniel's Prophesy must be fulfilled near our day because of our Presidential leaders, who are although corruption, are nowhere near the kinds of leaders that people faced many ages ago. Claiming Bill Clinton to be a horn from the Beast, but Nero Caesar not? Well, I think this speaks enough of what he believes.

In conclusion, Henry merely tells us with the critics believe, and he thus supports their criticism against Jews who believe Antiochus fulfilled Daniel 11:36-45; not to mention the Christians who believe this as well. But all in all, his presentation did not provide ample evidence or reasons to reject the traditional view that Antiochus IV fulfilled Daniel 11.

Joe

[Twospirits]

TheForgiven wrote,

Quote:
Twospirits wrote,

The glue that ties all this evidence together is Dan 12:1-2 to the chapter's end. 'And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (Rev. 20:15). And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting abhorrence.'

TheForgiven answered,
I believe Daniel 11 shifts to Daneil 12 which speaks more on a first century fulfillment. Thus the passage you quote above is, in my opinion, referring to the first coming of Christ.

Opinions are not evidence, they are just that 'opinions.' Biblical, historical and exegetical evidence is what is required here. This is what you need to show the readers since you claim that Dan. 11:36 to Dan. 11:45 refers to the events of Antiochus.

Because the scriptural evidence shows that the events of 'the king' beginning from Dan. 11:36 continues throughout Daniel ending in Dan. 12:13. These passages all speak of the same 'king' to come at the appointed time, 'at the time of the end' (Dan. 11:35).

We last see this 'king' planting 'the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain' where his end shall come with none to help him as stated in Dan. 11:45. Where then Dan. 12:1, the very next verse states, 'And at that time shall Michael stand up,---.' At what time? At the time his palace is said as being planted between the seas of the holy mountain. Where then the following end time events take place. This is absolutely clear and cannot be any clearer, the events of this 'king' begin from Dan. 11:36 to the end of Dan. 12:13.

There is no way exegetically that you can take the events of Dan. 11:36-45 and apply them to Antiochus, yet separate the events of Dan. 12:1-13, as being 1st century events not applicable to the time of Antiochus; for the events are glued together by Dan. 12:1 as is clearly seen.

Now I have given my evidence, I await for Joe's.

In conclusion, Henry merely tells us with the critics believe, ---

No, I study and evaluate all sources pros and cons with scripture, then I give my findings and conclusions with biblical, exegetical and historical reasons. I don't just give stories, opinions, scenarios with no evidence like many do.

Henry

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

These passages all speak of the same “king” to come at the appointed time, “at the time of the end” (Dan. 11:35).
Henry

Is there any indication in Daniel about what "end" these visions and prophecies are referring to? What are you assuming the words 'time of the end' refer to and mean? Do you substitute the words 'end of time' for the words 'time of the end'?

Is this the same 'time of the end" that is referred to as 'the latter days" in Dan 10:14?

Why or why not?

Dan 10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision [is] for [many] days.

Is this the same 'time of the end' that is referred to as 'latter days' in Deut 31:29 and as 'end' and 'latter end' in 32:20, 29?

Why, or why not?

If Daniel has been given [all] these prophecies during the curse of the law which was the Babylonian captivity that was prophesied in the law of Moses AND which Daniel confessed to have come upon them in his prayer in chapter 9; and in the law of Mose there was still a future time of 'latter days', 'end', and 'latter end' to come [from Daniels perspective]; then on what grounds and by what reasoning do you presume that the prophecies even including those of the 'time of the end' are not informing Daniel and his people of further details of this time of the previously prophesied 'end' and 'latter end' of the mosaic covenant?

How could it be that the visions would skip over providing further information and details about these latter days and latter end' to Daniels people of the mosaic covenant; and project to the 'end of time'?

And what 'end of time' could this be referring to if the spiritual seed and children of God through faith in Christ [John 1:12,13] like individual Jacob/Israel is promised to continue as long as the ordinances of the sun, moon and stars continue and generation after generation?

Deut 31:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt [yourselves], and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Deut 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end [shall be]: for they [are] a very froward generation, children in whom [is] no faith.

Deut 32:29 O that they were wise, [that] they understood this, [that] they would consider their latter end!

Upon whom did the 'ends of the earth' [the end and foundational purposes] come upon?

Whatever specific fulfillment's are to be found in chapter 11 and 12 of Daniel, it would seem in-congruent with the other chapters of Daniel to seek to understand them other than between the time of the return from Babylon and the time of the 'latter end' of the mosaic covenant during the roman empire. Weather the 'time of the end' refers to the last generation as does Deut 32; or if it refers to the time period of the last kingdom or the last end of a previous [greek] kingdom [if indicated from its exact context] the Words 'Time of the end' cannot be twisted or changed to indicated 'the end of time' other than the 'end of the time allotted for the blessing and administration of the mosaic covenant.

This is confirmed by Jesus telling his hearers in His conversational instruction with them that they would see the abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel and it would be a sign to those believers in Judea to flee into the mountains: And THEY DID.

[TheForgiven]

Twospirits;30274]Opinions are not evidence, they are just that “opinions.” Biblical, historical and exegetical evidence is what is required here. This is what you need to show the readers since you claim that Dan. 11:36 to Dan. 11:45 refers to the events of Antiochus.

Agreed. I'll go a step further that some opinions (or most) are based on flawed expectations of interpretation from eschatology. More importantly, those of us who depend on history to prove fulfilled eschatology, have an even bigger problem in locating reliable sources. After all, we're talking about more than 2,500 years of writings we have to rely upon, and assume (with God's assistance) that what we read is in fact genuine. Now days in the computer age, information is easily attainted with the simple search of key-words. Unfortunately, most of us (to include me) are subject to historical information provided by several source-parties who may have made a mistake in their historical information. So as you can see, it's not as easy as one may think. Even today, history books are re-written due to new archeological findings. For instance, new archeological findings from the time frame of Mark Anthony (Rome) prior to Christ show that Rome worshiped the nature gods. Some believe this to point directly to Rome prior to Christ with the verse-phrase reading, "and he shall honor a god of fortresses", meaning nature.

Other scholars tend to believe that perhaps Herod the Great fit the category of Daniel 11:36 "king". I of course do not agree, but I understand their reasons.

I understand the difficulties in trying to determine the identity of the "king" mentioned in Daniel 11:36 in relation to the "he" from the same verses. It is very difficult, but there may be another reason. There are a few Christian scholars who want to reject the current writings of Daniel as spurious. I find it interesting that even the dead-sea scrolls are missing chapters 9 and 11, although there were copies of Daniel 9 and 11 found in the same cave as the dead-sea scrolls, however they were not written in Hebrew, but Aramaic. Some speculate that the Hellenistic Jews of that time tampered with Daniel's writings in order to make Antiochus IV the obvious candidate for Daniel 11.

All in all, we just don't know. For now I still believe that Antiochus was the one spoken of too Daniel, but I won't rule out the possibility that Daniel may have been given a continuation from Antiochus, to the time-frame of Jesus, which would make the identity of the king "Roman"; some Christian scholars believe this person may possibly have been Marc Anthony. I of course do not agree.

But one thing I'm quite confident of. It isn't natural for the Angel to skip several thousand years from Daniel 11:35 to verse 36, considering he did not do that to any porition of Prophesy prior to Daniel that. I know the popular belief from Futurists is to apply Daniel 11:36 to an Anti-Christ; a teaching spawned by Iranaeus, and who was copied by a few of his followers, students, and/or fans. But because none of their predictions or estimations came to pass, we can logically count them off as just another set of misinterpretations of Prophesy. Iranaeus expected the Anti-Christ to come in his day, and it did not happen; the same for Clement of Rome, and the Hyppo.

The information provided to Daniel was exact and chronological without serious gaps; especially a gap of a thousand years, or more. So who ever the identity is of Daniel 9:36 (and assuming that Daniel 9:36 and on was not tampered or altered), it's quite safe to assume (blindly if you will) that this saw fulfillment either right after Antiochus IV, or during the latter days of the end in 70AD.

As of now, I have no definitive identity to verse 9:36, but I'm more than confident (and I believe I have the mind of Christ to inspire me) that 11:36 is not a future event to the 21st century; that's just too far of a stretch from the natural chronology given in the prior chapters. Besides, Jesus is the stone that crushed all the kingdoms of sin as caused by Satan, and his head was crushed in the first century of the cross.

God bless.

Joe

P.S. As soon as I can find more information, I will post it. For now, I'm interested in any other comments, whether for a future expectation, or past.