Is The Book Of Daniel Wrong?

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Please be MOST AWARE that I find Scripture to be PERFECT. Thus if there is appears to be a disconnect between different passages and/or fulfillments, it is not the AUTHOR who needs "help", -- it's us! :)

So now I provide the dictionary definition of "until", and the following "suspect" passages:



un·til
–conjunction 1. up to the time that or when; till: He read until his guests arrived. 2. before (usually used in negative constructions): They did not come until the meeting was half over.
http://dictionary.re...om/browse/until




Daniel 1:21 (NKJV)
[sup]21[/sup] Thus Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.


Daniel 10:1 (NKJV)
[sup]1[/sup] In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, ...



Using the dictionary definition as provided, it is safe to presume that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. So what is the Biblically correct and logically defensible solution to 10:1? Or do those who seek to defame Christianity have a cause against the Bible?



If anyone chooses to respond, PLEASE to not attempt to re-define the meaning of "until" to suggest some added years. The dictionary is fine as it is! :lol:

BibleScribe

 

[belantos]

To All,

Please be MOST AWARE that I find Scripture to be PERFECT. Thus if there is appears to be a disconnect between different passages and/or fulfillments, it is not the AUTHOR who needs "help", -- it's us! :)

So now I provide the dictionary definition of "until", and the following "suspect" passages:



un·til
–conjunction 1. up to the time that or when; till: He read until his guests arrived. 2. before (usually used in negative constructions): They did not come until the meeting was half over.
http://dictionary.re...om/browse/until




Daniel 1:21 (NKJV)
[sup]21[/sup] Thus Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.


Daniel 10:1 (NKJV)
[sup]1[/sup] In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, ...



Using the dictionary definition as provided, it is safe to presume that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. So what is the Biblically correct and logically defensible solution to 10:1? Or do those who seek to defame Christianity have a cause against the Bible?



If anyone chooses to respond, PLEASE to not attempt to re-define the meaning of "until" to suggest some added years. The dictionary is fine as it is! :lol:

BibleScribe

No, it doesn't say Daniel died, but that he remained there until the first year of Cyrus.

20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.
21 And Daniel continued there until the first year of King Cyrus. (NRSV)

It helps to check other translations...

 

[BibleScribe]

No, it doesn't say Daniel died, but that he remained there until the first year of Cyrus.

20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.
21 And Daniel continued there until the first year of King Cyrus. (NRSV)

It helps to check other translations...

Hi Belantos,

Thanks for the response, but your premise presumes that "until" should be either "beyond", "past", etc., etc. In fact, Daniel DID NOT continue past the "first year of King Cyrus". Thus once again, it is safe to presume he DIED.

So the question remains, -- how are 1:21 and 10:1 PERFECTLY correct as written? :)


BibleScribe

 

[tomwebster]

To All,

Thus if there is appears to be a disconnect between different passages and/or fulfillments, it is not the AUTHOR who needs "help", -- it's us!

You are right with this statement, "you need help!"

So now I provide the dictionary definition of "until", and the following "suspect" passages:

un·til
–conjunction 1. up to the time that or when; till: He read until his guests arrived. 2. before (usually used in negative constructions): They did not come until the meeting was half over.
http://dictionary.re...om/browse/until

Daniel 1:21 (NKJV)
[sup]21[/sup] Thus Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.


Daniel 10:1 (NKJV)
[sup]1[/sup] In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, ...

Using the dictionary definition as provided, it is safe to presume that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. So what is the Biblically correct and logically defensible solution to 10:1? Or do those who seek to defame Christianity have a cause against the Bible?

If anyone chooses to respond, PLEASE to not attempt to re-define the meaning of "until" to suggest some added years. The dictionary is fine as it is! :lol:

BibleScribe

BS, This part of Daniel is written in Hebrew not English, so it MIGHT be beneficial to look at the Hebrew words not the English.

Dan 1:21 And Daniel continued (H1961) even unto (H5704) the first year of king Cyrus.

Your word עד , ad, 5704 is an adverb and modifies the verb “continued.” Daniel continued in office unto/ until, the first year of king Cyrus.

Nowhere in the first 20 verses does the text say Daniel died, but that he was a counselor to Nebuchadnezzar.

Dan 1:18 Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.
Dan 1:19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.
Dan 1:20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
Dan 1:21 And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.

 

[Rach1370]

It could be something as simple as different kings with the same name? Haven't read the verses (in a rush this morning!) and don't claim to be a bible/dictionary genius, this is a total guess! But how many king Herod's did the bible record? Just a thought!

 

[aspen]

Why is it that Rach is the only person on this thread that can discuss a topic without interpreting every differing opinion as on attack on Christianity or the Bible? How tiring....

 

[BibleScribe]

...

Dan 1:21 And Daniel continued (H1961) even unto (H5704) the first year of king Cyrus.
...

As Scripture provides, Daniel did not continue ~past, beyond, further than, after, in excess of, etc., etc. Thus, once again, it is safe to presume he DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. However, you miss the point. The point is, SCRIPTURE is PERFECTLY CORRECT as written. -- You may need help understanding WHY is is PERFECTLY CORRECT, but it's not difficult to make that assessment.


BibleScribe



BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

It could be something as simple as different kings with the same name? Haven't read the verses (in a rush this morning!) and don't claim to be a bible/dictionary genius, this is a total guess! But how many king Herod's did the bible record? Just a thought!

Hi Rach,

You are correct in seeking a solution to this ~riddle~. For Scripture clearly states that which most would defend is incorrect. So if it's not two different kings (which it isn't), then it MUST be a something else.

Please allow me to share the simple concept where Babylon was the preeminent empire. And then along came the Medo/Persian threat, under Cyrus. And where Nabonidus was off with the Babylonian armies conquering new territories, the kingdom was basically undefended, leaving the military preeminence to the Medo/Persians (as Daniel noted being "in the third year" of Cyrus. However, most military tacticians acknowledge a 4:1 to 10:1 military superiority to take a fortified defense (please note that the city walls were ~40 thick and ~90 feet high), and Cyrus had not yet conquered Babylon.

So in 10:1, Daniel recognized this new preeminent empire under "Cyurs, king of Persia". However, at the chronology of 1:21, Cyrus has taken Babylon and become "King Cyrus". (And so the answer to this ~riddle~.)



But please allow that GOD does not provide empty disputes, and there MUST be some added value to this discovery. And where the commentators once again fail to see the obvious, Daniel 11:1 confirms the TRUTH:


Daniel 11 (KJV)
[sup]1[/sup]Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
[sup]2[/sup]And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.



You should observe that in 9:2, Darius was made King over the Chaldeans (i.e., Babylonians), and 11:1 confirms that scenario where this king is CLEARLY threatened by the armies of Cyrus, and the angel "stood to confirm and to strengthen him." -- Please note that ONLY the soon to be vanquished needs encouragement. The victor NEVER needs strengthening. That's why even Scripture says to offer strong drink in these circumstances:


Proverbs 31 (KJV)
[sup]6[/sup]Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.




Thus we can now follow the "three more kings shall arise in Persia", and the "fourth", which take us through the sequence of world empires up to the events of the 1900's, -- in the era approximate to 1948!




BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

As shared with Rach, the 1:21 / 10:1 resolution is not an end to itself, but rather a piece of the Chapter 11 puzzle. And as such, one would be well advised that Chapter 11 MUST comply with the 12:4 & 9 angelic guidance. Thus we should anticipate finding those fulfillments NOT in ~230 B.C., but rather in the era approximate to 1948.



BibleScribe

 

[tomwebster]

As Scripture provides, Daniel did not continue ~past, beyond, further than, after, in excess of, etc., etc. Thus, once again, it is safe to presume he DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. However, you miss the point. The point is, SCRIPTURE is PERFECTLY CORRECT as written. -- You may need help understanding WHY is is PERFECTLY CORRECT, but it's not difficult to make that assessment.


BibleScribe

No, I don't need your help, thanks!

 

[FHII]

Hi Rach,

You are correct in seeking a solution to this ~riddle~. For Scripture clearly states that which most would defend is incorrect. So if it's not two different kings (which it isn't), then it MUST be a something else.

Please allow me to share the simple concept where Babylon was the preeminent empire. And then along came the Medo/Persian threat, under Cyrus. And where Nabonidus was off with the Babylonian armies conquering new territories, the kingdom was basically undefended, leaving the military preeminence to the Medo/Persians (as Daniel noted being "in the third year" of Cyrus. However, most military tacticians acknowledge a 4:1 to 10:1 military superiority to take a fortified defense (please note that the city walls were ~40 thick and ~90 feet high), and Cyrus had not yet conquered Babylon.

So in 10:1, Daniel recognized this new preeminent empire under "Cyurs, king of Persia". However, at the chronology of 1:21, Cyrus has taken Babylon and become "King Cyrus". (And so the answer to this ~riddle~.)



But please allow that GOD does not provide empty disputes, and there MUST be some added value to this discovery. And where the commentators once again fail to see the obvious, Daniel 11:1 confirms the TRUTH:


Daniel 11 (KJV)
[sup]1[/sup]Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
[sup]2[/sup]And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.



You should observe that in 9:2, Darius was made King over the Chaldeans (i.e., Babylonians), and 11:1 confirms that scenario where this king is CLEARLY threatened by the armies of Cyrus, and the angel "stood to confirm and to strengthen him." -- Please note that ONLY the soon to be vanquished needs encouragement. The victor NEVER needs strengthening. That's why even Scripture says to offer strong drink in these circumstances:


Proverbs 31 (KJV)
[sup]6[/sup]Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.




Thus we can now follow the "three more kings shall arise in Persia", and the "fourth", which take us through the sequence of world empires up to the events of the 1900's, -- in the era approximate to 1948!




BibleScribe

I was reading Barnes' commentary on this topic and his conclusion (or I should say, theory) is that when it says "continued until" it means remained in office, and not necessarily died. There is some reasoning behind that as the first chapter seems to be an overview with the last verses telling of how Daniel and his companions were granted offices in the kingdom. However, I tend to think Biblescribe's answer is more plausible.

 

[BibleScribe]

I was reading Barnes' commentary on this topic and his conclusion (or I should say, theory) is that when it says "continued until" it means remained in office, and not necessarily died. There is some reasoning behind that as the first chapter seems to be an overview with the last verses telling of how Daniel and his companions were granted offices in the kingdom. However, I tend to think Biblescribe's answer is more plausible.

Hi FHll,

Thanks for sharing both the "Classical" interpretation, and also your opinion as to how Scripture may be EXACTLY PERFECT without presuming additional years to the end of Daniel's service and/or life in violation of the dictionary definition of "until". :)

But having this information, can you see the argument for 11:1, that Darius was the last Babylonian King? And if THAT argument is sound, then how Daniel 5 can be evaluated from NOT a Medo/Persian perspective (as the commentaries present) but rather from a Babylonian perspective? Thus one should anticipate that ALL references to Darius agree as to his Babylonian rulership, and because he is indeed Babylonian, that Chapter 11 can be assessed for the sequence of empires leading to the 1900's.


BibleScribe

 

[FHII]

Hi FHll,

Thanks for sharing both the "Classical" interpretation, and also your opinion as to how Scripture may be EXACTLY PERFECT without presuming additional years to the end of Daniel's service and/or life in violation of the dictionary definition of "until". :)

But having this information, can you see the argument for 11:1, that Darius was the last Babylonian King? And if THAT argument is sound, then how Daniel 5 can be evaluated from NOT a Medo/Persian perspective (as the commentaries present) but rather from a Babylonian perspective? Thus one should anticipate that ALL references to Darius agree as to his Babylonian rulership, and because he is indeed Babylonian, that Chapter 11 can be assessed for the sequence of empires leading to the 1900's.


BibleScribe

Yea, I can. What Barnes wrote in his commentary seems ok up to a point. But there are too many, "what if's". I don't mind that (while at the same time I don't like it), but your explanation seems to fit better. I'm pretty schooled in ancient history as I work with 7th graders in that discipline, but I am not as skilled as I'd like to be. But I am skilled in the Bible, and I know that some books like Daniel are written by more than one human author. The book jumps around quite a bit from view point to view point. I brought up Chapter 1 being a summary, which seems to lend support to Barnes. Chapter 3 seems to be written by Nebuchanezzer himself, or at least it's told from his view point. But even looking at timelines of what ummm.... "accepted history" says you are correct.

 

[BibleScribe]

Yea, I can. What Barnes wrote in his commentary seems ok up to a point. But there are too many, "what if's". I don't mind that (while at the same time I don't like it), but your explanation seems to fit better. I'm pretty schooled in ancient history as I work with 7th graders in that discipline, but I am not as skilled as I'd like to be. But I am skilled in the Bible, and I know that some books like Daniel are written by more than one human author. The book jumps around quite a bit from view point to view point. I brought up Chapter 1 being a summary, which seems to lend support to Barnes. Chapter 3 seems to be written by Nebuchanezzer himself, or at least it's told from his view point. But even looking at timelines of what ummm.... "accepted history" says you are correct.

HiFHII,

Anyone who works with 7th graders must have infinite patience. :)

My expectation regarding the 10:1 significance of being written during the Babylonian Empire, is that it is one continuous thought through the eleventh Chapter and into the twelfth. As such 11:1 correctly positions Darius as being under threat from the impending Medo/Persian Empire:


Daniel 11
11As for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to support and strengthen him.





... then if we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture we find the following circumstance in verse 2, in conjunction with 2:39:



Daniel 11

2 ‘Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia. The fourth shall be far richer than all of them, and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.

(Please note that the Kingdom of Greece is defined in 2:39)



Daniel 2


[sup]39[/sup]And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.




So applying the interpretation of the kingdom of brass as being "Greece", we are told the "type" of this kingdom is "all the earth", such that a transliteration of 11:2 might read as:



2 ‘Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia. The fourth shall be far richer than all of them, and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. all the earth.




Thus now one can assess that sequence from the existing Babylonian Kingdom, through the sequence of world empires, and arrive as follows:


~is~, Babylonian

1 of 3 arise in Persia, Medo/Persian

2 of 3 arise in Persia, Grecian (conquered the Medo/Persians)

3 of 3 arise in Persia, Roman (exercised dominion over Persia)


"and when he has become strong" denotes the ~1300 years from the fall of the Roman Empire to the present 1900's

4th empire (which DID NOT exercise dominion over Persia) ~shall stir up all against all the earth~, is World War I




... and of course if this is accurate, then we should anticipate WWII in the next verses:


Daniel 11


[sup]3[/sup]And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
[sup]4[/sup]And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.




... for which Germany conquered the four directions of the compass and lost the same, but both Germany and the capital city (Berlin) were divided between the western alliance and Russia (i.e., "for others beside those").





So not only should it appear that 1:21 & 10:1 are PERFECT as written, but now the sequence of world history can be unraveled in this time of the end (Ref. 12:4 & 9) to the edification of the church.


BibleScribe

 

[FHII]

HiFHII,

Anyone who works with 7th graders must have infinite patience. :)

My expectation regarding the 10:1 significance of being written during the Babylonian Empire, is that it is one continuous thought through the eleventh Chapter and into the twelfth. As such 11:1 correctly positions Darius as being under threat from the impending Medo/Persian Empire:

BibleScribe

Well, the 7th graders don't think I have infinite patience. I do my job the Bible way as much as the law allows me to! But thank you for the compliment.


I read what you said. It's very interesting. I can't say I agree or not because I have to check into it. I've been looking into other stuff of the Bible for some time, so I haven't devoted much time to studying this prophecy. Somewhere I remember a prophecy of their being a Lion, a bear, a leopard a terrible dragon that had all the characteristics of each of the first three. As I remember, it was a prophecy of Babylon (the Lion), Persia (the bear), Greece (The leopard) and the dragon (Rome). Please don't ask me to look it up right now... I have too many other things I'm looking into. Sound familar, though?


When you talk of WWI and WWII, I do believe that the USA has a part in the many prophecies of the Bible, if that is what you are getting into. I'm not prepared to talk about them, but I have looked into it. I am itching to ask you one question though....

Rev 13:3



And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.





What do you think this deadly wound was, and who do you think delivered it?

 

[BibleScribe]

...
Rev 13:3
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

What do you think this deadly wound was, and who do you think delivered it?

Hi FHII,

This answer is quite simple, given the outline provide by Daniel 2 & 7:

As provided in: Post #57, http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/12492-romes-7-0f-10-hills/page__st__30

DANIEL 2
1. Gold, Babylonian
2. Silver, Medo/Persian
3. Bronze, Grecian
4. Iron, Roman
5. Clay, "divided"

Please note that 2:45 confirms this FIVE world empire sequence in the accounting of Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold, where the Clay is separated from the Iron (discounting a 4a/4b relationship) and delineating a ~4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE world empire sequence. Thus Daniel 7 MUST define the "divided" contributors:

DANIEL 2 & 7
1. Gold, Babylonian (has fallen)
2. Silver, Medo/Persian (has fallen)
3. Bronze, Grecian (has fallen)
4. Iron, Roman (has fallen)
-- Clay, "divided"
-- 5. Lion/Eagle, U.K./U.S. (has fallen from preeminence, but still exists)
-- 6. Bear, Russia ("is", as recognized by the world when it attacks Israel)i
-- 7. Leopard, China ("shall remain a little while" until the U.N. assumes leadership)
-- 8. "dreadful", United Nations ("was and is not" because it has NO Geography, NO Populous, NO Army, etc.)

As such we can identify the seven heads of the beast of representing the seven world empires, three of which are still operating (which are the 3-superpowers , -- the Lion/Eagle; the Bear; and the Leopard). And where Russia will attack the Middle East, China will spank that nation. Thus one of the seven is"mortally wounded", but the United Nations will preserve that nation, thus it will be "healed". And of course, the world will marvel at the U.N. "beast".



Please note that this agrees with Daniel 2, 7, 8, & 11, and Revelation 13 & 17, -- in accordance with the information provided in Ezekiel 37 & 38.

BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Please allow me to continue evaluating the significance and continuity of Scripture, by considering History:

...

2 ‘Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia. The fourth shall be far richer than all of them, and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. all the earth.


Thus now one can assess that sequence from the existing Babylonian Kingdom, through the sequence of world empires, and arrive as follows:

~is~, Babylonian

1 of 3 arise in Persia, Medo/Persian

2 of 3 arise in Persia, Grecian (conquered the Medo/Persians)

3 of 3 arise in Persia, Roman (exercised dominion over Persia)


"and when he has become strong" denotes the ~1300 years from the fall of the Roman Empire to the present 1900's

4th empire (which DID NOT exercise dominion over Persia) ~shall stir up all against all the earth~, is World War I



... and of course if this is accurate, then we should anticipate WWII in the next verses:

Daniel 11
[sup]3[/sup]And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
[sup]4[/sup]And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.


... for which Germany conquered the four directions of the compass and lost the same, but both Germany and the capital city (Berlin) were divided between the western alliance and Russia (i.e., "for others beside those").

...

From September 1938 to March 1939, Hitler achieved the bloodless conquest of Czechoslovakia, Bohemia, and Moravia. Five months later, on August 23, on what would be the eve of World War II, Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. One week later, on September 1, 1939, [1] Hitler’s army invaded Poland.

By the end of World War II, (V.E. - May 9, 1945), Germany had conquered north, west, east, and south, and had also lost the same “four winds of heaven,” and more. Germany itself was torn asunder: “for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these.” According to the terms of the Yalta Accord, the Soviets assumed control of Germany’s eastern half (41,825 square miles), and the Allies controlled the western half (96,011 square miles). Additionally, the city of Berlin, located in the heart of East Germany, was divided into four segments. The Soviets controlled the full eastern half; and the French, United States, and British each controlled their respective northwest, west-central, and southwest sectors.[2]

<br clear="all"> [1] Collier, Basil, The Second World War: a Military History, William Morrow & Co., NY, 1967, pp. 50-54

[2] Touhy, William, “Thorny Status of Occupied Berlin Brings Unrest to New Generation,” L.A. Times, Albuquerque Jorunal, Jan. 26, 1986, p. B5



Thus it appears that Germany fulfilled the specific aspects of verses 3&4. However, it is also important to assess the failure of the "classical" interpretation for this 11th Chapter of Daniel as a ~sanity check~.


BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Where those who ascribe additional years to Daniel's "continued until the first year of King Cyrus", -- which is intended to place Daniel in a ~subsequent~ "third year of Cyrus, King of Persia", (please note that this chronology is actually the inverse per arguments above), -- these same ill advised individuals then ~arrive~ to 11:1, and further exacerbate their error by ignoring that NO conqueror needs "strengthening", -- and thereby errantly assign this Last Babylonian King, Darius, as a Medo/Persian King.

Fortunately, there is absolutely no historical allowance for this purported King Darius under the Medo/Persian Empire, for which records are replete. Conversely, I would observe that where the city of Babylon was surrounded, this Last Babylonian King Darius was lost to history because there were NO proclamations to the world's libraries from this surrounded city, and when the Medo/Persians finally captured Babylon, all Babylonian records were destroyed so that the people would not yearn for the 'good-old-days'. Thus this Babylonian King is ONLY recorded by Daniel.

Furthermore, if all this Scriptural and Historical evidence is invalid, and Darius were truly a Medo/Persian King, then certainly the sequence in verse 2 would match history:


Daniel 11:2 ‘Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia. The fourth shall be far richer than all of them, and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.


According to world history, there never were "three more" and a "fourth" Medo/Persian kings. There were actually thirteen:

1. 539 - 530 B.C. Cyrus the Great

2. 530 - 522 B.C. Cambyses

3. 522 - 521 B.C. Smerdis[sup] [/sup](Gaumata?)

4. 522 - 486 B.C. Darius I (Hystaspes[sup]c[/sup])

5. 486 - 465 B.C. Xerxes (Ahasureus)

6. 465 - 423 B.C. Artaxerxes I Longimanus

7. (423) B.C. Xerxes II - few weeks

8. (423) B.C. Sogdianus - six months

9. 423 - 404 B.C. Darius II Nothus (Ochus)

10. 404 - 359 B.C. Artaxerxes II (Mnemon)

11. 359 - 338 B.C. Artaxerxes III (Ochus[sup]b[/sup])

12. (338) B.C. Arses

13. 338 - (330) B.C. Darius III (Codomanus



And of course, various commentators pick and choose their "three more" and "fourth" differently from this selection of thirteen, to make a ~best~ answer. But the TRUTH is, this verse has NOTHING to do with the Medo/Persian empire, and this falsification of History should be rejected by any rational person.



BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,


Daniel 11:2 ‘Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia. The fourth shall be far richer than all of them, and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.



I'm not sure why various doctrines assume that GOD wastes words. As proposed previously, there is absolutely no justification for assuming that some Medo/Persian king whose fulfillment as a "fourth" would be appreciably richer than any previous three kings. And what of the duration of time, described "and when" he has become strong? The commentators simple show their assigned sequence of kings as being in immediate sequence, without any "and when" duration of time. Is there any who take a proper assessment of these criteria? Is GOD really so full of bombast that HE simply rambles on and blathers words of no significance? -- What a travesty of purported ~expertise~ by those who would deceive the Church into believing such nonsense.


However, when the TRUE fulfillment is evaluated ALL aspects meet the historical record:


* The starting point of this Prophecy is under the last Babylonian Empire ruler, -- King Darius.
* This ruler is in fear for his life, and needs strengthening.
* The Medo/Persian Empire is the first of three to arise in Persia
* The Grecian Empire is the second of three, and conquered Persia
* The Roman Empire is the third of three, and exercised dominion over Persia

And where the Roman Empire existed until ~425 A.D. (or ~625 A.D. by some historian assessments), there was a ~1,500 year span, ("and when"), between the fourth ("divided" Clay) empire for the nations of the earth to have sufficient where-with-all to wage a World War. And of course, these warring nations did NOT arise in Persia, or exercise dominion over Persia. Thus ONLY the three arose in Persia, and this fourth did NOT.


Then we also know the figurative interpretation of "Greece" (Ref. Post #14) which is assigned the significance of "all the earth", and represents World War I. Equally, per Post #17 we should know that WWII is the next historical event which the angel identified.


But so no one deceives themselves into not believing GOD's concern for his Chosen People, not only is the above cited era approximate to the founding of the nation of Israel, being an acknowledgment of the "time of the end", so too the Prophetic Psalms* validates this premise. Because where the Psalms is the 19th Book of the Bible, the chapters are prophetic for the years of the 1900s, such that Book 19, Chapter 44 reflects the Holocaust in 1944; and Book 19, Chapter 48 reflects the nation of Israel in 1948; etc.

* Ref. the book "Hidden Prophecies in the Psalms", by J.R. Church




BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

Daniel 11:2 ‘Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia. The fourth shall be far richer than all of them, and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.


According to world history, there never were "three more" and a "fourth" Medo/Persian kings. There were actually thirteen:

1. 539 - 530 B.C. Cyrus the Great

2. 530 - 522 B.C. Cambyses

3. 522 - 521 B.C. Smerdis[sup] [/sup](Gaumata?)

4. 522 - 486 B.C. Darius I (Hystaspes[sup]c[/sup])

5. 486 - 465 B.C. Xerxes (Ahasureus)

6. 465 - 423 B.C. Artaxerxes I Longimanus

7. (423) B.C. Xerxes II - few weeks

8. (423) B.C. Sogdianus - six months

9. 423 - 404 B.C. Darius II Nothus (Ochus)

10. 404 - 359 B.C. Artaxerxes II (Mnemon)

11. 359 - 338 B.C. Artaxerxes III (Ochus[sup]b[/sup])

12. (338) B.C. Arses

13. 338 - (330) B.C. Darius III (Codomanus



And of course, various commentators pick and choose their "three more" and "fourth" differently from this selection of thirteen, to make a ~best~ answer. But the TRUTH is, this verse has NOTHING to do with the Medo/Persian empire, and this falsification of History should be rejected by any rational person.


BibleScribe

So who is it that can defend the commentator lies? -- Please note that Newton investigated an ancient fulfillment, and refused to publish his best attempt are reconciling Scripture with the Historical record, -- because it couldn't be done.


Are we to simply believe what we're told without assessing the merit? Are we indeed as stupid as the assignment of "sheep", for which we so rightfully deserve? And does GOD waste both HIS and our time with such impossible prophecies? -- Or is Scripture PERFECT, and the Words of the prophecies TRUE to World History, -- as a book preserved for the "time of the end" (Ref. Daniel 12:4 & Daniel 12:9)?


BibleScribe