Does Daniel 7:21–22 Support Amillennialism or Premillennialism?

[Davidpt]

2) It has ten horns, but now they are on its head.

Daniel had already seen the ten horns rising out of the fourth beast earlier in the vision, but now they were on its head. What did this mean? Previously, the ten horns seemed to be coming out of the beast as if they were newly emerging powers. But now, they were fully formed, established on the head of the beast itself. This suggested a shift in power—something had changed, but Daniel didn’t understand how or why.

Not 10 horns on all 7 heads, only on one head. Keeping in mind that the book of Revelation reveals that the beast has 7 heads. Which is also shown in Daniel 7.

Daniel 7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns

Verse 4 equals 1 head. Verse 5 equals 1 head. Verse 6 equals 4 heads. Verse 7 equals 1 head. 1+1+4+1=7. And it is the head meant in verse 7 that the ten horns are upon.

In the event you already agree, I didn't submit this to dispute anything you submitted. I submitted it in order to further clarify things.

 

[Davidpt]

A 1,000 year kingdom on this earth at the return of Jesus is a fictional fairy tale found no place in scripture

Jesus returns in fire and final judgement, dissolving this earth by fire (The End)

Equally a literal 70 weeks happening in the final days of this age is " a fictional fairy tale found no place in scripture". Therefore, maybe you have no room to talk and don't qualify as someone telling us what is a fairy tale since you can't even remotely discern that a literal 70 weeks taking place in the final days of this age is undeniably, 100%, no question about it it, " a fictional fairy tale found no place in scripture".

 

[CTK]

Not 10 horns on all 7 heads, only on one head. Keeping in mind that the book of Revelation reveals that the beast has 7 heads. Which is also shown in Daniel 7.

Daniel 7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet o7

Verse 4 equals 1 head. Verse 5 equals 1 head. Verse 6 equals 4 heads. Verse 7 equals 1 head. 1+1+4+1=7. And it is the head meant in verse 7 that the ten horns are upon.

In the event you already agree, I didn't submit this to dispute anything you submitted. I submitted it in order to further clarify things.

Thank you very much for your thoughts and I am right there with you on the 7 heads but I might see them a little differently than you - which is fine.... My 7 heads represent Babylon - one head, Medes- Persian - two heads, and Greece with four heads. Pagan Rome is not one of the heads (IMO) because it was slain (7:11) and does not return (as pagan Rome). Instead, it is the "beast" (the divided 4th kingdom of Rome - that comes to be known as papal Rome) where these heads are found. In other words, the beast in control of these earlier kingdoms where their lives were prolonged but they would never again have dominion. And yes, the 10 horns are sitting atop this beast as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In Daniel 7 verse 27 is not fulfilled until verse 21 and 22 are fulfilled first. Obviously, verse 21 has not been fulfilled in it's entirety since verse 22 hasn't been fulfilled yet.

That's your opinion that verse 22 hasn't been fulfilled yet, not mine. As usual, you are not bothering to actually address what I said. Again, we know that the visions Daniel had are described in Daniel 7:2-14. Those visions are explained by the angel in verses 17-27. So, where within verses 17-27 do you think verses 13-14 are explained, keeping in mind that verses 13-14 relate to Christ's ascension?

Verse 27 says all dominions shall serve and obey Him. Not even remotely matching reality if we apply that to the here and now.

You are taking that verse too literally. Do you also take the following verse as literally as you take Daniel 7:27?

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

Is this talking about God pouring out His Spirit on literally all flesh (all people)? It says "all flesh", so I guess that means literally all flesh/people, right? No, it doesn't. It refers only to all believers, not literally all people. Similarly, Daniel 7:27 is referring to believers from all dominions serving and obeying Christ and not literally all people from all dominions.

Apparently, you must only want all dominions to be meaning the saved rather than the saved and unsaved?

That's clearly what it means because that's what it means in Daniel 7:14, which refers to His ascension. He was given dominion and authority upon His resurrection and ascension, according to Paul in Ephesians 1:19-23. He has authority over literally all people (Ephesians 1:19-23), but, obviously, only those who are saved actually serve and obey Him.

Do you think Joel 2:28 is talking about God pouring out His Spirit in literally all flesh/people? If not, then it seems that you have some understanding that scripture needs to be interpreted in context rather than in a wooden literal fashion. So, why would you not be able to understand that in the case of Daniel 7:27?

After all, if applying verse 27 to the here and now, in what way are the unsaved also serving and obeying Him?

Think about this. The unsaved never serve and obey Christ and never will! That's why they are unsaved. How can you think that any unsaved person would ever serve and obey Christ? That's something people do willingly. It's never forced and never will be.

They are not, that's the point. Therefore, if applicable to the here and now, the unsaved can't be part of all dominions that shall serve and obey Him. That would be the logic.

Therefore, IMO, which might not agree with your opinion, verse 27 is not applicable to the here and now since all dominions have to be meaning the saved and unsaved. IOW, only Premil makes sense of verse 27, as in, He shall rule them with a rod of iron during the future millennium.

You are acting as if people will be forced to serve and obey Christ at some point, but that's false and contradicts many scriptures, including this one...

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your Claim Is "False" its showing the eternal kingdom where "All People" will serve the Lord, your opinion is silenced in God's words of truth below "All People" means exactly that and your not changing God's words below

Your words mean nothing. You are ignoring the context. You said it relates to Jesus delivering the kingdom to the Father when the text clearly refers to the kingdom being given to Jesus. If you want to insist on ignoring the context of the passage, that's your choice, but that's exactly what you're doing.

You're making the same mistake as @Davidpt here by assuming that it's talking about literally all people serving and obeying Him. Do you interpret the following verse similarly by thinking it's talking about God pouring out His Spirit on literally all people? Or do we need to consider the context of scripture instead of just interpreting it in a wooden literal fashion?

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I let ChatGPT rephrase some things for me here and there. Still my thoughts, though.


That's a good question — and yes, I agree that Daniel 7:13–14 describes Christ’s ascension, not His Second Coming. The text says He comes “to” the Ancient of Days (not from), which fits Acts 1 and Psalm 110:1.

But when you ask, “Where in verses 17–27 is that explained?”, I think there’s a misunderstanding about how apocalyptic visions and interpretations work.

Daniel’s vision (vv. 2–14) includes multiple scenes — the four beasts, the thrones set up, the Ancient of Days seated, the books opened, the beast judged, the Son of Man coming to receive dominion, etc.

Then in vv. 17–27, the angel gives a high-level summary interpretation. That summary does not explain each individual verse line by line — especially not vv. 13–14 in isolation.

Instead, it focuses on:
The identity of the beasts (v.17)
The conflict with the saints (v.21)
The intervention of the Ancient of Days (v.22)
The judgment of the fourth beast (v.26)
The saints receiving the kingdom (v.27)

So vv. 13–14 are implicitly connected to vv. 22 and 27, but they’re not repeated or “explained” in detail. That’s not unusual. Apocalyptic interpretation sections often summarize rather than decode each symbol (compare Zechariah or Revelation).

Here’s how I see it harmonize:

• Daniel 7:13–14 – Christ ascends and receives authority (cf. Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20–22)
• Daniel 7:22 – A future point when the saints finally possess the kingdom (after beast is judged)
• Daniel 7:27 – The kingdom becomes visibly universal; “all dominions shall serve and obey Him”

This means vv. 13–14 are inaugural — the kingdom is given to Christ at His ascension. But vv. 22 and 27 point to the consummation, when that authority is fully exercised on earth and shared with His saints.

In other words:
Daniel 7:13–14 = Ascension
Daniel 7:22, 27 = Second Coming and Millennial reign.

There’s no contradiction. It's a case of “already, but not yet.” Christ received the kingdom at His ascension, but He has not yet enforced it over all nations. That only happens after the judgment of the beast (v.11, cf. Rev. 19:20), which is clearly still future.

I don't buy this explanation at all. It's very biased and acts as if verses 13 and 14 were really not explained at all by the angel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The funny thing about it in my case, I can see what you have in red in verse 14, that being applicable to the here and now, regardless that you can't see it. While at the same time I can't see verse 27 also being applicable to the here and now. Because, in my view, verse 22 leads to verse 27, and that verse 22 hasn't been fulfilled yet. For one, verse 22 is involving a coming. No coming per the past 2000 years can explain the coming meant in verses 22, that being the point. Not to mention, the coming meant in verse 22 has to be preceded by the war against the saints in verse 21. It it the coming in verse 22 that puts an end to the war with the saints in verse 21. That's what verses 9-12 are involving, the era of time after that of verse 21. Yet verses 9-12 are not involving Revelation 20:11-15 like many would have us believe.

For one, the beast of Revelation 13 is in view in Daniel 7:9-12. While nowhere in Revelation 20:11-15 is the beast also in view. The beast is not standing among any of the dead in Revelation 20:11-15. It's already in the LOF when Revelation 20:11-15 is meaning. Plus, nowhere in all of Daniel 7:9-12 does it ever involve humans also being cast into the LOf when the little horn is cast into it. Nowhere does it say in any of those verses that lost humans were also given to the burning flame at the time. It is details like this that Amils have to disregard and ignore in order to supposedly prove Premil is not the correct view.

While you ignore that Daniel 7:13-14 and Ephesians 1:19-23 refer to the same thing. Which is Christ's ascension to God the Father and the dominion and authority He was given at that time (and, by extension, His followers as well).

 

[CTK]

For what it is worth.... here is a partial cut / paste for 7:26-27 from within my commentary.


Daniel 7:26-27 (heavenly realm)

26But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 27And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

In Daniel 7:9–10, the prophet is granted a vision unlike any other—a glimpse into the throne room of heaven. The “Ancient of Days,” a title that speaks of God's eternal existence and sovereign authority, takes His seat. This is no ordinary courtroom. Flames issue from His throne, a river of fire flows from it, and multitudes stand before Him. This is the divine court of heaven convened for judgment. Thrones are set in place, books are opened, and the final phase of God’s plan for the world begins to unfold.

But this is not a scene of fear—it is one of hope. Justice is about to be served. For too long, the truth of God has been trampled underfoot. For too long, the commandments of God—the very foundation of righteousness—have been distorted by the powers of the earth. Now, heaven is intervening. Daniel is then shown another vision, equally majestic, in verses 13–14. The “Son of Man,” Jesus the Messiah, approaches the Ancient of Days and is presented before Him. This is not the moment of His earthly ministry or even His resurrection—this is the moment of His heavenly coronation. Having fulfilled His mission on earth, Jesus now receives from the Father all authority, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. His dominion is not temporary or confined to any single nation. It extends to “all peoples, nations, and languages.” This is the fulfillment of God’s promise to give His Son an eternal kingdom—one that will never be destroyed.

 

[Truth7t7]

Yes, and the paper being unfolded in Revelation vs fold in Daniel could also possibly be seen with Michael.

In Daniel 12:1-2 Michael takes a stand, a time of great trouble, the people are delivered, and a resurrection with some getting life and others contempt. This all seems to take place as one event.

In Revelation 12:7 there’s war (court room battle) in heaven where Michael fights the dragon. Most people place this event at Jesus’s birth or the cross, but it’s not until Revelation 20, after the thousand years, that we see the resurrection.

I’ve had some people argue that Michael stands up twice but Daniel 12:1 has the phrase “at that time shall Michael stand up”, implying the first time Michael take his stand will be the Daniel 12:1 event, which prevents inserting Revelation 12:7 prior to Daniel 12:1. The view that the paper is folded with the dots connected in Daniel while unfolded with separated dots in Revelation solves this problem.

Curiosity, Are You 7th Day Adventist?

 

[grafted branch]

Curiosity, Are You 7th Day Adventist?

No I’m not. I’m non-denominational. What was it I said that made you think I might be 7th Day Adventist?

 

[Truth7t7]

No I’m not. I’m non-denominational. What was it I said that made you think I might be 7th Day Adventist?

Thanks For Sharing

You Mention Michael The Archangel, 7th Day Adventist are big on using his name and Daniel 12:1, they falsely teach Michael is Jesus Christ

 

[Truth7t7]

Equally a literal 70 weeks happening in the final days of this age is " a fictional fairy tale found no place in scripture". Therefore, maybe you have no room to talk and don't qualify as someone telling us what is a fairy tale since you can't even remotely discern that a literal 70 weeks taking place in the final days of this age is undeniably, 100%, no question about it it, " a fictional fairy tale found no place in scripture".

Your claim is "False" its right before your eyes, below in bold red "Seventy Weeks"

Daniel wrote "Seventy Weeks" not "Four Hundred Ninety Years" its that simple, I will follow the scripture not man's divisive inventions

Daniel 9:27KJV
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

 

[Timtofly]

Ok, so when we see the word “overcome” we can know that it doesn’t mean to get the victory in every sense, it means both, getting the victory in one sense while being defeated in another sense. Spiritually we get the victory but physically we are defeated.

1 Corinthians 6:9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Following your view we can physically do and be overcome by everything on the 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 list as long as we only spiritually overcome those things. Do you see the problem with interpreting the scriptures that way?

You seem to want to have a general pat over all interpretation of a word. Do you not see a problem with that way of interpretation? We were referencing a verse in Revelation, not 1 Corinthians.

The English language does not work that way when it comes to most types of writing.

The unrighteous in 1 Corinthians are overcome both spiritually and physically because the wages of sin is death, both physically and spiritually.

BTW, the word overcome never means to loose. Why would anyone interpret it to ever mean they overcame in one way but not the other? Those in Revelation 13 were not overcome spiritually like how you are trying to interpret the passage making the passage only a spiritually symbolic "over all account" of a 2000+ year time span.

Revelation 13 is only covering a specific group of people at a specific 42 month time frame. They were not overcome in a spiritual sense. They were not unrighteous. So your interpretation would directly contradict the verses you asked about in 1 Corinthians.

"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them:"

In what sense are you trying to say these saints were unrighteous and were overcome by acts of unrighteousness? And as a point to attempt to guess how I interpret Scripture, when I already gave you my interpretation of Revelation 13? I was not using some general sense intepretation of the word "overcome". I plainly stated they were physically overcome meaning no longer physically active on the earth. Not that they were spiritually overcome, and lost their righteousness.

I would never even say they were overcomers one way, but not another way. They were the ones overcome, not that they were doing the overcoming.

 

[claninja]

1. The vision in Daniel 7:9-10 (Ancient of Days seated, books opened) is parallel to Revelation 20:11-15, where God sits on the throne and books are opened.
2. The sequence in Daniel 7 is:
a. Ancient of Days sits
b. Books opened
c. Judgment occurs
d. Saints receive the kingdom.

3. In Revelation 20, by contrast:
a. Saints rule and judge for 1000 years (v.4)
b. Then God appears and opens the books (v.11-15) --- IOW, the Great White Throne is after the saints' reign.

4. Therefore, the chronology differs: in Daniel 7, court first, saints reign. In Revelation 20, saints reign first, court/judgment follows.

IOW, Revelation 20:11-15 matches Daniel 7:9-10, not Daniel 7:22/27. The "Ancient of Days courtroom scene" is the final judgment, not the beginning of the millennial reign.

Daniel 7:9-10--Court = Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11-15)
Daniel 7:22---Saints receive kingdom after judgment scene (Revelation 20:11-15)
Daniel 7:27----Parallels post-judgment eternal reign
Books opened---Connected to final judgment of the wicked (Revelation 20:11-15)
Chronology----Daniel 7's courtroom scene matches end of Revelation, verses 11-15
--------------------

Yea, that seems correct for the most part.

My view:



1. Daniel 7:22 ('judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom') is not about the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15.
2. It's about the earlier period in Revelation 20:4, when the saints rule and judge with Christ during the 1000 years.
3. Daniel 7:27 ('kingdom and dominion---shall be given to the people of the saints') matches the millennial reign more than the final judgment.
4. The judgment in Daniel 7:9-12 precedes the kingdom being given to the saints and corresponds more to Revelation 19:20 and 20:4, not to the final judgment scene in 20:11-15.

IOW, the 'courtroom' in Daniel 7 isn't Revelation 20:11-15, but is something that leads to the saints ruling in the millennium (20:4), IOW, an earlier judicial moment.

Daniel 7:9-10--Court convenes before saints get the kingdom (tied to Revelation 19–20:4)
Daniel 7:22---Saints receive kingdom after Beast is judged (Revelation 19–20:4)
Daniel 7:27----Parallels Revelation 20:4 (saints' millennial rule)
Books opened---Connected to Premil event (Rev 19/20:4)
Chronology----Daniel 7 and Revelation 19-20:4 are parallel in earlier judgments
-------

The problem with this view of Daniel, is that Daniel 7:22 is the results of the courtroom scene in the context of the vision.

 

[claninja]

The problem is this, though---I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame(Daniel 7:11). That event hasn't even happened yet unless you or someone else can convincingly prove otherwise. Therefore, the point being, it conflicts with verses 13-14 if those verses are meaning when Christ initially ascended to heaven 2000 years ago following His resurrection.

Technically, you are committing eisegesis with this argument by reading and imposing outside theological frameworks onto the text prior to letting the text speak for itself. For example, you are imposing the idea that Daniel 7:13-14 must be about the ascension and resurrection of Christ and therefore must be treated as a parenthetical because it occurs post Daniel 7:11, the slaying of the fourth beast. By doing this, you ignore what the text itself says about daniel 7:13-14.

The visions from vs 9-14:

1. The court convenes (thrones placed, ancient of days arrives and sits on the throne, court sits, books opened) - Daniel 7:9-10
2. The beast is slain - Daniel 7:11
3. The son of man comes on the clouds and is given dominion, authority, and a kingdom - Daniel 7:13-14

The most basic interpretation of vision is provided in vs 15-18, and its important to note that this explanation is the explanation for "ALL" of the visions (plural). So WITHIN the context of the vision, Daniel 7:13-14 is interpreted as the "saints of the most high will receive the kingdom and posses it forever".

• I, Daniel, was grieved in my spirit, and the visions in my mind alarmed me. 16I approached one of those who were standing there, and I asked him the true meaning OF ALL OF THIS. So he told me the interpretation of these things: 17‘These four great beasts are four kings who will arise from the earth. 18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’

The interpretation of the visions is again repeated by the angel at the end of the chapter:

1. the court convenes - Daniel 7:26
2. the little horn is destroyed - Daniel 7:26
3. the saints possess the kingdom - Daniel 7:27

So from the text itself, the angel interprets Daniel 7:13-14 for Daniel. Daniel 7:13-14 is interpreted as the saints possessing the kingdom forever. This would be consistent with NT passages like the olivet discourse, especially in luke 21, where the son of man comes on the clouds, indicating that redemption and the kingdom are near (luke 21:27-28,30).

n verses 9-11 where are you seeing anywhere in the text that humans are also being given to the burning flame at the time? In order for verses 9-11 to match Revelation 20:11-15, the former has to record that lost humans are also given to the burning flame at the time. Except nowhere in those verses does it ever record that, not even remotely. Therefore, how can one insist that these passages in question are parallel events?

Your logic here seems a little biased and inconsistent. You argue in order for Daniel 7:9-11 to be parallel to revelation 20:11-15, there must be mention of humans being thrown into burning flame, while at the very same time you don't require there to be any mention of a 1000 year reign in daniel 7:22,26 in order for it to be parallel to revelation 20:4.

Granted, both accounts do have this in common--and the books were opened. What they don't have in common is this. Nowhere in Revelation 20:11-15 is the beast seen standing among the dead being judged and sentenced. Which then begs the question, why not if both accounts are involving the same event, the Great White throne Judgment? Equally, nowhere in Daniel 7:9-11 are lost humans seen being given to the burning flame when the beast is being given to it. Which once again begs the question, why not if both accounts are involving the same event, the Great White throne Judgment?

Again, a little biased and inconsistent if you also don't demand a 1000 year reign be found in Daniel 7 in order for Daniel 7:22,26 to parallel to revelation 20:4. Additionally, this points out the flaw of interpreting revelation 20 as a literal and chronological event, in the way that premil does, while then trying to impose that theological frame work over Daniel 7, which has a completely different chronological story.

Not to mention, assuming verses 9-11 are meaning Revelation 20:11-15, Daniel 7:12 is then relevant to that particular context exactly how??? Shouldn't verse 12 instead be saying that the rest of the beasts were also given to the burning flame when the little horn is, if the context of verses 9-11 is Revelation 20:11-15?

The angel, in daniel 7, doesn't provide an explanation for vs 12 means, so anything is just guessing.

Once again, per that scenario why would we need to know what happened to the rest of the beasts earlier in history, if the timing of verses 9-11 match Revelation 20:11-15? Verse 12 causes a total disconnect with verses 9-11 if the latter is involving Revelation 20:11-15. Therefore, verse 11 has to be meaning the aftermath of verse 11. And if so, no way can verses 9-11 be meaning Revelation 20:11-15 since it would be ludicrous that anyone's dominion is taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time---during the time of the Great White throne judgment(Revelation 20:11-15).

Vs 11-12 do not cause any disconnect. The explanation in vs 26-27 is consistent with the visions chronology:

1. The court convenes
2. the little horn is slain
3. the saint possess the kingdom forever.

 

[Truth7t7]

Technically, you are committing eisegesis with this argument by reading and imposing outside theological frameworks onto the text prior to letting the text speak for itself. For example, you are imposing the idea that Daniel 7:13-14 must be about the ascension and resurrection of Christ and therefore must be treated as a parenthetical because it occurs post Daniel 7:11, the slaying of the fourth beast. By doing this, you ignore what the text itself says about daniel 7:13-14.

The visions from vs 9-14:

1. The court convenes (thrones placed, ancient of days arrives and sits on the throne, court sits, books opened) - Daniel 7:9-10
2. The beast is slain - Daniel 7:11
3. The son of man comes on the clouds and is given dominion, authority, and a kingdom - Daniel 7:13-14

The most basic interpretation of vision is provided in vs 15-18, and its important to note that this explanation is the explanation for "ALL" of the visions (plural). So WITHIN the context of the vision, Daniel 7:13-14 is interpreted as the "saints of the most high will receive the kingdom and posses it forever".

• I, Daniel, was grieved in my spirit, and the visions in my mind alarmed me. 16I approached one of those who were standing there, and I asked him the true meaning OF ALL OF THIS. So he told me the interpretation of these things: 17‘These four great beasts are four kings who will arise from the earth. 18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’

The interpretation of the visions is again repeated by the angel at the end of the chapter:

1. the court convenes - Daniel 7:26
2. the little horn is destroyed - Daniel 7:26
3. the saints possess the kingdom - Daniel 7:27

So from the text itself, the angel interprets Daniel 7:13-14 for Daniel. Daniel 7:13-14 is interpreted as the saints possessing the kingdom forever. This would be consistent with NT passages like the olivet discourse, especially in luke 21, where the son of man comes on the clouds, indicating that redemption and the kingdom are near (luke 21:27-28,30).



Your logic here seems a little biased and inconsistent. You argue in order for Daniel 7:9-11 to be parallel to revelation 20:11-15, there must be mention of humans being thrown into burning flame, while at the very same time you don't require there to be any mention of a 1000 year reign in daniel 7:22,26 in order for it to be parallel to revelation 20:4.




Again, a little biased and inconsistent if you also don't demand a 1000 year reign be found in Daniel 7 in order for Daniel 7:22,26 to parallel to revelation 20:4. Additionally, this points out the flaw of interpreting revelation 20 as a literal and chronological event, in the way that premil does, while then trying to impose that theological frame work over Daniel 7, which has a completely different chronological story.



The angel, in daniel 7, doesn't provide an explanation for vs 12 means, so anything is just guessing.



Vs 11-12 do not cause any disconnect. The explanation in vs 26-27 is consistent with the visions chronology:

1. The court convenes
2. the little horn is slain
3. the saint possess the kingdom forever.

I Agree, Well Said

 

[Davidpt]

Technically, you are committing eisegesis with this argument by reading and imposing outside theological frameworks onto the text prior to letting the text speak for itself. For example, you are imposing the idea that Daniel 7:13-14 must be about the ascension and resurrection of Christ and therefore must be treated as a parenthetical because it occurs post Daniel 7:11, the slaying of the fourth beast. By doing this, you ignore what the text itself says about daniel 7:13-14.

The visions from vs 9-14:

1. The court convenes (thrones placed, ancient of days arrives and sits on the throne, court sits, books opened) - Daniel 7:9-10
2. The beast is slain - Daniel 7:11
3. The son of man comes on the clouds and is given dominion, authority, and a kingdom - Daniel 7:13-14

The most basic interpretation of vision is provided in vs 15-18, and its important to note that this explanation is the explanation for "ALL" of the visions (plural). So WITHIN the context of the vision, Daniel 7:13-14 is interpreted as the "saints of the most high will receive the kingdom and posses it forever".

• I, Daniel, was grieved in my spirit, and the visions in my mind alarmed me. 16I approached one of those who were standing there, and I asked him the true meaning OF ALL OF THIS. So he told me the interpretation of these things: 17‘These four great beasts are four kings who will arise from the earth. 18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’

The interpretation of the visions is again repeated by the angel at the end of the chapter:

1. the court convenes - Daniel 7:26
2. the little horn is destroyed - Daniel 7:26
3. the saints possess the kingdom - Daniel 7:27

So from the text itself, the angel interprets Daniel 7:13-14 for Daniel. Daniel 7:13-14 is interpreted as the saints possessing the kingdom forever. This would be consistent with NT passages like the olivet discourse, especially in luke 21, where the son of man comes on the clouds, indicating that redemption and the kingdom are near (luke 21:27-28,30).



Your logic here seems a little biased and inconsistent. You argue in order for Daniel 7:9-11 to be parallel to revelation 20:11-15, there must be mention of humans being thrown into burning flame, while at the very same time you don't require there to be any mention of a 1000 year reign in daniel 7:22,26 in order for it to be parallel to revelation 20:4.




Again, a little biased and inconsistent if you also don't demand a 1000 year reign be found in Daniel 7 in order for Daniel 7:22,26 to parallel to revelation 20:4. Additionally, this points out the flaw of interpreting revelation 20 as a literal and chronological event, in the way that premil does, while then trying to impose that theological frame work over Daniel 7, which has a completely different chronological story.



The angel, in daniel 7, doesn't provide an explanation for vs 12 means, so anything is just guessing.



Vs 11-12 do not cause any disconnect. The explanation in vs 26-27 is consistent with the visions chronology:

1. The court convenes
2. the little horn is slain
3. the saint possess the kingdom forever.

That's fine if you want to charge me with committing eisegesis in this case. But just make sure you have room to talk and that you don't have a mote in your own eye at the time. The following should satisfy whether you might have room to talk or not in this case, depending on how you answer these things.


I need to understand where you are coming from. So let's start with verse 13 and this---one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven

I have several questions in regard to that part.

came with the clouds of heaven from where to where?

came with the clouds of heaven when?

This block of text states---and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. This can't be any coming mentioned in Matthew 24, such as verse 30, since that coming is involving a coming to the earth. The point being, the Ancient of days, meaning the Father in this case, would not be upon the earth at the time. The text clearly states that once the one like the Son of man arrives, He then at that time came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

One can't have different locations here for both the son of man and the Ancient of days. They have to both be at the same location at the same time in order for the Son of man to be brought before the Ancient of days.

Unless you clarify these things where I can at least make sense of how you are interpreting verse 13, in the meantime I can't make sense of how you interpreting verse 13 whatsoever.

 

[Davidpt]

I Agree, Well Said

He is a Preterist who likely thinks the beast somehow was destroyed 2000 years ago. And if so, lol, you are agreeing with something you don't even agree with(thus the reason for the lol since it comes across as funny to agree with something one doesn't even agree with), since you don't agree that the beast was destroyed 2000 years ago if you take verse 11 to be involving Revelation 19:20 in the future.

 

[Truth7t7]

That's fine if you want to charge me with committing eisegesis in this case. But just make sure you have room to talk and that you don't have a mote in your own eye at the time. The following should satisfy whether you might have room to talk or not in this case, depending on how you answer these things.


I need to understand where you are coming from. So let's start with verse 13 and this---one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven

I have several questions in regard to that part.

came with the clouds of heaven from where to where?

came with the clouds of heaven when?

This block of text states---and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. This can't be any coming mentioned in Matthew 24, such as verse 30, since that coming is involving a coming to the earth. The point being, the Ancient of days, meaning the Father in this case, would not be upon the earth at the time. The text clearly states that once the one like the Son of man arrives, He then at that time came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

One can't have different locations here for both the son of man and the Ancient of days. They have to both be at the same location at the same time in order for the Son of man to be brought before the Ancient of days.

Unless you clarify these things where I can at least make sense of how you are interpreting verse 13, in the meantime I can't make sense of how you interpreting verse 13 whatsoever.

Claninja explained all your questions posed above in great detail, and you still want to ask questions that have been clearly answered already as if his posted response dosent exist, does he need to post it ten times more?

 

[Truth7t7]

He is a Preterist who likely thinks the beast somehow was destroyed 2000 years ago. And if so, lol, you are agreeing with something you don't even agree with(thus the reason for the lol since it comes across as funny to agree with something one doesn't even agree with), since you don't agree that the beast was destroyed 2000 years ago if you take verse 11 to be involving Revelation 19:20 in the future.

His post was solid in response to you, Davidpt is trying to create multiple events at different times in Daniel 7 so he can make room for his desired millennial kingdom on this earth that doesn't exist in scripture

As the poster Claninja clearly stated the text in question is the very same second coming, final judgment, and eternal kingdom in a repeated teaching and this is 100% correct, you resist this biblical truth trying desperately to create two different times and events, in your biased pre-millennial belief, it's that simple

Jesus Is The Lord