Is The Book Of Daniel Wrong?

[7angels]

biblescribe says
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, ...

according to your own definition and if you look in the concordance you will see a little more clearly what i am talking of. but first if you read the context of daniel 1 you will see that daniel and his 3 friends were holding a position within the king's councilors. the were considered the best. it says he continued as a councilor until the first King of cyrus. daniel did not die but lets consider him retired from the councilor position. and had a dream in the 3rd year of cyrus. this was not a dream for any king but a revelation of things to come which were revealed by God. now by your own definition of until this makes sense. do i need to put the meaning in place of the word 'until' so you will see what is being shown you?

 

[BibleScribe]

biblescribe says
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, ...

according to your own definition and if you look in the concordance ...
... it says he continued as a councilor until the first King of cyrus. daniel did not die but lets consider him retired from the councilor position. and had a dream in the 3rd year of cyrus. this was not a dream for any king but a revelation of things to come which were revealed by God. now by your own definition of until this makes sense. do i need to put the meaning in place of the word 'until' so you will see what is being shown you?

Hi 7angels,

I am perfectly content that Scripture acknowledges Daniel continued during the third year of Cyrus, KING OF PERSIA (and ONLY Persia). Furthermore, he continued PAST that point, until CYRUS was ALSO KING OF THE BABYLONIANS. Thereafter, Daniel ceased to perform his Royal Court duties, -- by inference from the scope of Chapter 1, because he DIED.

But if you want to change Scripture so that Daniel was "in the third year of KING CYRUS", then please notify the AUTHOR of your wishes.






To All,

I feel like Vinny, when he cross-examined the lady with thick glasses and the judge noted for the record that two fingers where being held up:

Now. Mrs. Riley, and only Mrs. Riley.
[Judge Chamberlain gives Vinny an ugly look, Vinny hols up 2 fingers on his right hand again]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104952/quotes


And so I would most strongly assert that in Daniel 10:1, Cyrus was King of PERSIA and ONLY PERSIA. LOL


BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

Hi Veteran,

If you're going to defend a doctrine which defies Daniel 12:4 & Daniel 12:9, then maybe you should start at the beginning, -- Daniel 11:1, and identify exactly who Darius the Mede is. But to jump into a succession of THIRTEEN Persian Kings (Ref. Post # 18) and simply assert that Daniel identified FOUR, defies Prophecy, History, and intelligence.

And the good thing about GOD is that HE is Intelligent, and we are created in HIS image. Thus you should have some intelligence, shouldn't you?


BibleScribe

Is that your 'intelligent' response to my question of how you arrived at the Dan.11 Scripture pointing to WWI and WWII?

 

[7angels]

biblescribe says
Hi 7angels,
I am perfectly content that Scripture acknowledges Daniel continued during the third year of Cyrus, KING OF PERSIA (and ONLY Persia). Furthermore, he continued PAST that point, until CYRUS was ALSO KING OF THE BABYLONIANS. Thereafter, Daniel ceased to perform his Royal Court duties, -- by inference from the scope of Chapter 1, because he DIED.
But if you want to change Scripture so that Daniel was "in the third year of KING CYRUS", then please notify the AUTHOR of your wishes.

How long the other three were about the court we are not told; but Daniel, for his part, continued to the first year of Cyrus (v. 21), though not always alike in favour and reputation. He lived and prophesied after the first year of Cyrus; but that is mentioned to intimate that he lived to see the deliverance of his people out of their captivity and their return to their own land.

biblescribe you are not understanding that dan 1:21 does not say he died it does not even infer it. and if you read the context dan 1 will show you what daniel and his companions became and how long daniel was a councilor. chapters 7 and on go and tell what happened to daniel after the first reign of cyrus. when in doubt of the meaning of a word go back to the greek and hebrew texts. they can clear up quite a bit of misunderstanding.

 

[revturmoil]

Daniel 10:1 　¶In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

In the third year of Cyrus???
Some Protestant theologians would like you to believe that the Cyrus mentioned in Daniel 10:1 is Darius the Mede. They fabricated this because it's in contradiction to a host of scriptures like Daniel 5:31, 6:1, and 9:1. etc. and ultimately changes the sequence of kingdoms of Daniel 2.

By this time of Daniel 10:1, the first wave of exiles had returned under the leadership of Ezra Ezra 1-2

You are in serious denial to believe that Darius didn't conquer Babylon!

Daniel 5:31 　And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old.

And are in serious denial to believe that Darius did not rule Babylon!

It was Darius who appointed several presidents and princes. NOT CYRUS!

You are in denial of bible history and accept fallible secular history above bible history!

Daniel 6:1 　¶It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom; (Babylon)
2 　And over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage.

It was Darius who was made king over the realm of Babylon. NOT CYRUS!

Daniel 9:1 　¶In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

Daniel was about 84 years old when he wrote Daniel 10. It was after the Median invasion of Babylon, after the prophecy of the 70 weeks, after the first group of Ezra's exiles which Daniel did not return with, and after Darius had reigned for 2-4 years.

Daniel did not go back with Ezra’s group of exiles because he was about 84 years old at that time. Daniel could serve the exiles better from his high position in government than he could with them in Jerusalem.

Why is it Scribbler that you can never give people a straight foward answer? Ambigiuity is your finest attribute!

And enough with your listening audience of the "to all" stuff. You're not dealing with "to all." Your dealing with other members on the forum!
So to answer you question, "Is the book of Daniel wrong?" I say no! It's the Scribbler who is WRONG!

 

[BibleScribe]

...
Some Protestant theologians would like you to believe that the Cyrus mentioned in Daniel 10:1 is Darius the Mede. ...

I wish you'd cease with your preterism nonsense. :wacko:


BibleScribe

 

[revturmoil]

I wish you'd cease with your preterism nonsense. :wacko:


BibleScribe

I wish you would cease period!

 

[BibleScribe]

Find a mirror.

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Please allow me to re-post the previous portion of this 11th Chapter study:

To All,

Please forgive me for failing to provide the introduction to this "king of the north", and the assessment of how the south/north international designations are assigned:


KING OF THE SOUTH & KING OF THE NORTH -- A Discourse

DANIEL 11:5 “Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes shall be stronger than he and his dominion.” ​

This is the first of many citations referring to the “king of the south,” as opposed to Daniel’s later citations of a “king of the north.” In interpreting the significance of these two kings, I present the weight of comprehending Daniel’s target audience. Some might argue that “south” and “north” is with respect to Israel; yet others might interpret this as with respect to the equator. But I propose that Daniel’s discourse ‘to the nations’ is neither. There is nothing in this or any other context in the book of Daniel which makes it necessary to restrict the interpretation to these two scenarios. It is clearly arguable that one nation is simply further south, and the other is simply further north with respect to each other.

Given this context, these two nations prove to be the same two premier powerhouses that just came out of World War II -- the United States and the Soviet Union. We will find that these two nations also provide the central focus for the bulk of Daniel’s prophetic eleventh chapter. The historical and prophetic sequence of events culminate to the great apocalyptic climax at the end of the chapter.


BibleScribe
​

​

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Please allow the continued evaluation of Daniel 11:


KOREAN CONFLICT -- (1950 - 1953)

DANIEL 11:7 “In those times a branch from her roots shall arise in his place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall deal with them and shall prevail.”​

This prophecy pertains to the events of the Korean Conflict. Interestingly, in the prior verse, the post World War II political climate is depicted as attempts at cooperation and reconciliation between the victorious democratic and communistic co-combatants. This “daughter of the king of the south” was fulfilled in the acquiescence of territory in accordance with the prearranged division of Germany according to the Yalta Accord, and also the allowed subjugation of eastern Europe including: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and parts of Finland. In light of this ‘recent’ history, it was a reasonable conclusion that if the great United States of America would allow an unrestrained Soviet Union to subjugate these European countries, there should be no call for alarm if the Soviets chose to also absorb South Korea. -- As such, please be aware that the described “roots,” refers to the Soviet Union, and the ‘branch,” is North Korea.

Historically, it was the United States Secretary of State, Dean Atchison, who basically set the stage for conflict by announcing to the Press Club that if North Korea invaded South Korea, that the U.S. would defer any response to the United Nations. And where Russia had veto power in the Permanent Membership of the Security Council, they thought South Korea was free for the taking. So in June 1950, at the urgings of Moscow, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - D.P.R.K. (North Korea) launched an unprovoked attack across the 38th parallel into South Korea. The South Korean defenders were quickly pushed back to the extreme southern city of Pusan. Meantime Security Council meeting became so heated that Russia walked out of the Security Council meeting, not leaving so much as a janitor to veto any allied proposal. Thus, without any participation (and interference per Russia's game plan), a proposal was submitted and passed in quick order.

When the combined U.S./United Nations forces cut the North Koreans off at Inchon, the Peoples Republic of China began mobilizing its troops in Manchuria.[1] As the North Korean army was pushed north of the Yalu river border into China, the Chinese ‘volunteers’ joined the fray. U.N. forces were ‘spanked’ by the Chinese regular army (Oct./Nov. 1950[2]), being pushed back to the original 38th parallel border. This overly aggressive ‘Western’ projection got too close to their border proximity.

Although a peace agreement still has never been signed, overt hostilities subsided in June 1953, after a frustrated President Truman quietly threatened China with direct nuclear confrontation.


​

[1] Moseley, George, China Since 1911, Harper and Row, NY, 1968, p 110
​

[2] Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, NY, 1987, p. 383





BibleScribe
​

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Please allow the continued evaluation of this Daniel 11:8 as follows:


THE UNITED NATIONS

DANIEL 11:8 “He shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north.”

The citation of Egypt could suppose a literal interpretation, however, it defies multiple conventions. Specifically, there is the figurative "Greece", ten instances of "south", eight instances of "north", but why would Daniel insert a literal "Egypt" in this single instance? Clearly he is treating it as a third party, (and NOT a repetition of the "king of the south") for good reason. -- It is a distinct entity.

Additionally, The citation of gods, molten images, silver, and gold could equally suppose a literal interpretation, however, Daniel had just used the analogy of “daughter” and “branch from her roots” in successive verses. Thus, this author would argue that precedent and scriptural context demonstrates a continued figurative interpretation. As such, the gods, and gold and silver vessels represent concepts that have greater world significance.

Egypt, Greece, Silver, & Gold

This figurative “Egypt” appears to be in contrast to the previously cited “Greece,” found in Daniel 11:2, which as argued represents the cross-section of the earth’s kingdoms, (Ref. Dan. 2:39). Thus it is proposed that “Egypt” represents a citation with somewhat less significance.

When the world was drawn into World War I, (“against the kingdom of Greece”), we are offered that the kingdom of Bronze (fulfilled as "Greece") shall rule over "all the earth", (in Daniel 2:39), and thus we have a direct solution to the interpretation for WWI. However in this Daniel 11:8, we find a nation which is significant, but NEVER a world empire. Thus it is argued that this figurative “Egypt” carries a generic connotation in the world arena.

Now in this 1950’s history, we’re presented with a ‘new world order’ scenario in which the U.N. security council in conjunction with the world’s significant nations, make decisions by consensus for the furtherance of mutual global aspirations rather than by parent nation, regional, or alliance prioritizations. These participating nations adhere to the unanimous agreements and dictates of this quasi-governing body. The fulfillment of this acceptance (“carry off to Egypt their gods”) and adherence to the conceptual dictates (“precious vessels of silver and of gold”) of this U.N. geo-political tool, came at the advent of the Korean Conflict, and is represented by the following participation:

​

UNITED NATIONS COMMAND --KOREAN CONFLICT TROOP STRENGTHS
​

Peak strength for the UNC was 932,964 on July 27, 1953 -- the day the Armistice Agreement was signed:
​

Republic of Korea 590,911​

United States 302,483​

United Kingdom 14,198​

Canada 6,146​

Turkey 5,453​

Australia 2,282​

Philippines 1,486​

New Zealand 1,385​

Ethiopia 1,271​

Greece 1,263​

Thailand 1,204​

France 1,119​

Columbia 1,068​

Belgium 900​

South Africa 826​

The Netherlands 819​

Luxembourg 44​

932,964

U.N. Policy Of Containment

In fulfillment, this new era in political diplomacy cut its first teeth at the onset of the Korean Conflict. Amazingly, the United Nations involvement was only made possible by the incomprehensible actions of the Soviet Union. In a bizarre demonstration of defiance, the entire Soviet Union United Nations delegation walked out of a Security Council meeting leaving no one behind to veto the impending proposal to defend South Korea from the North Korean aggressors.

With the ‘unanimous’ United Nations mandate and international military commitments, the allied forces pushed the North Koreans northward into China. Then, to General MacArthur’s surprising dismay, Chinese ‘volunteers’ battled the U.S. Marines into retreat back to the 38th parallel. Confident that the authorized U.N. mandate limited the scope of the intervention to the Korean peninsula, China’s jet fighters and bomber aircraft attacked the allied U.N. troops from Chinese airbases with impunity. Even under these provocative circumstances, President Truman adhered to the U.N. decision not to attack any Chinese territory, but the Supreme Allied Commander, General MacArthur, voiced his adamant policy disagreement both to President Truman and to the world press. As a result, he was dismissed both as Supreme Allied Commander in Asia, and as the Commanding General in the United States armed forces.

This new practice of peacekeeping by restricting the conflict from escalating under a ‘policy of containment,’ became the accepted practice of world powers in such conflicts as Korea, Hungary, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, and undoubtedly, many other crises, and carries that full acknowledgment of being carried off (~home~) by the multitude of participant nations

And finally, the United States did refrain from attacking the “king of the north” (quite actually the “sons” of the king of the north) from June 1953, until the August 1964 U.S. congressional authorization for U.S. military forces to engage the invading North Vietnamese Army in South Vietnam.



http://www.korea.army.mil/unc/unc.htm





NEXT -- Where most are somewhat familiar with modern history, who could have guessed that so many young fathers would either wish, plan, or actually build a fallout shelter in their back yards during the 1960's?


BibleScribe​

 

[BibleScribe]

...
NEXT -- Where most are somewhat familiar with modern history, who could have guessed that so many young fathers would either wish, plan, or actually build a fallout shelter in their back yards during the 1960's?
...

To All,

Please allow the continuation:

CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS -- (1962)

DANIEL 11:9 “Then the latter shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land.”​

In 1957, Jupiter nuclear missiles, having a range of 1,500 miles, were stationed in Turkey under the control of the U.S. Air Force. Early on in Kennedy’s term of office, (taking office in January 1961), Kennedy questioned the military value of the missiles, and the Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) Joint Congressional Committee observed that the weapons were “unreliable, inaccurate, obsolete, and too easily sabotaged.” But no orders were given regarding the disposition of the stationed missiles.

As early as spring of 1962, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John A. McCone, speculated that the Soviet Union might deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba. He reasoned that a Eastern Europe satellite nation deployment could result in a potentially disastrous Moscow retargeting. However, in Cuba, the 1,000 mile range pre-empted this prospect.

Accordingly, from July 28th through August 24th, 1962, while approximately 22 Soviet ships commenced unloading surface-to-air missiles, equipment, and personnel, McCone once again speculated that the net goal of introducing surface-to-air missiles was to protect a prime target. Four weeks later, on September 21st, the first reports of nuclear missiles trickled in. On October 15th, U-2 over-flights revealed “missile erectors, launchers and transporters” -- compelling evidence in light of similar equipment and layout found only in Soviet nuclear missile sites.

On Tuesday, October 16th, the President was briefed, and called his senior staff. The wheels were set in motion for a naval blockade, full military alert, and tense negotiations. Ten days later, a Soviet Embassy ‘counselor,’ who was suspected as the KGB chief of intelligence operations for the U.S., outlined an initial proposed resolution to the confrontation:
​

125]1. The missile sites would be dismantled and shipped back to the Soviet Union under United Nations supervision.​

125]2. Fidel Castro would pledge himself to accept no offensive weapons in the future.​

125]3. The United States would pledge itself not to invade Cuba.​

125]
Follow-on communications with Krushchev revealed the motivation for this encroachment solely as a response to the April 17, 1961, Bay of Pigs landing, -- but the next day he upped the ante to include the removal of the Turkish missiles.

It wasn’t until Sunday, October 28th, that the Soviet Union accepted a U.S. counter offer, resulting in the defusement of the situation. By the first week of December, the Soviets removed the forty-two medium and intermediate-range missiles and some aging Ilyushin bombers (much to the gall of both Castro and the Chinese), and the United States subsequently removed the missiles based in Turkey.

Interestingly enough, President Kennedy had issued formal orders for the removal of the Jupiter missiles in August of 1962, two months before the events which brought the two leaders to the brink of nuclear conflict.

In another interesting note, Kennedy learned a potentially valuable lesson about the optimistic projections provided by the CIA in the Bay of Pigs affair, dampening any enthusiasm about the CIA’s plans for Vietnam. In fact, on October 2, 1963, seven weeks before his November 22, assassination, President Kennedy’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Maxwell Taylor, issued a memo for the withdrawal of 1,000 troops to commence within two months, and the balance of the troops to be withdrawn within the following 12 months. However, President Kennedy’s assassination left the prospects for policy reversal open, as evidenced by President Johnson’s subsequent massive involvement in South Vietnam.


​

Brugioni, Eyeball to Eyeball, Random House, NY, 1991, p. 467​

Elie Abel, The Missile Crisis, J.B. Lippincott Co., NY, 1966, p. 190​

IBID, p. 18​

IBID, p. 17-18​

IBID, p. 29​

IBID, p. 176​

IBID, p. 180, 186​

IBID, p. 211-213​

Ian Brodie, “”Kennedy Ordered Troops Out Of Vietnam,” The Times Newspapers Limited, - online, Dec. 23, 1997




BibleScribe
​

 

[BibleScribe]

,,,
Interestingly enough, President Kennedy had issued formal orders for the removal of the Jupiter missiles in August of 1962, two months before the events which brought the two leaders to the brink of nuclear conflict.

In another interesting note, Kennedy learned a potentially valuable lesson about the optimistic projections provided by the CIA in the Bay of Pigs affair, dampening any enthusiasm about the CIA’s plans for Vietnam. In fact, on October 2, 1963, seven weeks before his November 22, assassination, President Kennedy’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Maxwell Taylor, issued a memo for the withdrawal of 1,000 troops to commence within two months, and the balance of the troops to be withdrawn within the following 12 months. However, President Kennedy’s assassination left the prospects for policy reversal open, as evidenced by President Johnson’s subsequent massive involvement in South Vietnam.

To All,

Please allow the continuation, in Part 1 of 4:


VIETNAM WAR -- (1965 - 1975)

DANIEL 11:10 “His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. 11 Then the king of the south, moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north; and he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. 12 And when the multitude is taken, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. 13 For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies.”​

History & Background -- (1900 - 1964)

The first five words of verse 10 describe the first stage of the Vietnam war. Historically, Vietnam had been under French colonialism since the early 1900’s, and encountered guerrilla warfare in the late 1940’s from the socialist leader, Ho Chi Minh. The decisive May 1954, battle for the far northwest Vietnamese city of Dien-Bien Phu resulted in the military defeat of the French, (11,000 troops surrendered). Unwilling to concede the entire nation to the Ho Chi Minh led communists, the United Nations negotiated the division of Vietnam along the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh became president of North Vietnam, and continued to cultivate relations with both the U.S.S.R. and Red China. The capitalists maintained control over the south, with a succession of presidents.

However, with Soviet and Chinese training and weapons, Ho Chi Minh continued the guerrilla warfare south of the 17th parallel with the goal of re-uniting Vietnam. With the French having withdrawn, the United States stepped in to prop up the unstable government, and expanded its role in an effort to counteract the expanding communist guerrilla warfare. Between the years of 1954 to 1964, the U.S. increased its technical and military advisors to a total of 15,000.

It’s these expanding guerilla warfare actions (“assemble a multitude of great forces”) that Daniel presents as the beginning of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. However, the most puzzling cause of direct U.S. entry into the war, was the “Phantom Battle” of the Tonkin Gulf.

Battle of Tonkin Gulf -- (1964)

In the Thursday night darkness of July 30, 1964, four (American sponsored) mercenary manned South Vietnamese patrol boats attacked North Vietnamese Tonkin Gulf military installations while the U.S. destroyer Maddox patrolled nearby. On Saturday night, with the North Vietnamese presuming the U.S. Navy responsible for the attack, hundreds of N.V. junks massed to intercept the Maddox’s course. The Maddox avoided the confrontation. On Sunday afternoon, three PT boats, each carrying two torpedoes and 12.7mm machine guns, commenced an attack on the Maddox. Four F-8E fighters from the U.S. Ticonderoga joined the fray, and after 37 minutes, one PT boat was dead in the water and the remaining two fled the battle. The Maddox had one bullet hole in its armor. President Johnson exhibited unusual restraint, and discounted calls for reprisals.

On Tuesday, August 4, at 7:30 p.m., as the destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy patrolled in column, the radar man picked up three high speed surface contacts, presumed to be PT boats. Turning tail, both ships fled the area at full speed, while the crews were called to general quarters, and air support requested. At 9:40 p.m., the Turner Joy started firing her 5” guns on the target 7,000 yards to the starboard. A torpedo wake was reported by three crewmen, but under evasive maneuvers (for launched torpedoes), continued torpedo attacks were reported. F-8E and A-4 pilots patrolling overhead “were bewildered by the frenzied voices heard on their radios ... [seeing] nether torpedo boats nor their wakes.” After two hours of gun fire, depth charges, evasive actions, and attempting to ram their ghost attackers, the action ceased. The Maddox sonarman reported a physically impossible 26 torpedoes, -- while the Turner Joy sonarman reported none.

Captain John J. Herrick, commander of the Seventh Fleet’s Destroyer Division 192, was in command of the Maddox. After the ‘engagement’ Herrick conducted rudder maneuvers and concluded: “‘(m)ost of the Maddox’s, if not all of the Maddox’s reports were probably false.’”


​

“The ‘Phantom Battle’ That Led To War, Can It Happen Again,” U.S. News & World Report, July 23, 1984, pp. 56 - 67​

BibleScribe​

 

[revturmoil]

This is really impressive Scribbler. You are about as misled as anyone I have ever encountered!!

There's no reason for Daniel to prophesy about WW1,WW2, The Korean War, Vietnam, the Cuban Missle crisis or the Balfour declaration.

Daniel 11 was written in Hebrew thus it was meant for the Jews. Daniel 2-7 was written in Aramaic and meant for Gentiles.

You are one diluted individual!

 

[BibleScribe]

This is really impressive Scribbler.

You are a slanderer, -- like your father.

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Please allow the continuation, per Part 2 of ~6:


VIETNAM WAR -- (1965 - 1975)

DANIEL 11:10 “His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. 11 Then the king of the south, moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north; and he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. 12 And when the multitude is taken, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. 13 For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies.”


Entry Into War -- (1964)

Upon receipt of initial reports, the previously restrained President Johnson was outraged. He immediately exercised his tremendous legislative experience to generate an unprecedented commitment of congressional powers to the President, “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack ... to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.”[1] The vote taken on August 7, 1964, was 416 to 0 in the House, and 88 to 2 in the Senate.

In 1995, when Robert McNamara visited North Vietnam, he asked his hosts their perspective of whether there ever was a Tonkin Gulf attack by N.V. forces, to which they replied to the negative. This was only one of many prophetic events which should have never occurred, but resulted in changing the course of world events.

The Victory At Hand -- (1964 - 1968)

​

DANIEL 11:10 “His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. 11 Then the king of the south, moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north; and he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. 12 And when the multitude is taken, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. 13 For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies.”

In the 1961 Dominican Republic Pleiku incident, then Vice President Johnson revealed a disposition to oversimplify the nature of the Communist challenge and to rely on a disproportionate amount of force. This again fell true in the Vietnam initial intervention phase. On June 29, 1965, when President Johnson authorized American troops to fight in battles, the successes of major battles increased dramatically and generals and politicians alike proclaimed that victory was at hand.

From March of 1965 to March of 1968, American planes expended more bombs on South as well as North Vietnam, than had fallen on all W.W.II European and Pacific targets. The U.S. military’s ability to extend muscle and troops demonstrated impressive power with high kill ratios.

But as already mentioned, President Kennedy, having been misled by the CIA in the Bay of Pigs, would not have believed the CIA’s optimistic gains forecast through a massive armed intervention. Of course, President Kennedy had been assassinated on November 22, 1961. Lyndon B. Johnson was now President. Clearly, the “he (that) shall raise a great multitude” is North Vietnam, and the initial victories “shall be given into (the) hand” of the United States/South Vietnam.


​

[1] The ‘Phantom Battle’ That Led To War, Can It Happen Again,” U.S. News & World Report, July 23, 1984, pp. 56 - 6 p. 66



BibleScribe

​

 

[Comm.Arnold]

The Bible wrong ? ! It's never wrong even when it's violent and confusing !

 

[n2thelight]

To All,

Please forgive me for failing to provide the introduction to this "king of the north", and the assessment of how the south/north international designations are assigned:


KING OF THE SOUTH & KING OF THE NORTH -- A Discourse

DANIEL 11:5 “Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes shall be stronger than he and his dominion.” ​

This is the first of many citations referring to the “king of the south,” as opposed to Daniel’s later citations of a “king of the north.” In interpreting the significance of these two kings, I present the weight of comprehending Daniel’s target audience. Some might argue that “south” and “north” is with respect to Israel; yet others might interpret this as with respect to the equator. But I propose that Daniel’s discourse ‘to the nations’ is neither. There is nothing in this or any other context in the book of Daniel which makes it necessary to restrict the interpretation to these two scenarios. It is clearly arguable that one nation is simply further south, and the other is simply further north with respect to each other.

Given this context, these two nations prove to be the same two premier powerhouses that just came out of World War II -- the United States and the Soviet Union. We will find that these two nations also provide the central focus for the bulk of Daniel’s prophetic eleventh chapter. The historical and prophetic sequence of events culminate to the great apocalyptic climax at the end of the chapter.



BibleScribe

​

Hello Scribe

What do you think about it being the war between Iran and Iraq?​

 

[BibleScribe]

The Bible wrong ? ! It's never wrong even when it's violent and confusing !

LOLOL,

Comm.Arnold, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! Scripture proves itself in every instance, and all we have to do is ask GOD to help us understand, and HE will answer:


Jeremiah 33

[sup]3[/sup] ‘Call to Me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you do not know.’



BibleScribe

Hello Scribe

What do you think about it being the war between Iran and Iraq?[/indent]

This 11th Chapter of Daniel is a chronologically sequenced prophecy. As such, for Daniel 11:5 to be as you have queried, then verses 1-4 and 6-45 must agree. -- And these do not support that tangent.


BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Please allow the continuation, per Part 3 of ~6:


VIETNAM WAR -- (1965 - 1975)

Operation Phoenix, My Lai

DANIEL 11:10 “His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. 11 Then the king of the south, moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north; and he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. 12 And when the multitude is taken, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. 13 For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies.”

In South Vietnam, the conflict was not only limited to battle fields and jungle paths, but in villages and the rice paddies. At the height of the war, hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians were killed per month by U.S. bombers. But if this wasn’t enough, in the pursuit to purge South Vietnam of communist infiltration, the CIA initiated “Operation Phoenix.”

This program was comprised of Army Green Beret, Navy SEALS, and South Vietnamese Rangers working in conjunction with informants. According to former CIA Director, William Colby’s numbers, they covertly, without trail, ‘neutralized’ a total of 20,000 civilians who were suspected of being members of the Communist underground --some by arrest, many by death. [1] Some critics and historians have estimated that the Phoenix Program killed upwards of 20,000 and imprisoned some 70,00 people. An analyst wrote in the January 1975 issue of Foreign Affairs: “Although the Phoenix program did undoubtedly kill or incarcerate many innocent civilians, it did also eliminate many members of the Communist infrastructure.”[2]

Similarly, on March 16, 1968, in the village My Lai 4, in the Quang Kgai province, a company of American soldiers rounded up the inhabitants, the majority of which were elderly, women, children, and infants. A total of 347 civilians were herded into a bulldozed ditch where they were shot to death.[3]


​

[1] William Colby, Lost Victory, Contemporary Books, NY, 1989, p. 333​

[2] Maynard Parker, “Vietnam: The War That Won’t End,” Foreign Affairs, NY, January 1975, p. 352​

[3] Douglas Welsh, The History of the Vietnam War, Galahad Books, NY, 1981, p. 127




BibleScribe



​