- Date:
- 18 Oct 2004
- Time:
- 01:00:08
Comments
It's impossible to identify the fourth kingdom (in the Book of Daniel) with the Roman Empire. -- Augustin --
- Date:
- 18 Oct 2004
- Time:
- 17:33:44
Comments
There can be no other interpretation of the fourth kingdom that the Roman Empire - Douglas -
- Date:
- 19 Oct 2004
- Time:
- 10:24:10
Comments
Douglas, You are in error! :) Sorry if you are not able to see that; or perhaps you do not want to see it? The little horn in the Book of Daniel is Antiochus IV (see Dan 7-8). He was not a Roman "king".
- Date:
- 20 Oct 2004
- Time:
- 22:57:43
Comments
Antiochus came from one of the 4 heads which was Syria. Dan 7:6 6 "After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. (NAU) Then after that came the fourth beast. Dan 7:7 7 "After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. (NAU) Iron represents the Roman Empire. Little horn is Nero. And Judgement took p-lace at this time upon the nation of Israel. Then all dominion was given back to the ancient of days. Dan 7:8-14 8 "While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great {boasts.} 9 "I kept looking Until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days took {His} seat; His vesture {was} like white snow and the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne {was} ablaze with flames, its wheels {were} a burning fire. 10 "A river of fire was flowing and coming out from before Him; thousands upon thousands were attending Him, and myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; the court sat, and the books were opened. 11 "Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. 12 "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time. 13 "I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. 14 "And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and {men of every} language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed. (NAU)
- Date:
- 21 Oct 2004
- Time:
- 12:15:50
Comments
In response to the long message above: As the "little horn" in Dan 8 is Antiochus IV, the same goes for Dan 7. It seems very strange to assume two little horns! -- Augustin --
- Date:
- 26 Oct 2004
- Time:
- 08:55:07
Comments
John Evans' book is an excellent refutation of the liberal view that the book of Daniel was written in the 160's BC. Evans demonstrates that the liberal position is riddled with so many logical fallacies (all of which require highly imaginative and speculative "solutions") that it collapses under its own weight. ...Evan's book isn't "light reading." His arguments are indepth, thorough and at times quite lengthy. His book is not for those looking for a Frank Peretti comic book reading adventure. It's for the serious Bible student. ...Even if you find that you don't agree with every interpretation that John Evans presents, the value of his book as _The Antidote_ to the liberal treatment of Daniel cannot be underestimated. I highly recommend this book. --David Green
- Date:
- 26 Oct 2004
- Time:
- 12:24:45
Comments
Augustin you wrote, In response to the long message above: As the "little horn" in Dan 8 is Antiochus IV, the same goes for Dan 7. It seems very strange to assume two little horns! -- Augustin -- I would say that it seems even stranger to say the kingdom of God came in the second century BC (Dan. 2,7), that Jerusalem was destroyed at that time (Dan. 9:24-27) and that the resurrection happened at that time (Dan. 12). Wallace
- Date:
- 27 Oct 2004
- Time:
- 08:32:12
Comments
Wallace, I would also say that it seems even stranger to say the kingdom of God came in the second century BCE, that Jerusalem was literally destroyed at that time and that the resurrection happened at that time. Thus, it is nice to know that the Book of Daniel does not suggest that at all! -- Augustin --
- Date:
- 11 Dec 2004
- Time:
- 06:15:20
Comments
Hey Wallace, Besides the Bible, what other books are you reading to get your information?? Have you read any of John Collins' books on Daniel and apocalyptic thought??
- Date:
- 19 Dec 2004
- Time:
- 17:27:56
Comments
Like Milton Terry, I have concluded that Daniel does not stray beyond the Greeks in his chronology. As to the points made by David Green, there are several contradictory references in the Book of Daniel. Musical instruments and Greek words that were not in use until the Second Century, for example, are only two. Personally, after years of investigation, it appears obvious that we are dealing with a redacted document; Second Century BCE Hellenists tinkered with the text in several ways. However, the book's doctrinal and socio-historical chronologies are accurate, as supported by extra-biblical sources. This link is to several papers relevant to this discussion --- http://forums.delphiforums.com/firebynite/messages?msg=3.1
---
- Date:
- 19 Dec 2004
- Time:
- 21:56:32
Comments
I had hoped that when people commented about my book on this site they might actually have looked at it before doing so. I know that Dave Green has read it, but I doubt that any of the other individuals commenting here have. My book, incidentally, has a text 442 pages, endnotes that add twenty-three more, and a highly detailed subject index. Much of the text consists of an exhaustive critique of John Collins's massive commentary on Daniel. Mr. Smith, if the musical instruments/Greek words argument exemplifies what you think are weaknesses in the case for the Book of Daniel's prophetic validity, you are standing on exegetical quicksand. I didn't even bother with the Greek words argument because that one is actually one of the weaker arguments in the critical-historical arsenal. Tim King's review classifies my book as partial preterist. Since I take the position that Daniel is compatible with the idea that the Second Coming occurred in AD 70, I am mystified at how he arrived at that classification. King criticized me for being polemical. Indeed I am, and I make it clear in the preface to my book that it is my intention to be so. John S. Evans
- Date:
- 20 Dec 2004
- Time:
- 17:06:48
Comments
I'm flattered that Mr. Evans would take the time to comment on my comments, although he may have seriously misinterpreted them. David Green's characterization of the "liberal view" as "highly speculative and imaginative" required me to respond that there are many highly skilled laborers who have analyzed Daniel in a Second Century context. I believe that it is a combination of viewpoints. Since the Magi relied on their historical relationships to Daniel's prophecy in order to determine the bithday of the Messiah, then there is tacit support for its conservative interpretation -- one which I share, by the way, although I don't approach the Bible on a "liberal vs. conservative" foundation. I admit that I have not read Mr. Evans' book, since I spend a lot of time doing research, but I will now purchase a copy and do so. Steve Smith
- Date:
- 20 Dec 2004
- Time:
- 19:48:51
Comments
Since Steve Smith states that he is now going to buy a copy of my book, I feel that the least I can do is say thank you and offer a short response. My book is largely based on the proposition that it is difficult to justify the contention that the four kingdoms sequences in Daniel 2 and 7 end with "Greece," as liberals and even some conservatives believe. I contend that it is far more plausible to believe that the sequences end with Rome and were essentially fulfilled in AD 70. In writing this book I made the effort to read and evaluate as much scholarly material defending the "Greek" sequence as I could. If Mr. Smith or any other visitor to this site wants to debate the matter with me and can offer a line of argument that I do not deal with in my book, or a new and improved version of what Collins, et. al. provide, I would like to know about it; and time permitting, I shall respond. John S. Evans
- Date:
- 22 Dec 2004
- Time:
- 02:48:07
Comments
Steve Smith, Do you agree with Milton Terry's identification of the four kingdoms? I think Terry's approach is interesting. (I am not able to see that the fourth kingdom could be identified with the Roman Empire.) -- Augustin --
- Date:
- 22 Dec 2004
- Time:
- 02:59:49
Comments
Steve Smith, I would appreciate if you would e-mail me (augustin99@hotmail.com); nice to see that I am not the only one realising that the fourth kingdom cannot be the Roman Empire. The "little horn" in Dan 8 is Antiochus IV; the same goes for the "little horn" in Dan 7. -- Augustin --
- Date:
- 25 Jan 2005
- Time:
- 07:48:38
Comments
Augustin, Do you see any kind of prophetical significance in the book of Daniel ?? Vinnie
- Date:
- 26 Jan 2005
- Time:
- 06:12:42
Comments
Vinne -- yes! I believe that the Book of Daniel contains prophecies about the rise and fall of four empires, the last of them being the kingdom of Antiochus IV. We also read about the coming of one like the son of man after the fall of the fourth kingdom. This "son of man" could be identified with Jesus. -- Augustin --
- Date:
- 01 Feb 2005
- Time:
- 06:15:37
Comments
Augustin, Is there any books that you would recommend that could give me a better understanding of the historical background to Daniel?? Vinnie
- Date:
- 02 Feb 2005
- Time:
- 23:51:20
Comments
Vinnie: I think you should read E. C. Lucas' new commentary on Daniel along with the big commentaries by Goldingay and Collins. -- Augustin --
