Hi Peg,
Thanks for creating this thread, and I don't want to jump on you and try to destroy your faith, I find this a purely information gathering venture. I want to understand why it is you think these prophecies were fulfilled.
One problem I have with prophecy is how vague it is. IF God wants to show someone something happening in the future so they can write it down, why does he do so in a way that is open to interpretation? Why doesn't he tell David, "Yo, Dave, write this down, Babylon will fall to Medo-Persia, which will in turn fall to Alexander the Great from Macedonia. When Alex dies, his generals will fight for control and eventually tear his empire into 4 pieces."
True, it would not be written in English, and the names of the places would not have been known yet, but since God can show the future, he can obviously know the names that will be used. Using imagery and poetic language confuses the matter. A good example is Nostradamus, who was writing about France during the time he was alive, but since he would have been killed for writing some of the things he saw, he couched them in prophetic styles such that people are still trying to force recent events onto his writings. The fact that people will ascribe different events to the same so-called prophecy just means that it's completely open to interpretation.
Secondly, what is the use of prophecy if it isn't clear what it is saying until after it takes place? If it's just to prove that a certain person is a prophet, it seems rather unnecessary. If it is to prove something about God, I would think an all-powerful deity could prove that thing easier and more clearly.
"The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power" Daniel 8:20-22.
This is a very clear prophecy, it seems, compared to what most prophecy is. The problem is that it is still vague. Why would we need two things to stand for the same person? If Alexander is the Greek king in question, why does he need the goat
and the horn to stand for him? If the goat stands for the kingdom of Greece throughout time and the horn stands for just the ruler, then the "first king" would be Alexander's father Philip, since he was the one who unified most of the city states that became Greece. Alexander would then be "the second king."
From the Wikipedia page you linked regarding the Diadochi...there were far more than 4 successors:
wikipedia writes:
The other cavalry generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the Empire. Ptolemy received Egypt; Laomedon received Syria and Phoenicia; Philotas took Cilicia; Peithon took Media; Antigonus received Phrygia, Lycia and Pamphylia; Asander received Caria; Menander received Lydia; Lysimachus received Thrace; Leonnatus received Hellespontine Phrygia; and Neoptolemus had Armenia. Macedon and the rest of Greece were to be under the joint rule of Antipater, who had governed them for Alexander, and Craterus, Alexander's most able lieutenant, while Alexander's old secretary, Eumenes of Cardia, was to receive Cappadocia and Paphlagonia.
In the east, Perdiccas largely left Alexander's arrangements intact - Taxiles and Porus ruled over their kingdoms in India; Alexander's father-in-law Oxyartes ruled Gandara; Sibyrtius ruled Arachosia and Gedrosia; Stasanor ruled Aria and Drangiana; Philip ruled Bactria and Sogdiana; Phrataphernes ruled Parthia and Hyrcania; Peucestas governed Persis; Tlepolemus had charge over Carmania; Atropates governed northern Media; Archon got Babylonia; and Arcesilas ruled northern Mesopotamia.
There is a nice chart listed here:
Partition of Babylon - Wikipedia
Prophesy, especially when someone else tells you what it is supposed to mean can be convincing, but if you look at all the facts, the claimed interpretation usually falls apart. Most so-called prophecy is exactly the same as Nostradamus' case, they would have been persecuted for speaking out about the current rule or the badness of the times and so couch their terms in the future.
It's very much like what Gene Roddenberry did with Star Trek. The network censors would never let things like prostitution, racial prejudice and even interracial romance to be shown on a contemporary show, but by saying, well this isn't about now, it's the future, they were able to slip things by.