The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

quote:

---

Or, if one assumes that the Greco Macedonian empire had it's time, and is no more, as was written!! Sometimes the obvious helps. Why assume otherwise?

---

Wrong. I do not extend the Greco-Macedonioan Empire forward. Instead I identify Daniel's End Times as being at a past time when that Empire historically existed - and Daniel 8 clearly states that that Empire is still extant in Daniel's End Times.You are the one who tries to extend time forward, as you extend Daniel's "70 weeks" to more than 5 times the 490 years it represents.

quote:

---

Which beliefs!!??? That Cyrus is ruled out a having a snowball's chance in hell of being the Messiah? That Greece simply will not be here in a ruling way, or Alexander, when Jesus takes over? You must be kidding.

---

Instead of inventing strawmne you could use real examples.Your belief that Daniel's seventy weeks MUST refer to Jesus and MUST be fulfilled drives you to invent a gap between the 69th and 70th week.Your belief that the End Times MUST refer to our future drives you to reject Daniel 8's clear statements that the End Times will be when the Greco-Macedonian successor states are still extant.

quote:

---

Maybe if you are talking about false messiahs, they are foretold to be here a plenty. But trying to call some dead historical peon a Messiah, in any real sense of the word is an exercise in absurdity squared.

---

I am not talking about False Messiah's. Or The Messiah. All I am doing is pointing out what Isaiah 45:1 says. If you reject Isaiah 45:1 then say so instead of repeatedly misrepresenting what I say.

quote:

---

Anointed for what, that is the qiestion?!

---

No, it is NOT the question, since Daniel 9 doesn't worry about the issue at all.

quote:

---

Only One is THE Anointed. Only One Is God with us. Only One was to defeat death, and not see corruption. Only One could fulfill the prophesies of that One. Cyrus is not a contender, not even in the race. Work on that.

---

I have repeatedly pointed out that I was not making any such claim for Cyrus. You need to work on avoiding misrepresentation since you seem to have a really big problem in that department.

quote:

---

Isa 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

---

Again, you have a problem reading in context. The birth of that child is a sign that Israel and "Syria" (Aram) will cease their attacks on Judah. Obviously that child cannot be Jesus who was born centuries later. I have yet to meet anyone who says that there was a virgin birth in the time of AhazSince this is off-topic, I will avoid further discussion. If you want more then past topics on this issue may still be 'live' or, if not, a new one could be started.

quote:

---

The stone is cut out without hands, so it has nothing to do with being made by man.

---

So obviously it COULD be a Kingdom formed by God. Just as I said.

quote:

---

By the way, Jesus is the rock, and stone and that is almost His nickname. Ever heard 'Rock of Ages'

---

And Peter is said to be the rock on which Jesus built his Church. So what ?

Ultimately, the message, not the messenger, must be the guiding light. Messengers are rungs on a ladder only, not end points. The OT is correct when it advocates no comparison with anything within the universe - because ultimately, worshipping anything within the universe, and if one stops there, is paganism.The Greeks and Romans were unable to worship without an image - but no image is the most powerful path possible. The closest between two points is when there is nothing in-between. Thus the message, if it has any substance, can prevail with no names attached.'THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS' = NO OTHER GODS EXIST.Only a fool would debate the point.

Starman, I've been here over 4 years. These folks need people like you, me, Nemesis and other like minded ones whether they realize it or not. There are times when you simply need to ignore Biblifobic nonsense and move on with something positive. The minority POV finds it necessary to pick and choose where to respond to hyperactive opponents who choose to ignore the obvious in scripture.The whole problem I see with secularists relative to anything supernatural is that if they ever (I say ever) admit to one miracle, their secularism is cooked and they become accountable to a higher power.The book of Daniel, as is most of the Bible is full of the supernatural. That's why they have to mine out and isolate verses and segments which they can use to obfuscate the interpretation into their secularist mindset.I pray that God will, by his mighty Holy Spirit, enlighten their understanding and effect their conversion. I'm optimistic about that, given they are mere men/women and God is almighty.Creationist scientists like Henry Morris of ICR were once secularists
who's mindset were enlightened by truth. Don't be discouraged, my brother. Just remember, when you score points as you have here, they don't take it well and sometimes take it out on the messenger and the threads get red hot in a hurry.Jesus wasn't yoked to the Temple where he ministered to hostile counterparts, nor was Paul and the apostles when they mingled with the
Pharisees in ministry, even eating and drinking with them at times.
They were'nt preaching to the choir by any means.Keep your cool, be especially mindful of the Forum Guidelines and you'll do fine.Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix grammatical errors

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

Here’s the logic for you. There was a time when there was no Jewish literature, and then there was Jewish literature. Of all the Jewish literature we have there is no mention of the Book of Daniel until the mid-2nd century BCE.

---

Josepheus referred to it, in the link I gave, and it seemed to be in a way that looks at Daniel as more than some Johnny come lately. The best Jewish record we have is the old testament, anyhow. Daniel is in there. Your suspicions seems unfounded.

quote:

---

We go with the evidence we have, not the evidence we don’t have. Now, in the future there may well be evidence of Daniel’s book being mentioned before the mid-2nd century BCE but at the moment there are none.

---

That swings both ways, meaning none against either. Why doubt the sacred record of the ancient Jews , who were the people of God, for no reason at all??? makes no sense.Records were COPIED, very carefully and handed down! Your charge amounts to a baseless, and anti semitic one!

quote:

---

What is the oldest extant text of the Book of Daniel?

---

That matters no more than when you bought your last hard drive for a computer, and still had some sort of older stuff you passed on to it, from another one! The issue is the record, not the latest copy of that recpord we happen to know about. A record, by the way, ridiculously carefully passed down!! You will need to give me a reason to doubt it.

Well, thanks for the pep talk. I don't believe you, however. I find that the religious, cultish accepted so called definition of what is science, here eliminates me as something other than a hit and runner.Here is my evidence, I used to post as Simple. That doesn't work anymore. Posting under this name is my reply to fangs out moderation. You can take that or leave it. I doubt I will have the chance to reply anyhow, so, all the best.

The one single good point introduced by the fundamentalist Christian side is that if you assume the most convenient start date for them the end of the 69 weeks where a messiah is supposed to be cut off comes out to within a few years of the time when Jesus was crucified.However, this point rests on the uncertain start date, and can be refuted by the simple observation that the events of the final 7 years do not occur as predicted. Even the Roman capture of Jerusalem after the Jewish revolt is more than 30 years later, and other events still have to occur.The only response to this problem is to invent an arbitrary "gap" between the 69th and 70th week - a gap at least FOUR TIMES large than the period allotted. The text provides no basis for doing so. They point to the time being broken up into units but they never even consider a gap between the first two units. The only point is to try and force the text into their beliefs.The conventional interpretation has a far stronger case. One advantage is negative - because the conventional view does permit the author of Daniel to make mistakes, misfits to the text are a little easier to accommodate. While this might be seen as an "unfair" advantage it is not. It is a consequence of the claims made for the text.With regard to the 70 weeks, the main weakness is the lack of a good choice of start date. Even the earliest is too late. However, since this can be written off as an error on the part of the author, it is not fatal. With regard to the events of the 70th Week the case is very strong, finding a good fit with the events described in 1 and 2 Maccabees. For instance, 1 Maccabees 1 describes how Antiochus storms the city, raiding and looting the Temple. Two years later, one of his commanders comes to the city, talking of peace and winning the trust of the people - only to turn around, betray that trust and attack by surprise. Antiochus bans the Jewish sacrifices and introduces pagan worship in the Temple - the "abomination that causes desolation". All this fits well with the events scheduled for the 70th Week.The greater context also supports the conventional view. The prophecy of Daniel 8 tells us that the End Times will occur while the Hellenistic kingdoms following Alexander still survive. Daniel 11 is largely about the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemys, until a Seleucid ruler shall subdue Egypt and come to attack Jerusalem. Daniel 12 continues this prophecy, telling us of the events to follow which include a general resurrection. It is not hard to see that Daniel 11-12 also places the end times in the Hellenistic period.From this then, it is clear that the conventional interpretation is a very good fit to the actual text. The view put forward by the fundamentalist Christians here has very little to do with the actual text which they feel free to ignore and misrepresent.In summary.
The greater context places the events at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
The events of that period have a good fit for the events scheduled for the 70th week.The conclusion is obvious. Daniel's "End Times" were long ago in our past, not our future. The End did not come, the prophecy failed.

Okay, Josephus was born in 37 CE, which is even after Jesus died, so this doesn't apply. Indeed, and the oldest texts of the OT are the Dead Sea Scrolls! So I take it you agree that the oldest Daniel texts are the ones from Qumran, or are you having difficulty admitting this for some reason?Plus, The Book of Daniel did NOT enter the OT canon until 90CE! So, my claim that the Book of Daniel is not mentioned until the mid-2nd century BCE is unfounded because you CANNOT find any reference to the Book of Daniel before the mid-2nd century BCE! Plus, the Book of Daniel didn't enter the Hebrew Bible until 90 CE, and this somehow proves me wrong? I think you need to re-evaluate your conclusion here bud. But it is the none against that is proving a problem for you. I have the texts to support my position, you do not have ANY to support your position, so who has the strongest position regarding this issue? The person with the physical evidence or the person with NOTHING? The record is not being doubted 'for no reason at all', it is being doubted for dozens of reasons, which these two are nowhere near the strongest. And the earliest record we have are the DSS, which are not identical to the texts that we have from later periods. You, as a Christian, have a cheek accusing anyone of being anti-Semitic. Your faith has ripped apart the Scriptures of a whole nation, taken almost all of its prophecies out of context, changed the entire meaning of the messiah they are STILL waiting for, and if that wasn't enough, your faith's history is littered with ant-Semitism, including the slaughter of innocent Jews. The lack of a record before the mid-2nd century is only a tiny part of the whole argument though, these tiny parts when all put together make an overwhelming case against Daniel being written before the 2nd century BCE. In historical research you cannot ignore these small issues, you have to deal with everything, and don't think people are pinning all their hopes on this one issue because they aren't, it is just a small part of a very large body of evidence against the book being older than the 2nd century BCE.The thing about keeping info from your old hard drive and putting it on your new one is that there will be clues in the old info as to when it was written originally, and the info from Daniel suggests it was written in the 2nd century BCE, and as this discussion unfolds you will see (if you take your blinkers off and actually study the Bible that you love so much) just how much evidence there is for the mid-2nd century origin of Daniel's book.But so far, you really haven't provided anything substantial to counter these two points I have brought up, so it looks like we know 2 things for certain, so far, about the Book of Daniel.1. It is never mentioned before the mid-2nd century BCE
2. We have no 'hard copy' before the mid-2nd century BCENow I am not saying that these 2 issues will never be blown out of the water, who knows what may be found in the future, but at the moment these two points are unchallenged. What a ridiculous statement. Look bud, I know without any shadow of a doubt that there is nothing in this world I can say or do that will ever make you doubt ANYTHING in the Bible. I have debated too many fundies to know that they will ever change their mind about anything regarding their preconcieved ignorant ideas about the Bible.The reason I debate is not for the fundy, it is for the lurkers and other members here at evc. I do it because almost everything that a fundy posts here is complete ignorance, and the lurkers know it.On this thread alone you have achieved far more harm against Christianity than I could ever hope to do. So do keep it up.Anyway , to advance the discussion, do you concede that we have no mention of the Book of Daniel before the 2nd century BCE, and we have no hard copy older than the 2nd century BCE?Now neither of these mean that the Book wasn't written before the 2nd century BCE, I am just asking you if you agree with the statements.Edited by Brian, : spelin

quote:

---

The one single good point introduced by the fundamentalist Christian side is that if you assume the most convenient start date for them the end of the 69 weeks where a messiah is supposed to be cut off comes out to within a few years of the time when Jesus was crucified.

---

Glad you admit that, in other words, the bullseye is hit close, no matter how you look at it.

quote:

---

However, this point rests on the uncertain start date, and can be refuted by the simple observation that the events of the final 7 years do not occur as predicted. Even the Roman capture of Jerusalem after the Jewish revolt is more than 30 years later, and other events still have to occur.

---

In other words you have nothing against it, and no other records match the amazing level of the bible. The final seven years have not happened, so how you would expect them to have turned out any way at all, is admitting you just do not understand the context.

quote:

---

The only response to this problem is to invent an arbitrary "gap" between the 69th and 70th week - a gap at least FOUR TIMES large than the period allotted. The text provides no basis for doing so. They point to the time being broken up into units but they never even consider a gap between the first two units. The only point is to try and force the text into their beliefs.

---

The division of time till Messiah came and the last week had to exist, unless Messiah was not planning to get cut off, but take over right away. The bible is clear that was never the plan.

quote:

---

With regard to the 70 weeks, the main weakness is the lack of a good choice of start date. Even the earliest is too late. However, since this can be written off as an error on the part of the author, it is not fatal. With regard to the events of the 70th Week the case is very strong, finding a good fit with the events described in 1 and 2 Maccabees. For instance, 1 Maccabees 1 describes how Antiochus storms the city, raiding and looting the Temple. Two years later, one of his commanders comes to the city, talking of peace and winning the trust of the people - only to turn around, betray that trust and attack by surprise. Antiochus bans the Jewish sacrifices and introduces pagan worship in the Temple - the "abomination that causes desolation". All this fits well with the events scheduled for the 70th Week.

---

No idea what you are talking about, there are a few start dates that are generally used, but the one that makes most sense is the one that hits bang on, to the only Messiah that came and was cut off, and pierced, and born in Bethlehem, and who quoted Daniel a few times, as well as referenced the soon destruction of the temple!

quote:

---

The greater context also supports the conventional view. The prophecy of Daniel 8 tells us that the End Times will occur while the Hellenistic kingdoms following Alexander still survive. Daniel 11 is largely about the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemys, until a Seleucid ruler shall subdue Egypt and come to attack Jerusalem. Daniel 12 continues this prophecy, telling us of the events to follow which include a general resurrection. It is not hard to see that Daniel 11-12 also places the end times in the Hellenistic period.

---

Nothing places the end anywhere near the time of Alexander, the big horn of the goat. You just prefer to cling to a weak and cherry picking interpretation of a few things, that are ridiculous in the big picture.

quote:

---

The greater context places the events at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
The events of that period have a good fit for the events scheduled for the 70th week.

---

Some events of some chapters do refer to that time, that does not take away from what else they have to refer to, whether you choose to ignore the rest of the bible or not.Edited by starman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Glad you admit that, in other words, the bullseye is hit close, no matter how you look at it.

---

No. Because it is only if you look at in a certain way that you even get a close miss.

quote:

---

In other words you have nothing against it, and no other records match the amazing level of the bible. The final seven years have not happened, so how you would expect them to have turned out any way at all, is admitting you just do not understand the context.

---

On the contrary. As you know very well your only reason for inventing a gap is to deny the fact that your reading of the prophecy is neither a viable interpretation nor a success.There IS no context placing the final seven years long after the preceding 483. I know it and you know it.

quote:

---

The division of time till Messiah came and the last week had to exist, unless Messiah was not planning to get cut off, but take over right away. The bible is clear that was never the plan

---

The prophecy of the seventy weeks says no such thing. It doesn't even say that the messiah who is cut off is The Messiah. The Book of Daniel doesn't say any such thing. It places the End Times squarely at the time of Antiochus and the Maccabeean Revolt.If any other part of the Bible disagrees then that only means that it contradicts the Book of Daniel.

quote:

---

No idea what you are talking about, there are a few start dates that are generally used, but the one that makes most sense is the one that hits bang on,

---

There are none that hit "bang on"

quote:

---

to the only Messiah that came and was cut off, and pierced, and born in Bethlehem, and who quoted Daniel a few times, as well as referenced the soon destruction of the temple!

---

The messiah of the 70 weeks is only said to be "cut off and have nothing". He is not said to be pierced, born in Bethlehem, to quote Daniel or reference the destruction of the Temple.The rest that you don't understand is the actual historical events that match the prediction of the 50th week. Events that happen exactly at the right point for Daniel's End Times.

quote:

---

Nothing places the end anywhere near the time of Alexander, the big horn of the goat. You just prefer to cling to a weak and cherry picking interpretation of a few things, that are ridiculous in the big picture.

---

If my arguments were so silly you could refute them honestly instead of relying on misrepresentation and false accusations.If you bothered to read you would see that I referred not to the time of Alexander, but to the time of the Kingdoms produced by the division of his Empire. And someone does say that the End Times will be in THOSE times - the author of the Book of Daniel. It's in chapter 8.

quote:

---

Some events of some chapters do refer to that time, that does not take away from what else they have to refer to, whether you choose to ignore the rest of the bible or not.

---

I don't choose to ignore the rest of the Bible where it is truly relevant, as is Isaiah 45:1 - as you know. However, ALL of the prophecies in the Book of Daniel are about that period or earlier. Because Daniel says that that is when the End Times would occur.

The Book of Daniel was not 'sacred' to the Ancient Jews. That is why when it was included in the Canon in 90 c.e., it was put in the writings, not the prophets.

1. Beginning in verse 15 of Chapter 8 the angel from God begins to explain the interpretation of the vision.2. Verse 17: ".....the vision belongeth to the time of the end."3. Verse 19: "I will make you to know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation, for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.4. It is important to note that the Ram empire in chapter 8 consists of two co-ruling nations, Media and Persia, consistent with history, one being the prominent kingdom of the empire.5. Verse 21: ".....the rough he-goat is the nation of Greece.". (This would be the third empire of Daniel's chapter 2 image vision.)6. The Greek Empire after Alexander's death becomes divided (the 4 horns (Daniel 8:8) "toward the four winds of heaven," i.e. the historical four smaller empires consisting of the segmentation of Alexanders world empire became re-immerged into the Roman Empire by the time of Christ. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/3EMPIRES.HTM(Embolding mine for emphasis)7. In order to get a handle on Biblical eschatology relative to the NT church age one must understand that the OT is primarily a genealogical and historical account of the world relative to God's kingdom nation, Israel. The NT church age was a mystery not revealed in depth to Israel, to whom the OT law, the temple and Levitical priesthood pertained. Thus the church age is referred to in the NT as a mystery. (Example; Revelation 10:7 where at the sound of the 7th and last trumpet the mystery of God is finished, i.e. the church age. This is when the millennial messianic kingdom is about to emerge on planet earth.8. The Roman Empire consisted of the re-immerged Greek empire which would later disintegrate into what is referred to as the East and the West as we refer to it today, i.e. the two legs of Daniel's chap 2 image prophecy which would expand as time passed.9. As future events became further removed from Daniel's time, the prophet's revelation diminished as to specificity. Thus we must hone in on certain specifics which were revealed to him.10. In verse 23 in the "latter time" of the these kingdoms, having re-emerged by the Romans and eventually becoming global, "when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences shall stand up." Verse 24: And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully."11. v 24: ".....he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people." Note that at the time Jesus, the Christ was born, the "holy people" were not Israel. The Jews delivered Jesus up to the civil government to execute the messiah Jesus, so the "holy people" were/are the true Biblical Christians who have been persecuted throughout the Christian era, some by professing Christians who were militant, by pagan religions, by Islamic and secularistic enemies of Christianity.12. verse 24: his might shall not be by his own power. His power comes from Satan and his invisible kingdom of angels which are cast to the earth in Revelation 12 to energize the 10 horned (i.e. Daniel's toes) emerging world empire of Revelation 13 and 17, that empire which destroys Mystery Babylon (likely Vatican City) of Revelation 17 and 18.13. Verse 25: He destroys many who considered themselves to be secure. 9:11 comes to mind and the phenomenal global imergence of the expansion of militant Islam.14. Finally and most importantly, this anti-christ one of the end times comes head to head with the "prince of princes," i.e messiah (Jesus) who is to appear and "shall be broken without hand," i.e not by humans but by God who has the beast, the false prophet and the host who followed them having their mark, to be cast into the lake of fire.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz,Why do you think Daniel wasn't included amongst the prophets in the Hebrew Bible?

quote:

---

1. Beginning in verse 15 of Chapter 8 the angel from God begins to explain the interpretation of the vision.

​

2. Verse 17: ".....the vision belongeth to the time of the end."

​

3. Verse 19: "I will make you to know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation, for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.

---

I agree with this.

quote:

---

4. It is important to note that the Ram empire in chapter 8 consists of two co-ruling nations, Media and Persia, consistent with history, one being the prominent kingdom of the empire.

---

No, this does not seem to be of any great importance.

quote:

---

5. Verse 21: ".....the rough he-goat is the nation of Greece.". (This would be the third empire of Daniel's chapter 2 image vision.)

​

6. The Greek Empire after Alexander's death becomes divided (the 4 horns (Daniel 8:8) "toward the four winds of heaven," i.e. the historical four smaller empires consisting of the segmentation of Alexanders world empire became re-immerged into the Roman Empire by the time of Christ.

---

This isn't quite right. The Seleucids fell to the Parthians, who were succeeded by the Sassanids. Roman power in that region came and went.However let us note that the Roman conquest is completely absent from Daniel. The Persians appear, and the Macedonians appear, but there is no Roman conqueror.

quote:

---

7. In order to get a handle on Biblical eschatology relative to the NT church age one must understand that the OT is primarily a genealogical and historical account of the world relative to God's kingdom nation, Israel. The NT church age was a mystery not revealed in depth to Israel, to whom the OT law, the temple and Levitical priesthood pertained. Thus the church age is referred to in the NT as a mystery. (Example; Revelation 10:7 where at the sound of the 7th and last trumpet the mystery of God is finished, i.e. the church age. This is when the millennial messianic kingdom is about to emerge on planet earth.

---

I note that although this is asserted to be important it plays no role in your argument.

quote:

---

8. The Roman Empire consisted of the re-immerged Greek empire which would later disintegrate into what is referred to as the East and the West as we refer to it today, i.e. the two legs of Daniel's chap 2 image prophecy which would expand as time passed.

---

The Roman Empire mostly conquered and absorbed the Greek states. As the Persians conquered and absorbed Babylon and Alexander conquered and absorbed Persia. Daniel 8 has no such conquest, and the king of the prophecy emerges from one of the four horns of the Greek Empire - hence ONE of the Hellenistic states (verse 9).

quote:

---

9. As future events became further removed from Daniel's time, the prophet's revelation diminished as to specificity. Thus we must hone in on certain specifics which were revealed to him.

---

In fact the opposite appears to be the case. In the 70 weeks the most detailed portion is the 70th week.

quote:

---

10. In verse 23 in the "latter time" of the these kingdoms, having re-emerged by the Romans and eventually becoming global, "when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences shall stand up." Verse 24: And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully."

---

Except for the fact that there is absolutely no indication of any conquest or absorption and the King is indicated to be the ruler of ONE of the Greek states.You are simply adding to the prophecy on the ASSUMPTION that it must be about Rome.

quote:

---

11. v 24: ".....he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people." Note that at the time Jesus, the Christ was born, the "holy people" were not Israel. The Jews delivered Jesus up to the civil government to execute the messiah Jesus, so the "holy people" were/are the true Biblical Christians who have been persecuted throughout the Christian era, some by professing Christians who were militant, by pagan religions, by Islamic and secularistic enemies of Christianity.

---

Unfortunately for you the period we are concerned with is BEFORE Jesus was even born.I don't think there is much need to go on. I find your prejudices most tiresome.To sum up, your argument assumes a Roman conquest which is regarded as completely inconsequential to the prophecy. Although the two other major conquests appear this one is left out. Nor is there any indication of the Greek Kingdom's reunification under a single ruler. In fact the king of the prophecy seems to be only a ruler of one of the four kingdoms. 8:22 refers to the latter days of these Kingdoms which can only be reasonably read as referring to a time before they are conquered.In short your eisegesis is a poor fit to the text, relying on adding things that are not there - and should be there - if you were correct and ignoring the indications that do not fit.Daniel 8 quite straightforwardly places the End TImes in the latter days of the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that Daniel's vision (as is common in the OT prophecies) was like looking out one's window. Things near to the window were seen and understood more clearly than things distant. Beyond the Hellenistic empire, all Daniel saw was events/things significantly visible.Daniel's revelation from God was limited up to the Hellenistic period so far as specific empires go. All that was revealed to him beyond the four fragmented lesser empires beyond Alexander was the end times events.The end time events which I have cited pertained to the "prince of princes" i.e messiah who is encountered by this fierce horn/king. The fierce king Daniel sees is "broken without hand" in that encounter.Again, this corroborates Daniel's Daniel 2 vision of the image and the stone which destroys the world kingdoms and becomes a messianic regime which replaces the world kingdoms. None of this has happened in history, including the Hellenist period. You refuse to acknowledge that fact.Again, in Daniel 12, God tells Daniel that his scope of revelation has ended and the book is sealed until the end times. Lo and behold, John the prophet/revelator is given the rest of the story in far more detail relative to the end time events, including much of what we observe on the earth today such as the restoration of the land of Israel, the emergence of world government, Islamic anti-christ emergence and the whole story which articulates the encounter of anti-christ and the bonafide christ/messiah, Jesus, the destruction of anti-christ and the messianic kingdom.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

What you refuse to acknowledge is that Daniel's vision (as is common in the OT prophecies) was like looking out one's window. Things near to the window were seen and understood more clearly than things distant. Beyond the Hellenistic empire, all Daniel saw was events/things significantly visible

---

I do not agree to this because it is solely your opinion, with no support from the text. As I have pointed out the 70th week is dealt with in more detail than anything in the preceding 69. And there are other examples (e.g. Daniel 11) which deal with the Hellenistic period in greater detail than anything preceding it.More importantly what is missing is not details but important major elements, directly relevant to the prophecy. While information that is given is apparently wrong - according to you. But why should I take your word that this is simply the author of Daniel getting it wrong (Divine inspiration apparently being inadequate to correct him) ?It seems to come down to the fact that the text doesn't say what you want.

quote:

---

Daniel's revelation from God was limited up to the Hellenistic period so far as specific empires go. All that was revealed to him beyond the four fragmented lesser empires beyond Alexander was the end times events.

---

According to you. However the text itself indicates that the End Times would occur during the Hellenistic period. So you are asserting that the Bible is wrong and you are right. But you don't provide any evidence for this.

quote:

---

The end time events which I have cited pertained to the "prince of princes" i.e messiah who is encountered by this fierce horn/king. The fierce king Daniel sees is "broken without hand" in that encounter.

​

Again, this corroborates Daniel's Daniel 2 vision of the image and the stone which destroys the world kingdoms and becomes a messianic regime which replaces the world kingdoms. None of this has happened in history, including the Hellenist period. You refuse to acknowledge that fact.

---

Now you are simply telling untruths. I have openly admitted that the End Times themselves did not occur (as if it was not too obvious to need mentioning !). And the fact that they did not occur on schedule means that the prophecy failed. DId you really think that I would pass up that fact ?

quote:

---

Again, in Daniel 12, God tells Daniel that his scope of revelation has ended and the book is sealed until the end times.

---

Exactly - Daniel 11-12 is supposed to be hidden until the End Times. Therefore the End Times would be when Daniel 11-12 came to light. More evidence to support my position.

quote:

---

Lo and behold, John the prophet/revelator is given the rest of the story in far more detail relative to the end time events,

---

So now the End Times is the early 2nd Century AD ?Your misreadings and distortions of the Revelation - and the prejudice and hatreds that underly them - are for another thread.