Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment

quote:

---

the desstruction in 70ce brought the whole jewish system to its knees and put an end to their entire system of worship. After the destruction in 70ce the priestly sacrifices ended, the temple was burned to the ground and today only one part of the 'wailing wall' exists.

​

how can you honestly say that antiochus 3 year battle was worse then what the romans did?

---

In terms of defiling the Temple, I would say that setting up a pagan altar in the sanctuary and conducting pagan sacrifices in there (likely including the sacrifice of pigs) was worse than marching in there and setting light to the place.On top of that Daniel 12 makes it clear that it will be a short time before things are put right, as I pointed out.

quote:

---

however if i was a jew living in 70ce and witnessed the killing of over 1million of my fellow citizens and the temple of jerusalem completely destroyed by roman armies carrying ensigns, i'd probably think that the fulfillement was happening right then.

---

Maybe, but the reasons for that are nothing to do with the match of the prophecy to events. There are strong reasons in the text of Daniel for considering it to refer to Antiochs (I have already referred to Daniel 8).

quote:

---

I agree its not hard to see why the maccabeeans applied to prophecy to Antiochus, however, as I said, in 29CE Jesus applied Daniels prophecy to a future time and therefore I cant justify applying the prophecy to an earlier time.

---

This is exactly what Jazz is interested in.For myself I would like to know how you deal with Daniel 8 which firmly places the end times in the Hellenistic period, before Jesus.

quote:

---

we've been discussing Daniel 11, not chptr 8 so it sesms we've been taling about different passages

---

No. Daniel 8 is relevant context whne interpreting Daniel 11.

quote:

---

Daniel 8 is the Hellenistic period, it explains itself

---

Indeed it does - it clearly indicates that the "time of the end" is in the Hellenistic period.

quote:

---

Its chpter 11 i've been talking about.

---

So Daniel 8 is wrong and should be ignored ?

quote:

---

no, Daniel 8 is a stand alone prophecy involving certain events from the time of the medio Persian empire and the take over by Alexander

---

How do you reconcile that idea with the fact that Daniel 8 is about the "time of the end" ?(And you should note that it is about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, with definite links to Daniel 11-12)

quote:

---

which time of the end?

---

It just says "the time of the end". If there are more than one "times of the end" in Daniel, it is down to the author of Daniel to distinguish between them.

quote:

---

hat term 'time of the end' refers to a time period marking the conclusion of a system of things and culminating in its destruction. That could be any time and any event. Alexander the great experienced a 'time of the end'

​

as did the people of Noahs day and likewise did the jewish system in 70ce....added to that the Messiah experienced a 'time of the end' when he was also put to death

---

Is that your personal opinion or something that can be supported ? i.e. does the author of Daniel use that phrase for any of your examples ? DO the authors of other Biblical books ?

quote:

---

Daniel uses that same expression when he is explaining the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 2:28 "However, there exists a God in the heavens who is a Revealer of secrets, and he has made known to King Neb‧u‧chad‧nez′zar what is to occur in the final part of the days. Your dream and the visions of your head upon your bedthis it is:"

---

But there is no reason to think that this refers to a different "time of the end" from Daniel 8 (I'm pretty sure that it IS the same time).

quote:

---

Another example where a similar expression is used is when Jacob explains to his 12 sons what will befall them.

​

quote:

---

Genesis 49:1 Later on Jacob called his sons and said: Gather yourselves together that I may tell YOU what will happen to YOU in the final part of the days. 2 Assemble yourselves and listen, YOU sons of Jacob, yes, listen to Israel YOUR father.

---

---

Aside from Genesis 49:10 the whole prophecy is pretty general (and 49:10 could easily be intended to refer to the same sort of "end time" as Daniel had in mind).

quote:

---

I should just ask you how you understand 'end of time' to mean.

---

I would think that Daniel 2 explains what the author of Daniel had in mind. God would establish an eternal kingdom on Earth which would destroy all competing empires and dominate the world.

quote:

---

yes that could be a little difficult considering he didnt undertsand what he was writing.

---

I think that you are reading too much into 12:8 - in context it clearly refers to the words spoken by the two figures in 12:6-7 and nothing else.

quote:

---

yes there are later bible writers who spoke about the 'end times' or 'last days'

---

I asked if there were any that used it in your sense. And you haven't one clear example. In fact all of them seem to mean the same thing as Daniel.

quote:

---

Yes this is how i understand it too. But that has not yet happned so obviously Daniel 2:44 has not yet come to pass. It is still future.

---

Of course this is - again - a concern external to the text of Daniel. There seems to be no reason within the test to assume that the author of Daniel had two or more different "end times" in mind or that he (or any other Biblical author) used "end times" in the sense you suggested.

quote:

---

but that was the point...if later writers spoke about the 'end times' as something coming in the future, how can we apply Daniels 'end times' to an earlier period?

---

So you weren't even trying to answer my question ? And are you really saying that the whole basis for your interpretation of "time of the end" is that you assume that Daniel couldn't have meant it in the same way that the other Biblical authors meant it ?

quote:

---

You said that the 'end times' in Danile related to the Macabeean period and Antiochus IV? However im showing you that later bible writers spoke about the 'end times' as something in the future.

---

And it is clear that Daniel 8 did mean that. However, it is not at all clear that your proposed interpretation has any sound basis at all.

quote:

---

As i said previously, Jesus said that Daniels words about the 'desolation' was still coming. This is why the jewish interpretation of Daniel could not have been correct.

---

It's a reason based on other beliefs - and without any foundation in the actual text of Daniel.
I take the view that each book of the Bible should be interpreted on it's own terms - instead of being forced into a theology which might not fit.

quote:

---

he jews werent the best at interpreting their own scriptures...especially considering they did not even recognise their messiah when he showed up. They could not see how he fulfilled the prophecies spoken in Isaiah and nor were they able to use Daniels 70weeks prophecy to calculate the time of his arrival.

---

It is far from certain that your interpretations of those texts are any better. Indeed the 70 weeks can only be seen to point to Jesus by fitting the data to the conclusion (in my view they, too point to the time of Antiochus IV) - the more so since the 70th week does not easily fit with Jesus.

If we look at the prophecy for the 70th week, if Jesus is the Messiah who will be "cut off and have nothing", after the 69th week. All the following events have to happen in the next 7 years. The latest likely date for the crucifxion is 33 AD, so everything else has to have happened by 40 AD.IN the years of Antiochus' rule, three High Priests (all of whom qualify as "messiahs") had problems.
Onias, perhaps the most likely candidate, was deposed by Antiochus and later murdered - probably at the orders of the then High Priest Menelaus in 170 BC.
Jason, who had bribed Antiochus to take the position was replaced when Menelaus offered
a larger bribe.
Menelaus was driven into exile when Jason revolted to take the position back in 168 BC.The next event is that the "Prince of the People who is to come" must attack the city.Following Jason's revolt, Antiochus came with an army to Jerusalem and stormed the city. The Temple was looted and many people were killed (2 Maccabees).In Jesus' time - nothing.The Prince must make a "firm covenant with many" but in "the middle of the week" must stop the sacrifices and set up the "Abomination that causes desolation".Following his conquest of the city, Antiochus appointed new governors, and they built up the city again.
However, later in 167 BC, Antiochus banned Judaism and converted the Temple to the worship of Zeus. If we use the murder of Onaias as the end of the 69th week this would be "in the middle of the week".In Jesus' time - nothing.The 70th week, does fit the time of Antiochus, and does not fit the time of Jesus.

quote:

---

before i go on i need to know when you understand the time of the 70 weeks began. the prophecy says "from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild jerusalem"

​

what date do you have for when this 'word' went forth...for this is when the 70 weeks must be

---

I will state in advance that I do not believe that the author of Daniel got the timeline correct.However, the fact is that the start date is incredibly uncertain. There are a number of supposed start dates, and working out which is intended must rely on the interpretation of the rest of the text. My personal view, following the Masoretic text is that the first messiah, who comes after the first 7 weeks is Cyrus and therefore the author of Daniel believed the "word" to be a pre-exilic prophecy of a return.

quote:

---

Do you know what the event "from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" is

​

do you know who gave that word and when?

---

I just told you, nobody knows. Isaiah 49:14-21 is possible (although it was almost certainly written after the exile, the author of Daniel probably attributed it to the original Isaiah).

quote:

---

well my understanding is that it was the word of Artaxerxes who gave the initial legal approval for the captive Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild

---

That's chosen because it fits with the idea of Jesus being the second messiah. There's no compelling reason to prefer it over any other.

quote:

---

It would make sense to take the first instance of any legal approvals as the starting point for the reason that it set the legal precedent for the captive jews to return and rebuild.

---

That would be the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2-4)

quote:

---

Reference works place Artaxerxes’ accession year in 465 BCE while other documents give his father, Xerxes, a reign that continued into the 21st year. Xerxes’ rule is generally counted from 486 BCE because this is when his father Darius died. There is strong evidence for calculating the last year of Xerxes and the accession year of Artaxerxes as being 475 BCE. This evidence is found in Greek sources, in Persian sources and in Babylonian sources.

---

I'd like to see this "strong evidence" because Artaxerxes accession year is generally reckoned as 465 BC.Let us even note that your arguments contradict themselves:

quote:

---

quote:

---

...The historian Justin, III, 1, confirms this chronicle and the assertions of Thucydides. According to him, at the time of Xerxes’ murder, Artaxerxes, his son, was but a child, puer [a boy], which is true if Xerxes died in 475. Artaxerxes was then 16 years old, whereas in 465 he would have been twenty-six years old, which would not justify anymore Justin’s expression.

---

---

This one relies on keeping the birth date of Artaxerxes where it its.

quote:

---

And there is one more way to determine the year that Artaxerxes began to rule and thus figure out if his 20th year was when Nehemiah said it was.
Its the evidence that Artaxerxes ruled beyond his 41st birthday.

---

This one relies on moving Artaxerxes birth date (for no given reason).You should probably look at this site, which although sympathetic to the idea that Artaxerxes decree' is the starting point raises some major arguments against the 475 accession date. And I'm pretty sure that it is a direct reply to your source.

quote:

---

there is no compelling reason to reject several sources of ancient incriptions and information in favor of the prefered 465 date.

---

Isn't there ? To use just one example, I found the fact that there are *9* known dual-dated tablets with the 41-year reign length and only one which refers to 51 years pretty good evidence that the latter was a scribal error.

quote:

---

yes it is a direct refutation, but that doesnt bother me in the slightest. He is absolutely against the idea that scriptural prophecies are true so its in his interest to refute all evidence.

---

I can't find any evidence that he is "absolutely against the idea that scriptural prophecies are true" and even if he were that is no reason to discard the evidence he produces. Let me repeat your question: Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I know that and i havnt been contending that. As I had to point out the PaulK, i've been talking about Daniel chapter 11 which is the one you mentioned in your OP...i have been focused on that one chapter. But somewhere along the line, chpter 8 has been used to refute what i've been saying about chpt 11.

---

You mean that it was pointed out that Daniel 8 appeared to contradict your interpretation of Daniel 11. (And you haven't managed to offer a very good answer to that).

quote:

---

Do you think chpt 8 and chpt 11 are about the same events?

---

I won't speak for Jazz, but I am sure that they are.

quote:

---

Chpter 8: 3-8 begins with the vision of the Ram, then the HeGoat. This is the prophecy of Alexander the Great defeating the Medeo Persian empire...then his kingdom being divided
3 When I raised my eyes, then I saw, and, look! a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns (Dual Medeo Persian empire)... 4 I saw the ram making thrusts to the west and to the north and to the south, and no wild beasts kept standing before it, ...6 And it kept coming all the way to the ram possessing the two horns, which I had seen standing before the watercourse; and it came running toward it in its powerful rage...and it proceeded to strike down the ram and to break its two horns, ...8 And the male of the goats, for its part, put on great airs to an extreme; but as soon as it became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens.

​

But now if you look at Vs 9, its speaking about a new horn....not the 4 that came up 'conspicuously instead of' Alexander, but a new horn. This horn is said to come into the 'land of decoration' and desolate it. Remember that when Daniel wrote this prophecy, the 'land of decoration' or 'Judah' was already desolate. So the fulfillment of vs 9 and onward was obviously a long way into the future. How could the new 'horn' desolate something that was already ruined? Most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were being held as captives in Babylon when this prophecy was written. Jerusalem was in ruins after Babylons earlier invasion.

​

So Vs 9 would not occur until such a time as the 'land of decoration' was alive and active again. People didnt return to Jerusalem to rebuild it until until they were freed from babylon.

---

Leaving aside the question of when the book of Daniel was really written, what point are you trying to make here ? Yes, the events have to be in the future from the Babylonian exile but what's the relevance ?

quote:

---

some prophecies can have multiple fulfillments but i dont believe Chapter 8 of Daniel does.
This does not diminish anything from his prophecy because we are living in a part of his prophecy right now...the 'time of the end'

---

We aren't living in the "time of the end" of Daniel 8, because that has to occur while the Diadochi states that came from Alexander's empire still exist (8:23).

quote:

---

The relevence is that Vs 9 says that " And out of one of them there came forth another horn, a small one"

​

The 'Them' is the kings of the north and south who sprang from Alexanders empire. The seulucide and Ptolomy kings....so vs 9 says that a new 'horn' emerges from those kings. This is why the prophecy should be considered as something different to the prophecy in Chpt 11. Chpt 11 is the progressive history of those kings of Daniel 8:8. The kings of the north and south are the seleucide and ptolomic kings that battled each other over many generation.

---

I note that you make absolutely no mention of the Babylonian exile or the conditions of that time there. May I assume that you concede that that point was completely irrelevant ?As for your interpretation of Daniel 8:9, the explanation in later verses is quite clear. The "little horn" is one of the Diadochi kings (8:23).

quote:

---

however now a new horn emerges from them. Its the new horn that ends their rule and stands in place of them. This can only be the roman empire for they subjugated both egypt and syria.

---

Firstly, Rome did NOT grow out of the Diadochi Kingdoms so it doesn't even fit that. But worse for you, the explanation in 8:20-25 simply tells us of a king who will arise while the Diadochi kingdoms still exist. In short, 8:20-25 tells us that the "little horn" will be one of those kings.

quote:

---

For this reason, chpt 8 vs 9 is speaking of a new time in history. The next few verses also show that this new horn is the one who completely destroys jerusalem and kills the leader of the covenant (Jesus Christ) Antiochus didnt do this.

---

There's no "new horn" in Daniel 9, and the "Prince of the covenant" is in Daniel 11.The destruction of Jerusalem in Daniel 9 is obviously not complete (since it comes BEFORE the sacrifice is stopped). And of course nobody "destroyed" Jerusalem in the 7 years following Jesus' death.

quote:

---

thats if you believe the 'time of the end' has been and gone. However this is impossible seeing the world is still struggling with opposing kings. The 'time of the end' is the time when God steps in to remove the kings of the earth. That cetainly hasnt happened yet and it certainly did not happen back in Antiochus's time.

---

No, that's if you believe that Daniel 8:23 means what it says. Sorry, but you cannot both reject Daniel 8 AND claim it as a valid prophecy.