Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment

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 rebuildIt 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.
Once that initial legal approval was given, there would be no need for another legal approval.That first legal approval was given by Artaxerxes in his 20th year according to Nehemiah 2:1-8 . Now i know the date of his rule is debated and generally believed to be 465bce. But it is debatable.
_________________________________________________________________
 And it came about in the month Ni′san, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, ...4In turn the king said to me: What is this that you are seeking to secure? 5... I said to the king: If to the king it does seem good,.. that you would send me to Judah, to the city of the burial places of my forefathers, that I may rebuild it. ...7And I went on to say to the king: If to the king it does seem good, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the River, that they may let me pass until I come to Judah; ...So the king gave [them] to me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.
__________________________________________________________________So Nehemiah got the legal permission to return to Judah, he was given letters from the King with written permission and he was able to use those letters to secure safe passage back.Reference works place Artaxerxes’ accession year in 465BCE while other documents give his father, Xerxes, a reign that continued into the 21st year. Xerxes’ rule is generally counted from 486BCE 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 475BCE. This evidence is found in Greek sources, in Persian sources and in Babylonian sources.

quote:

---

Concerning the time when Xerxes died and Artaxerxes ascended the throne, M.de Koutorga wrote: We have seen that, according to the chronology of Thucydides, Xerxes died towards the end of the year 475B.C.E., and that, according to the same historian, Themistocles arrived in Asia Minor shortly after the coming to the throne of Artaxerxes Longimanus.Mmoires prsents par divers savants l’Acadmie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l’Institut Imprial de France, first series, Vol. VI, second part, Paris, 1864, p. 147.

---

quote:

---

E.Levesque noted the following: Therefore it is necessary, according to the Alexandrian Chronicle, to place Xerxes’ death in 475B.C.E., after eleven years of reign. 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. According to this chronology, since Artaxerxes began to reign in 475, the 20th year of his reign proves to be in 455 and not in 445 as it is said quite commonly.Revue apologtique, Paris, Vol. 68, 1939, p. 94.

---

If Darius died in 486BCE. and Xerxes died in 475BCE, how could it be explained that some ancient documents allot to Xerxes a reign of 21 years? If Darius and Xerxes did corule, then Xerxes’ reign could be counted either from the start of a coregency with his father or from his father’s death. If Xerxes ruled 10 years with his father and 11 years by himself, some sources could attribute to him 21 years of rulership, while others might give him 11 years.The Greek historian Herodotus says: Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been made king even without this advice. This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius.There is also evidence from Persian bas-reliefs. In Persepolis several bas-reliefs have been found that represent Xerxes standing behind his father’s throne, dressed in clothing identical to his father’s and with his head on the same level. Usually the king’s head would be higher than all others, but in this case, his head is the same level with his son.Then also in Babylon there is much evidence that they served together. Two clay tablets were found in Babylon. One is a business text about hire of a building in the accession year of Xerxes. The tablet is dated in the first month of the year, Nisan. (A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, by R.Campbell Thompson, London, 1927, p. 13, tablet designated A. 124) Another tablet bears the date month of Ab(?), accession year of Xerxes. This particular tablet does not attribute to Xerxes the title king of Babylon, king of lands, which is seen on most other tablets of the times. Usually a king’s accession year begins after the death of his predecessor. However, Darius lived until the seventh month of his final year, whereas these two documents from the accession year of Xerxes bear dates prior to the seventh month (one has the first month, the other the fifth). Therefore these documents do not relate to an accession period of Xerxes following the death of his father but indicate an accession year during his coregency with Darius.
If that accession year was in 496BCE, when the palace at Babylon for Xerxes had been completed, his first year as coregent would begin the following Nisan, in 495BCE, and his 21st and final year would start in 475BCE. So this shows that Xerxes’ reign included 10 years of rule with Darius (from 496 to 486BCE) and 11 years of kingship by himself (from 486 to 475BCE)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. A business document from Borsippa was found that is dated to the 50th year of Artaxerxes. (Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VII: Tablets From Sippar 2, by E.Leichty and A.K. Grayson, 1987, p. 153; tablet designated B.M. 65494)
One of the tablets connecting the end of Artaxerxes’ reign and the beginning of the reign of Darius II has the following date:
51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20, Darius, king of lands. (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol. VIII, Part I, by Albert T.Clay, 1908, pp. 34, 83, and Plate 57, Tablet No. 127, designated CBM 12803)Greek, Persian, and Babylonian sources agree that Artaxerxes’ accession year was 475BCE and his first regnal year was 474BCE. This makes Nehemiahs words about asking the king in his 20th year as occuring in 455bce....20 years after his assession year.So the word went forth in 455BCE. The prophecy begins at this point when the 'word went forth' in the form of legal letters giving Nehemiah permission to go to rebuild jerusalem. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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.

there is no compelling reason to reject several sources of ancient incriptions and information in favor of the prefered 465 date.You dont think its appropriate to look at all the evidence? 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.

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.

I mentioned this before so I'll focus on this one point. If you take the prophecies as seperate then you are abandoning the cohesiveness of Daniel. The beast with 10 horns from which the little horn grows and displaces 3 other ones is exactly the lineage of the Seleucian kings + Antiochus IV who had to depose 3 rivals to take the throne.Please focus on THIS point that I am about to make and not if you agree with what I just wrote about the beast. IF you disagree that the prophecies are pointing to the same person/events, are not cohesive, then you are in fact diminishing the impact of Daniel's prophecy. You are changing Daniel from a cohesive set of prophecies that point to the same set of events and the power of fulfillment that that represents into a tarot card/psychic friend/scam fortune teller whose words can abstractly be twisted to claim fulfillment in any event that vaguely resembles a small piece of what was said.That is my opinion. Obviously I don't think you believe that of yourself but I am really trying to get you or Buz or someone to see what I am seeing. I am a Christian who has lost his faith in the Bible. If Daniel really is as you say it is, then it is a bogus, no better than Nostradamus, can mean anything, scam.I am looking for some value left in Daniel and the 2 avenues I am pursuing are the notion of a fully preterist view of Daniel (all said and done in Maccabean times), and this proposition that I have from some of my other friends that prophecy can have multiple fulfillments.All that being said, I think it is more than obvious that even different believers can have different interpretations of prophecy. How do you KNOW that yours is the right one? Are you willing to claim with confidence that another Christian is wrong?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Hi Buz, thank you for your replies. I have replied to Peg in this regard and would direct you to that rather than repeating myself here. It should be the post immediatly before this one unless Peg of Paulk was quick to reply.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

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.Do you think chpt 8 and chpt 11 are about the same events? 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
3When I raised my eyes, then I saw, and, look! a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns (Dual Medeo Persian empire)... 4I saw the ram making thrusts to the west and to the north and to the south, and no wild beasts kept standing before it, ...6And 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, ...8And 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. 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'So his prophecy is being accurately fulfilled. this is true, not all christians have the same understanding. I believe mine is the right one because of its source. I dont believe God uses every christian denomination and i dont believe they all teach from the bible. Jesus indicated that there would be one 'faithful and discreet slave' on the earth in the last days and I believe I found them.Just on the point about interpretation and specifically dates, the JW's use 'bible chronology' as the basis for their dates rather then the secular or historical dates for the reason that they firmly believe that the bible provides the correct answers with regard to the timing of events. That just shows that as an organization, they are willing to put the bible first even if it means they are discredited for doing so.

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).

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.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.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. 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.

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.

';lkj1. The only cohesiveness of Daniel is that it is a book prophesying the whole history of the world Gentile empires all the way up until the end of the Gentile age until the messianic kingdom of God to be set up in Israel, i.e. the end time. It is a cohesive prophecy of the major empires of world history of the planet that will exist. So no, I am in no way abandoning the cohesiveness of the the book.You are attempting to squeeze the whole history of the world into an empire which not only does injustice to the book but fails to address the cohesiveness of Daniel with all of the other prophets of the Bible. Your interpretation is that of a novice who has no clue regarding the cohesiveness of the major prophets of the Bible including John the revelator of the NT.2. There's a whole lot more in Daniel than Antiohus and the Greek empire. You can't just sweep all of the other pertinent info under the proverbial rug if you aspire to knowledge of the truth relative to the whole book.What do you do with the verses in the horn chapter, chapter 7 where the saints of the most high take over after the horned beast's empire is taken by the messiah whose saints rule with messiah from then on forever as long as the earth remains. This is all corroborated by Daniel's other visions which prophesy the end of Gentile rule and messianc rule. None of this happened after the Greek empire, nor has it happened yet proving that there were to be other empires arise as prophesied by Daniel and John before the end comes relative to the latter day restoration of the nation of Israel which we have witnessed in our time.Conclusion: The cohesive prophecy of Daniel includes the end time messianic kingdom of God at a latter day time when Israel is restored. Thus the sealing of the prophecy of Daniel until the END TIME. Thus the need for the book of Revelation i.e. the unsealing of Daniel.

IF you feel like you are being ignored it is partially because you are. For whatever reason, miscommunication, minunderstanding, whatever, you are not getting what I am asking. The only thing you ever replied to me about so far is in an effort to prop up your own particular interpretation.Let me be as clear as possible one last time without any malice intended. I DON'T CARE what you believe about Daniel. I don't care that you believe it is the right interpretation. I want to know WHY you believe it and to JUSTIFY why you believe it. I'll try not to take offense by this if you won't take offense when I claim that your basic human communication is that of a novice.You don't know me, you don't have to participate in this thread if you don't want to, you certainly have no right to proclaim your intellectual superiority and expect anybody to give you any credence.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Thanks again for your reply Peg. I hope you don't think I am too confrontational about this because I think you are actually trying to understand where I am at. So for me, as skeptic of your particular interpretation, there is absolutely no basis for me to simply accept 'bible chronology'. I would argue that it is not even a requirement of Christianity to accept a 'bible chronology'. The biggest reason I can think of why you wouldn't want to make that a pillar of your faith is simply that the bible's chronology is demonstrably wrong.Since I reject inerrancy, I also reject the chronology. Since I reject the chronology I have no reason to prop-up a delicate mish-mash interpretation of prophecy so that it fits the chronology. I much prefer that the Bible says exactly what it says even if it is occasional wrong. Otherwise, like I said before, we are just playing Nostradamus advocates trying to fit every little event and every possible alternate meaning into this web of unnecessary consistency. But this isn't even true! You picked the event you want the prophecy to match and then you twist the prophecy to match that event. If you plainly and simply read Daniel at its face value you absolutely do not get your interpretation. I am not saying that you are wrong, but you ARE IN FACT saying that Daniel has to more complex than a bald faced reading so that it will line up with the dates that YOU LIKE. Being discredited is not a badge of honor! If there are good and VALID arguments against my belief then I am an idiot to continue with that belief. Did you mean to say something else here!?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Isn't that what you and Peg have been debating/discussing? Your interpretations of Daniel? You're acting as though you have a personal corner on interpreting the book and if someone does not agree, you either ignore or get sore rather than addressing the problems cited head on. You're skirting around my points, all the while hammering away at your own application. You're eating up the lion's share of the thread, discussing/debating 1/6th of the book prophecy which is the most ambiguous of them all.In Daniel 8 the Greek empire is not related to 10 horns/kings or 7 horns/kings. There are only 4 and out of these other empires emerged including the world class Roman empire. Nothing is said here about the saint's & messiah ruling thereafter. That doesn't come until after the 10 horned empire in chapter 7The way the cohesive book prophecy works is as follows:1. Nebs dream vision/interpretation by Daniel which depicts a concise overview of world class empires after which comes the the last; 10 toes, cohesive to the 10 horns followed by messiah/stone ending Gentile rule.2. From there, subsequent prophecies get more specific, detailing events relative to the overview of Neb's image dream. In Daniel 7 the 10 horn end time empore is cohesive to Neb's 10 toes which includes all nations of the world as per the prophecy, followed by saint rule.Your Greek Empire interpretation just isn't cohesive with either Neb's image of 10 toes or Daniel 7's 10 toes. That's obvious, Jazzns. You sure care about your own belief about Daniel and the meaning of it. You think it must be your way or the highway. Look. I've told you why I believe it by showing how world history attests to what is prophesied. How could I tell you why I believe it if I must accept your interpretation of what it says and means? If you wanted a one on one between you and Peg who have similar POVs you should have said so and done a great debate between you. If you can't take the heat and refute participating persons presenting pertinent opposing prophecy POVs you leave the impression that you don't really know a lot about the book or of corroborating prophecies which lend support to Daniel's prophecy.This all has everything to do with why I believe the prophecy and why I can justify it. Your interpretation of the book is incohesive in that it ignores most of the pertinent data given in the other 5/6th of the book, including Nebuchadnezzar's dream and messianic advent ending all Gentile empires. This, you choose to ignore, obviously because it evaporates your POV.1. It doesn't matter how many Greek kings there were so long as the ten kings reduced to 7 are followed by the kingdom of the saints(as per Daniel 7, the horn prophecy) ruling thereafter.2. According to the visions, other Gentile empires follow the Greek, so the Greek empire is not the end times of the prophecy as per Daniel 7, the 10 horn prophecy.My interpretation is just as on topic as yours. If you choose to continue ignore my arguments, that's your perogative, but I'm not packing it up and running off to leave you touting your own agenda so long as it's an open topic.

---

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

If you really have been paying attention to what I have been saying you would know that I am trying to discover my belief about the book of Daniel. I don't have an ideology about it. It is not my way or the highway but I certainly am not just going to take your word for it and have you call me a novice when I challange you about it.Like I said before, I am examining 2 potential positions on Daniel that just happen to be different from yours. If that makes me a bad Christian in your eyes then so be it. I don't answer to you.Your perfectly free to reply to any post in any thread Buz, but I am done responding to you in this thread unless you decide to engage me as a peer and actually address the questions that I am asking.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson