Guessing the Interpretation of Daniel 11:40-45

adventbeliever · Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 5:18 pm Post subject:

Does not Dan.11:40 refer to 1798 when General Berthier under Napoleon entered Rome and took the pope into captivity? And does not the second part of the verse refer to the time when the wound shall be healed and the papacy shall regain the supremacy it lost since 1798?
_________________
Believing unto righteousness Rom.10:10.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:54 pm Post subject:

Adventbeliever,

The answer is no. I believe the primary meaning of Daniel’s prophecies are explained in my brief summary: The book of Daniel in a Nutshell. I also believe in secondary fulfillments. For the only reapplication of Daniel that I believe in, click here.

Graham · Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:53 am Post subject: Daniel 11:45 & Daniel 12:1

Hello everyone, does anyone have an application on Dan 11:45 and does that application directed leads on to Dan12:1? ie because of what is taken place in Dan 11:45, Dan 12:1 comes into the scene...?
_________________
Graham 'Esau

deano25 · Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:42 am Post subject: Daniel 11:40

Get with the program folks! Daniel 11:40 is being fulfilled before our very eyes. The king of the north is whoever controls Mesopotamia (Babylon). Uriah Smith had it right. He said the Ottoman empire was the king of the north. It's obviously a revolving club of powers. Indeed, the Ottoman Empire controlled this region until the Brits took it away then the Arabs have had it until recently. The USA is currently the king of the north. Take a clue from Sept 11, 2001.

The king of he south (militant moslem world) attacked us on that date. What follows now is a domino of moslem nations who will fall before our military/economic/political might except Jordan which makes up Edom, Moab, and Ammon (today called "Amman"). This won't happen overnight (it may take years/decades but it might seem that way to the rulers of these nations. They are all scared stiff! Hussein the king of Jordan is even afraid eventhough prophecy shows we will not overthrow him. He was seen crying to a diplomat about his fears months before we attacked Iraq

Go to www.militarycity.com and study what forces are in what moslem nations in the Middleeast. This will give you a geography lesson and US military logistics enlightenment lesson. Our presdent may keep a war in his pocket in time for the next election since the recent succesfull war has greatly increased his popularity. My paid sources say Syria will be his 2004 campaign "surprise" if he is not asassinated--God forbid.

I will post later--got ot go. I want you to know I love my country so don't get the wrong idea about me. I just want people to open their eyes about te times we live in. Officially we have overthrown 2 countries ( Afghanistan and Iraq) but we have enought forces to smother the region if we wanted too. I am confident if you study it out you will Agree.

Regards
dean
_________________
Al Paddock

postrib · is a posttribulationist Joined: 27 Apr 2003 Posts: 4

I believe that Daniel 11:40-45 refers to the time of the Antichrist after he proclaims himself God (Daniel 11:36-37, compare 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 13:6-8). I believe he will worship Satan (compare Revelation 13:4) and nuclear weaponry, and put his people in place throughout the territories under his control (Daniel 11:38-39). The U.S. may attempt to attack the Antichrist, but will be defeated and possibly occupied (Daniel 11:40, compare Revelation 13:4).

The Antichrist will completely subjugate Israel and many other countries, but for some reason won't bother to occupy Jordan (Daniel 11:41). He will take complete control of Egypt (Daniel 11:42-43). He may hear of China's and Russia's plan to enter the war to his loss, and may make plans to send nuclear weapons against them, or he will hear of the soon coming of Christ (Daniel 11:44, compare Revelation 16:12-16). He will set up his headquarters in Jerusalem, but Christ will destroy him at the 2nd coming (Daniel 11:45). Michael may be the archangel referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 who accompanies Christ at his return (Daniel 12:1).

Nicolas · Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 1:55 am Post subject: Daniel 11:40

Hi,

I believe that Dn. 11:45 refers to 1798 when the Little Horn lost temporal power and could no longer be described as a horn, even a little one.

According to the Recapitulation principle on which D&R are written, U. Smith had it wrong when he wrote that Turkey is the King of the North. Turkey is not found in Daniel 2, 7,8,9, 10 and why would it be the last power of Daniel 11.

For those who believe in the SOP, It should be noticed that there is ALMOST no reference to Turkey in relation to Last-Days Events.

Therefore true to the book and its unity, I will say that the time of the end refer to the time of the deadly wound or 1798 and the latter part of verse 40 refers to the time of the healing of the Papacy.

The King of the North is Revelation's Great City of Babylon which of course is symbolic of Ecclesiastical Rome, the mother of today's apostate protestant churches.

And the king of the South are those countries which is based on the high principles of Egypt and Atheistic France - a denial of God's Existence. This clearly include countries in the block of Russia which fell during the days of the Whirlwind.

God Bless U.
Nicolas MARIE.

deano25 · Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 4:43 pm Post subject:

I have the opinion, as an adventist, that we are all getting little parts of the puzzle together but we have to know that the decoding of Daniel 11 or any other part of any biblical prophecy is not a matter of opinion. God told Daniel that the meaning of the visions he saw would come to light. The person who said Turkey (Ottoman Empire) is not the king of the north for the time of Uriah Smith I believe spoke ignorantly. Many scholars have already established that this king is a relay of kingdoms (powers) that control what was once Babylon/Mesopotamia. It has also been established that Babylon is symbolic of confused religious doctrine that many churches share. When we read of this king I believe we may interpret him at some point as being a superpower (now) and a theocracy (later) but the latter description is yet to be fulfilled (this is probably the little horn in partership with apostate protestants that some of you have been talking about).

Regards,
Al
_________________
Al Paddock

Nicolas · Posted: Tue May 13, 2003 6:06 am Post subject: Dn. 11 and 12.

Hi,

Daniel 12 is closely linked with Daniel 11. As a matter of fact, Dan. 10-12 forms one prophetic unit.

The three chapters can be viewed as followed:

Dn. 10 - The Introduction
Dn. 11 - The BODY/Developments
Dn. 12 - The Conclusion

If one does not link Daniel 12 to Daniel 11 or even goes as far as to say there is no Unity in Daniel, there will be no way of explaining the time elements found in ch. 12.

There will be no ANCHOR for the 1260, 1335 and 1290 days whether one understand them as literal or prophetic.

The 1260 days is closely associated with the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and is a time of persecution and Indeed Persecution is inflicted upon God's People in Daniel 11. However the symbol of a little horn is not found, but replaced in term of King of the North.

An observation that can be drawn in Daniel is that the prophecies meet people where they are, then move spiritually upward. It starts with the basics, the elementary but then move deeply into the matters itself.

To Nebuchadnezzar II of Neo-Babylonia, the prophecy was given in terms of metals. To Daniel, it was given in terms of living creatures/beast. In Daniel 8, not only they are living but moving. A move from static to dynamic. The same is true in Daniel 11. It start with Medo-Persia, princ. Persia goes through Greco-Macedonia, Rome but as it comes to Papal Rome, the language changes from literal to spiritual/symbolic.

The connection betw. Dn. and Rev. makes it clear that the power than rules Babylon is a symbolic one. In rev. 17, the great city is not Bagdad, Iraq or area near Bagdad. Babylon is a "cryptic name" (Holman Christian Std. Bible) Rev. 17:5. The city, first mentioned in Rev. 11 is also termed Sodom and Egypt. But there as well, the text stated that they are Spiritual names. John Gill on 11:7-8 stated: "it is called so in a mystic and allegorical sense, in distinction from the literal sense."

From the recapitulation mechanism, I will repeat that Turkey is no part of the previous prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 8-9. There is no Logic Blocks for Turkey as the Last Power for Daniel 11-12. You cannot construct an interpretation without logic blocks.

In the SOP, nowhere does EGW speaks of Turkey as a key feature in last days events. As Israel is the Christian Church in the New Covenant so is Babylon the Counterfeit Church and not to be taken in a literal sense.

The destruction/fate of the last power in Daniel 11 is by supernatural intervention that parrallel the endings of Dn. 2,7.

The relation to the Standing Up of Michael is also very important to note. The "time" mentionned in 12:1 is that of 11:45 when the King of the North hears messages from the north and the east. In Jer. 50-51, the destruction of Babylon was to come from the North. In Rev., deliverance for the people of God come from the direction of the Sun Rising or East.

To be continued.

God Bless U.
Nicolas MARIE.

Nicolas

Hi,

As I surf the Internet, in an effort, to find more guide posts for a better understanding of Daniel 11, I have found the following items on the Prince of the Covenant which I will like to share with you.

It will not be wrong to say that the Adventist view of the Prince of the Covenant is none other than Jesus Christ. However, this view can hardly be found in other denominations.

The debate revolves around two possibilities namely Onias III, the High Priest (Adam Clark, John Gill) and Ptolemy Philometer, the son of Cleopatra (i.e. Dale Depriest/Philip Mauro, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown...).

Closing our eyes on the differences, we can see that this interpretation put the time context in Antiochus IV Epiphanes' days whereas an understanding of the Prince of the Covenant as Jesus Christ (which is more in harmony with the languages/parallelism to Dn. 9:24-27) put the time context of vss. ff. 11:22 in a new covenant/ A.D. Time Setting.

There are quite a number of unsolved problems in identitying Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn of Daniel 8. Problems unsolved builds other more complicated ones such as we can see in Daniel 11-12. But, as far as I know, there is a wide consensus among SDA, in seeing the Papacy as a fulfillment of Dn. 8's little horn. True, there are problems of identifying where Papal Rome starts and Pagan Rome ends in vss. 9-14 of Dn. 8, whether the two powers are to be interpreted as being Sequential or Unified, but the Papacy is clearly seen there.

The Sanctuary Fortress, reference to Persecution, the Daily or Hattamid, the Abomination of Desolation binds Daniel 11 to earlier prophecies, that give more credit to the Papacy as the right candidate for the Northern King of vss. 40-45.

In His Olivet Discourse, Christ used the terms Abomination of Desolation and speaks of the great Persecution as future to His days. And the Abomination of Desolation is generally associated with Pagan Rome. In Rev. 17, John speaks of Babylon as the Mother of Abominations of the Earth, where the context allows it to be Papal Rome. My understanding is that the Olivet Discorse will be more in harmony with a Papal-view of Dn. 11 than to an Antiochus-view Turkey-view and so forth ...

Will be Delighted to get more documentation about the Prince of the Covenant and the Abomination of Desolation as used in Dn. 8-9 and Dn. 10-12.

God Bless U. Nicolas MARIE.

Eugene Shubert

jabechler · Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: understanding

Hello, I am new to this forum and I see or feel there is a general non belief in the SOP and the beliefs of the pionerrs of Adventism. Is this right or am I seeing wrong. Just wanted to know so as to reply in post correctly.

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 62

jabechler,

I don't believe that the Spirit of Prophecy has ever led to an exegesis of Daniel 11:40-45 through any of the 19th century pioneers of the Advent movement or through Ellen G. White. One thing is certain however. The Bible is the standard for Biblical exposition. It seems to me that what the Adventist pioneers thought in the 1800s doesn't impress anyone with understanding today, not even Seventh-day Adventists.

I don't see anything in the higher forums that contradict the Spirit of Prophecy.

Ed White · Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: