Daniel 11:40-45 - its causing a quite a stir!

Piggler

These verses are apparently causing a small renewed religious wakening in some parts of London at this time. The general interpretation being discussed regarding these particular verses are that they reveal:

v 40 the fall of the Papacy by the France and the revolution.

v40-41 the 'fall' of Communism in 1989 atributed to the Pope John Paul 2 working together with the President Reagan.

v 41 The Glorious Land being the USA, the papacy 'moves into the USA'

* it goes on to parallel verses 40 to 45 with the events of 2001 and 9/11 with what happened in 1840 and Josiah Litch' interpretation of the fall of the otterman empire.
* it paralles verses 40 to 45 with events that happened in SDA history in 1840 to 45.
* finally it ends up with a sunday law.
* its decribes the latter rain and in fact this interpretation of the verses is the latter rain.

I have just sketched the general gist of these views without any details.

My first question on this issue is:

What can we consider to be the basic interpretation if these verses as Adventists?

An commentary on these 'views' would be very interesting.

Thanks.

Eugene Shubert

Piggler

Thanks for your response...

I had made an attempt to interpret Daniel 11:40-45 and for me it was straightforward, as I do believe in letting the bible explain itself. I came to a simple and maybe similar understanding as seen reflected in some of the links.

I am a believer in soaring higher than just the symbols and looking at static events in history and looking for possible deeper meaning and found many interesting things especially from the point of view of the concept of God 'marrying' his people and the 'divorce' and the second wedding AND 'tracing the seed' (Mat 13) from the garden to the final scenes presented in Rev 18=, that is ' 2 seeds Gods and Satans - both having blade and fruit at the end, and in seeing that - the true King of the North being God but the King of the North in Daniel as the imposter. And finally - how God see's this idea of Worshipper turning from God and his ways to follow the ways of another - the state, the world, i.e Satan as the 'ultimate abomination' pheewww - did you get any of that??

However.....

Your Daniel in a Nutshell was a beautiful, so simple a revelation. Its very sad also. I have looked at your 2 possible ending senario idea and its amazingly clear and ...simple.

Who are you? What is this forum all about? Is it still adventist? What is your purpose? What would you like to see happen?

We have just looked at your 'who am I' section briefly and we are still intrigued.

We will take a closer look at this forum and any info it shares. Being maths teacher I can see your maths interest reflected in the way the forum is set up - I had to chuckle a little...

You can't be typical as the messages are so succinct and simple.

We will talk again. Thanks again.

Piggler

Piggler · Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: follow through...

Daniel in a nutshell.

If there are two alternative endings in Daniel - one being the end of the world in the first century, lets assume that it happened that way.

What of the judgement? What of Daniel 8 and 9 and it's placing it as starting at the end of the 2300 days in 1844? Or is the judgement part of the alternative ending 2?

Piggler.

Eugene Shubert

Piggler

You can be very clear at times and then at others you appear to box fog very well . You do seem to unnecessarily complicate things. I do realise you are trying to be very concise.

Maintaining multiple threads must be quite a chore so thanks for sticking with this one and answering so promptly.

If the end of the world could have happened in the first century i.e during the phase of the 4th kingdom represented by iron in Dan 2 and the terrible beast of Dan 7 the 10 horns arose; Then are you saying that little horn of Dan 7 would have been a 'cancelled conclusion' ?

I guess what I am really trying to find out is, when in your opinion do the prophecies in Daniel switch to the alternative ending. I think you said it does in Dan 11 -12, but i cannot see that as the whole period of the little horn is after the first century and this occurs in Dan 7 and 8.

Eugene Shubert

Piggler,

Interpreting the book of Daniel is right up your alley because you indicated that you like to reason by analogy. There are only a few principles that you need in order to crack the book of Daniel wide open. The most important principle is Conditionalism. If the most straightforward reading of Daniel's prophecies contradicted the way history actually unfolded, would you simply bite the bullet and accept the reality of an imperfect fulfillment or would you favor forcing the text in an unnatural way—to make it conform to real history—and then adopt a strained interpretation of the prophecies?

You have already agreed that the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. It is also widely believed, and I'm asking you to accept, that only Medo-Persia, Greece and the fourfold division of the Greek kingdom are present in Daniel 8 and 11. The last scene of the vision of Daniel 8 is the Christ event followed by the immediate destruction of Jerusalem 3 & 1/2 years later. Logically then, Christ was to come at the latter end of the divided Greek kingdom.

Recall Daniel 9:25:

"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."

Now take a look at Isaiah 44:26-28 and Isaiah 45:13:

26 Confirming the word of His servant
And performing the purpose of His messengers
It is I who says of Jerusalem, 'She shall be inhabited!'
And of the cities of Judah, 'They shall be built.'
And I will raise up her ruins again.
27"It is I who says to the depth of the sea, 'Be dried up!'
And I will make your rivers dry.
28"It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd!
And he will perform all My desire '
And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,'
And of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid.'"

13 I have aroused him in righteousness
And I will make all his ways smooth;
He will build My city and will let My exiles go free,
Without any payment or reward," says the LORD of hosts.
—Isaiah 44:26-28; 45:13.

Take this as a postulate if you like but I said in The Ends of Time book that Daniel's prophecies required Cyrus to issue the decree to rebuild Jerusalem but it didn't happen that way. There was an 80-year delay because too many of God's people were happy to remain in Babylon. So instead of Christ coming at the latter end of the divided Greek kingdom, He came in the time of the Romans.

Piggler · Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:25 pm Post subject: Boxed fog dissipates...

Eugene,

Now your speaking my language.

I will look into your comments carefully.

I read your dream, and I am still pondering. I know of the feeling you felt, when you wondered if you would be dragged off as a trespasser attending an SDA church. Sometimes the organised church and church folk are not aware of the teaching Jesus taught, when he said there were others who were not with the disciples but who were still on the side of the Lord.

We are all on the same side, but at different levels with different experiences, with different things to share - and that the Lord is trying to talk to us all. Sometimes the 'church' wants us to all talk the same language to be accepted into the fold. Anyway.

Will touch base with you when I have finished.

Thanks - Piggler

Piggler

Ok.

I can see that the little horn comes from out of the 4 horns of "Greece".

I see what you mean when you say the little horn of Dan 8 is a "Greek Antichrist". ( The first of 2 little horns!)

You seem to be saying that that the vision of Dan 8 ends 'abruptly' ( I see what you mean!) at the destruction of Jerusalem. (very well explained!) (i.e no more text or events to follow that!)

You then seem to be saying that it concludes at the end of 2300 days with the end of time. ( one possible conclusion I think!).

I think your saying that Jesus could come according to the possible senario of Dan 8 in the time of the Greek Antichrist at end of the divided 4 kingdoms of Greece (shall stand up against the Prince of princes??)

I think your saying that Daniel 8 is a complete unit talking about a sequence of events culminating in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (that Jesus alluded to in Mat 24). Once the temple is destroyed, the Greek Antichrist would then be destroyed (broken without hand??) and then the appointed end of the world would happen after '2300 days??'

Question: What date would that 2300 days end at? With that possible senario I mean?

AND/OR you say: From Daniel's perspective in the first year of Darius the Mede, Christ's First Advent would have been 483 years after the expected decree from Cyrus, as prophesied by Isaiah, and would have taken us to the latter end of the divided Greek kingdom. This would have been "the first century." (how do you get other peoples quotes so neatly shaded into a post repy??)

Question: How do you get 483 years?

Piggler

You said: "would you simply bite the bullet and accept the reality of an imperfect fulfillment or would you favor forcing the text in an unnatural way—to make it conform to real history—and then adopt a strained interpretation of the prophecies? "

I think you mean interpreting Rome (I guess Papal Rome) as the power coming out of the 4 horns of the Greek kindom is a 'strained interpretation' that did not 'conform to history as it unfolded' naturally??

I think you mean that - even though, this apparently Greek Antichrist did not meet the 'Prince of princes' in History, it would have had Gods people 'responded differently'??

All the above sounds natural and very plausible.

However, I also think that the 'Roman Antichrist' sounds more likely as the antichrist of Daniel 8 in 'description' but we have to twist and turn to get that - definitely not smooth or natural BUT... it fits the pattern of Daniel 7 in that it mentions a little horn and that horn is definitely a Roman Antichrist.

One writer - Uriah Smith - seems to think that a Greek antichrist is out of the question here because it did not 'meet' the Prince of princes' historically. That too sounds very plausible in a not so smooth and natural way ... ( i'm the kind of teacher that really likes to explain things to my pupils in every way possible!!)

I think you would say ' but there are two little horns - don't you realise this?' (and yes I did not!) and I can see why for good reason you would say that.

Is this a small part of the 'new light' you have on Daniel? It goes against the norm in my circles - can you give me anymore on this?

In the back of my mind I am thinking - Why go down this road? Where does this thinking lead to? at least in what direction?

With my previous thinking I already came to the conclusion that the end of time will be dependant on the actions of Gods people after 1844????

Thanks Eugene in advance.

Piggler · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: in addition to the above re Dan 8

following on with the same thoughts expressed above:

Is it really true that in Dan 8, the Greek Antichrist is not the same as the Roman Antichrist in Dan 7? I am wondering, what serious implications this will leave me with as an SDA?

My query is:

The ram is described as in v4 to wax great

The He goat in v8 waxed very great

and the little horn v9 waxed exceedingly great

was this Greek Antichrist greater than the Goat and the Ram?

From what I have read this Greek Antichrist was not that great in the big picture compared to the Ram or Goat and there raises a doubt in my mind as to whether it is rightly interepreted as a 'different to the other little horn in Dan 7' can you clarify this for me?

Still open and genuinely enquiring - Piggler

Piggler · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:01 am Post subject: Still running with you!

I did a search on Antiochus on your forum and found a post in the JAIL section by:

gillespie9669
(surmises great evil)

Out of interest did you read that post and do you have a short response on that?

I see your argument and I see his.

Thanks Piggler

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: Re: Still running with you!

Piggler

Eugene,

I was looking for more detail in your reply but the 'Jail post' reference diverted your attention from the more mportant questions I asked in my last set of posts.

But anyway - me thinks according to the text in Daniel 8 this little horn appears to come from the Greek Kingdom out of one of the horns (possibly winds but no matter) and is described as waxing exceedingly great. So I must conclude that it would have i.e it must have, or would have.

I have looked over your document before but will read it carefully again - I am only encouraged by your statement 'Following this path to the end vindicates Adventism'. I like that - a "hopeful possiblity"

Talk soon Morpheous...I mean Eugene.

Piggler.