Phscs

Exactly - one kingdom divided in four. Seems quite clear - and we agree.

Nope, but we already know and agree that Alexanders kingdom was divided in four parts. The it seems pretty clear that some animal with 4 *something* on it refers to the kingdom being divided into four.

Can you tell me why this pretty obvious symbolism should be totally overlooked? After the mentioning of this beast with 4 *somehting* on it, we get our Seleucid kingdom with its 10 first kings and king candidates.

Whats wrong in this sequence? One powerful leopard, divided into 4, one of the four becomes Seleucid with its 10 kings?

I fail to see why this is not the simplest answer to the "beast puzzle".

I dont flip. I've presented the third beast, the leopard, as Makedonia under Alexander the great from my first post onward.

Why do you pretend I've said otherwise?

Forgive me, but I cannot remember Daniel mentioning an elephant anywhere. What chapter is that in?

Whatever is at Persepolis is hardly relevant for a jew living around 165 BC in Palestine. How do you know this jew ever went anywhere outside his birth nation? Maybe he simply found Ezekiels text and decided to use something like that as a "picture" of Alexander the Greats empire ending up in four parts?

Is then your reason for keeping the leopard as Persia the fact that there are four-winged creatures in Persia? An interesting option, but that forces you to squeeze in Medes among the beasts, as well as put Alexander together with the Seleucians.

Why not put Alexander together with the Ptolomies? Or the two other nations?

And why put Alexander together with anyone? Does not the most powerful conquerer of all time deserve his own "beast" in this sequence?

Is it reasonable to reduce Alexander the Great to merely one of ten syrian kings? And at the same time allow the Medes - unknown to most people - have their own "beast"?

regards

-phscs

spin

Certainly not: one beast, four horns.

This is not a response to what I'd said. It is merely a repetition of your assumption about how the third beast must represent your opinion.

If it had any uniqueness about it, you might have something to think about, but there's nothing unique about it, as Ezekiel demonstrates, as the statuary of Babylon and Persepolis demonstrates.

You're repeating without adding anything once again. I've already said I don't agree with this, that Alexander was the initiator of the Greek control over the east. You simply want to hack him off and place him as a separate entity from the Greek kingdom which followed him in Syria.

Either it's Alexander or it's the diadochi. If it's the diadochi, then one of them is Seleuchus I and then your already in your fourth kingdom.

It doesn't deal as well as the status quo answer.

To me you do.

So it's not the four kingdoms anymore... flip-flop.

I'm not pretending. Either we misunderstand each other or you're flip-flopping apparently subconsciously.

The fourth beast with the big "teeth" $N (the word also means "ivory"), which is huge and powerful and crushes with its feet.


There was communication between the Jews in Mesopotamia and Judea.

He wouldn't need to.

And how did it get into Ezekiel?

Wishful.

Is it because you are kow-towing to Christianizing interpretation that you must unite the Medes and the Persians? Did you know that Xerxes I was the first Persian king to call himself king of the Persians and the Medes?

And I gather you wouldn't call Seleucus I a successor to Alexander, to Alexander's efforts, though he was a Macedonian like Alexander. I gather the writer of Dan 8 only apparently put Alexander with not only the diadochi but also with Antiochus IV.

Because in 164 BCE the Seleucids had control of Judea as heirs to Alexander, not the Ptolemies.

Why did the writer of Dan 8 make Alexander only one horn on the head of the he-goat and not a separate animal?

In kinglists you get greater and lesser kings. There are three insignificant kings between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus who are in the kinglists.

Remember he's just a single horn in Dan 8.

Most people like whom? It's clear that Jewish writers have a different perspective from you, given the citations I've already supplied from Isaiah and Jeremiah.


spin

gregor2

Having been away from the forum for a week, it's alway nice to see a thread like this.

First, I get to marvel at the vast range of knowledge on ANE that posters have (thanks spin, Toto, Amaleq, and others)

Second, you always get the chance to see Larmore fire off some hilarious drivel like he used to about his YEC leaning, the validity of a world-wide flood, or the belief in an ark with 800,000 species.

badger3k

Then you'll love WILLOWTREE and his threads on the Flood and Noah.

Phscs

I'm not sure where the apparent confusion comes from here, but let me make clear how I interpret Daniels chapter 7

Lion (Babylon), Bear with 3 ribs (Persia, ribs are Media, Lydia and Babylon), Leopard with 4 ... (kingdom of Alexander the Great about to be divided into 4), "terrible beast" (Seleucid empire - one of the 4 new kingdoms).

There is no "Media" beast, nor any Persia-Media combination.

Its not my opinion - Jerusalem was ruled by a sequence of 4 kingdoms, Babylon, Persia, Alex the Great, and Seleucids (fighting a lot with Ptolemies in Egypt).

This is the sequence seen from Jerusalem, and it fits quite nice with the sequence of beasts. Since we agree that the sequence starts with the babylonians, and ends with the seleucids, why not make the two "inner" animals in the sequence the two remaining ruling kingdoms?

ALexander the Great was (the only) ruler over the greatest kingdom this world has ever seen. Why should Daniel reduce his standing to one of ten syrian kings? Was Alexander the Great merely some syrian king (after seeing Oliver Stones movie one might wonder). And what about the three other kingdoms which arose from his great kingdom? Does not Alexander have an equal share in each of those?

The third animal in ch7 is Alexanders kingdom, the fourth is one of the diadochi - Syria. Animal 2 is persia, animal one is Babylon.

Where and how have I "flip-flopped"? Babylon, Persia, ALex the Great, Syria (one of the four diadochi). I have presented this sequence several times, its written up on the web-page I've made, and I've defended this sequence in several posts already.

What "flip-flop" are you referring to?

I have never united the Persians and the Medes. Media was conquered by Persia in 550 BC.


Interesting opinion - which I dont share. Alexanders kingdom spinned of 4 others - his was much greater than any of these, and he was considered far more than any of the kings that followed.

I recall a statement by Cæsar in Egypt; when seeing a memorial (or grave?) of Alexander the great - the egyptians asked if he wanted to see the graves of the Ptolemies. He replied "I came to see a king, not a row of corpses". I suspect the seleucid kings were not considered equal to Alexander the Great either.

I find it completely irrational not to give the kingdom of Alexander the Great its own beast in the sequence of animals put up by Daniel. By making animal 3 into persia, you are reducing the greatest king this world has seen into one of ten syrian kings.

And the Ptolemies had control of Egypt - also as "heirs to Alexander".

What exactly is the problem with the Goat? The Goat with one horn is Alexander the Great, when this single horn is broken, 4 others come up just as we expect? This seems pretty clear and straightforward. The only unclear part here might be the two horns of the ram.

regards

-phscs

spin

Oh, so, the third beast isn't the "4 new kingdoms" yet, eh? You're arguing that it has four wings and faces because it represents the "4 new kingdoms" yet it isn't the four at all, just Alexander.

And what did Lydia have to do with Persia??

That is one of your problems.

Well, bugger me. There I was all the time thinking like the evidence indicates that the Ptolemies held Jerusalem and administrated it from circa 300 to 200 BCE. Despite a tradition which Josephus cites, there is no evidence that Alexander ever worried about the little mountain city.

Certainly not. Read the cute little tradition in Josephus about the tax collector Joseph Tobiad, who made himself wealthy extorting taxes for the Ptolemies from Jerusalem.

Ask the writer of ch.8.

More repetition without adding anything.

Perhaps I misunderstood the stuff about the third beast having four thises and thats.

Four kingdoms or Alexander. Four kingdoms or Alexander. Four kingdoms or Alexander.

OK. This is new. Now I know, unlike the Jews, you basically ignore them, though they were responsible for the destruction of Assyria.

Given your rationality, I guess that's a compliment. Still, you have ignored Dan 8.

Well, whoopee-do! We were talking about a Jerusalem-centric world view and the Ptolemies in Egypt are irrelevant.

While you are squeamish with the notion of putting Alexander with the Seleucids in ch7 as the fourth beast, you have no problem with the writer happily putting them together in ch.8 -- or is the little horn in 8:9-10 not Antiochus IV?


spin

Phscs

It seems communication is difficult these days.

The third beast in ch7, the leopard, is the empire of Alexander the great, and only him.

Was that clear enough?

The 4 *something* on this beast simply indicates that this kingdom will be split into four *later*.

Was that clear enough?

When beast 3 is split into 4 new kingdoms, one of these 4 new kingdoms (the diadochi) becomes the 4th and last beast - the seleucid kingdom of Syria.

I apologize if I write to unclear for you to understand - english is not my first language.

And what is the "problem"? Lydia was conquered by Persia in 547 BC, whats the problem about that?

I did actually comment "fighting a lot with Ptolemies of Egypt". I presumed this was clear enough to be understood that Palestine in between was some of what they fought about. Sometimes Egypt ruled there, sometimes the seleucids (like under Antiochus IV).

Perhaps a better continuation of the debate is for you to tell us what you think what animal 2 is, and why this deserve to be one of 4 animals in total - while Alexander the greats kingdom doesnt deserve its own animal/beast at all?

regards

-pshcs

spin

Yes. Wrong, but clear. Alexander was the first of the Macedonian kings to rule over the east and for some unaccountable reason you want his conquest-fest of ten years to be separate from the Macedonian kings who followed him.

Yes. But this optative notion seems humorous at best.

The text doesn't allow you to make such an unfounded conjecture.

This I understood, but I had no problem with the language, only with the content.

A lot of realms were conquered by Persia. Why should you arbitrarily pick on Lydia??

What fighting? Ptolemy Soter took control of Jerusalem around 300 BCE and the Ptolemies held it until it was lost through the battle of Paneas against Antiochus III around 200 BCE.

The Ptolemies from circa 300 to 200 BCE. It's not a matter of "sometimes". Your original statement was simply inappropriate.

Let's recap:

Phscs: I have never united the Persians and the Medes.

Phscs: chapter 7 mentions 4 beasts, Lion (Babylon), Bear (Persia-media), Lepoard (Makedonia under Alexander), "terrible beast" = Seleucid empire.

Sometimes Media is united with the Persians, sometimes not, depending on the wind.

I have already stated that the second animal represented the Medes and shown that the Jews saw the Medes as a separate group, as indicated by Isaiah (13:17) and Jeremiah (51:11), both of which see Media to be responsible for the coming downfall of Babylon. The Medes had already brought about the downfall of Assyria. I see no reason to ignore the Medes.


spin

Phscs

The reasoning is that the sequence of kingdoms ruling Palestine is Babylon, Persia, and then Alexander the Great - all these before the diadochi started dividing up Alexanders empire.

I fail to see how this is "unaccountable reasoning".

Why not? There are several examples of new objects growing out of existing ones in the book of Daniel - so there is certainly precedence for such an interpretation.

Your objections are not very convincing here.

How am I "picking" on Lydia? I've suggested that the three "ribs" in the bears mouth in ch7 is Media, Lydia and Babylon - all three "eaten" by Persia.

But I guess thats also "unaccountable reasoning"?

And "battle" is not fighting?

I apologise for writing wrong here - I was writing to fast . As I believe I've commented above - the bear is persia, and the three ribs may represent three of the kingdoms Cyrus conquered, Media, Lydia and Babylon.

Again, Daniel using parts of an animal to symbolize other kingdoms related to this.

I see.

Babylon was conquered in 539 BC, and Media was conquered in 550 BC, eleven years before this.

So in your - "reasonable" - view is that Daniel has a sequence starting with Babylon, then followed by a kingdom which didnt exist when Babylon fell?

I believe you mentioned earlier that Daniel contained errors(?). Do you consider his sequence here an error? It does seem rather silly of Daniel to follow Babylon with a non-existing kingdom, but perhaps this can be used as part of arguing against the non-existing "Darius the Mede"?

However, this error (placing a non-existing Media after Babylon) is not really Daniels error, but yours. Is it fair to put an error into the book of Daniel this way?

regards

-phscs

Boro Nut

Apockalupsis? Oh Shit!! For God's sake don't tell me there is going to be more than one Apockalups.

Boro Nut