Phscs

Why would you start the ten kings with Alexander the great? There seems to be sufficent candidates to make the number ten when Antiochus IV steps into action:

1. Seleucus I Nicator (311-280)
2. Antiochus I Soter (280-261)
3. Antiochus II Theos (261-246)
4. Seleucus II Callinicus (246-226)
5. Seleucus III Ceraunus (226-223)
6. Antiochus III the Great (223-187)
7. Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175)

These are the first seven legal kings of the Seleucid empire.

Now we are left with three candidates for the trone, the illegal Helidorus who ruled a short time, plus the two legal sons of Seleucid III:

8. Heliodorus (175)
9. (minor son of Seleucus IV)
10. (Demetrius I)

If we now let Antiochus IV step in, he kills Heliodus and pushes away the two sons of his brother Seleucus IV. He first rules as a regent for his oldest nephew, then grabs the power for himself. The other son of Seleucus IV, Demetrius, was later king when Anticochus IV died:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/Demet1Syr.html

Seems this fits quite nice - ten kings after Alexander the great, where three are pushed aside by Antiochus IV. Demetrius did not become king until 162 BC, three years after Daniels book was finished. The author did not get this fact into his "prophesy".

regards

-phscs

Dean Anderson

You may not have made a dent in his beliefs and preconceptions, but the discussion has been useful for people like me who can learn a great deal from your refutations.

I, for one, have found your information about the book of Daniel both educational and interesting.

Thanks for providing it...

spin

Because he was the initiator of the Greek tradition which Seleucus followed


Demetrius was neither a king nor a presence at that time.

Dan 7 doesn't say that Antiochus IV, the little horn, plucked the three horns up, just that they were plucked up, putting it in the passive means that one doesn't have to blame Antiochus for the death of Seleucus IV (he had nothing to do with it), but Seleucus IV's death, the death of one of his minor sons and the death of Heliodorus were necessary for Antiochus IV, a younger brother of Seleucus IV, to get to the throne, for the throne was not "destined" for him, being himself a minor son.

The suggestion of including Demetrius in the analysis is interesting, but I think that the plucking up of the three horns deals with the deaths of the individuals.


spin

Phscs

Ah - but we're not discussing any greek tradition here, we're disussing Daniels book. And Daniel writes in ch.7:

It seems clear here that the kingdom mentioned comes *after* the kingdom of Alexander the Great (which is the third "beast"), and the ten kings are specifically ten kings of this kingdom. Then the first king must surely be the founder of the kingdom itself - i.e., Seleucus I?

He was one of two legitimate sons of Seleucus IV - he was a rightful heir while Antiochus IV was ruling - hence he was pushed aside.

He was therefore a "subdued" king just as Daniel writes. So was his (older?) brother, and Heliodorus who was king briefly until killed by Antiochus IV.

That makes 3 subdued "kings", and no need to put Alexander into a kingdom after his own. The fact that Demetrius became king in 162 BC was obviously unknown to the author of Daniel, since he stopped writing somewhere in 165/164.

regards

-phscs

JoeWallack

Lar More:
"I can show how the Book of Daniel is authentic and thus contain valid prophecies."

Lar More:
"I know there will be many responses after I post this that will say I've lost my mind and thats ok. I've done my job, I've told the truth as the Lord has shown me in His word. I have planted a seed of truth for all who are interested to read and discover,,, that is if they are open minded enough to seek."


JW:
Great, now I have to interpret your response to my questions concerning your interpretation of Lord Moldy Butt's (False diechotomy committing suicide)
interpretation of Christianity's interpretation of "Daniel's" interpretation. The reason I'm asking you to quantify what you consider the quality of your argument is because I find the subject of supposed prophecy fulfillment in the Past subjective:

1) Is supernatural prophecy even possible?

2) If figurative language is used then wouldn't the only thing objectively able to confirm prophecy fulfillment be the thing that made the prophecy fulfillment?

3) The value of supposed prophecy fulfillment should be proportional to the time elapsed since fulfillment.

4) Shouldn't the point of prophecy fulfillment be that it was recognized when it was fulfilled and not after?

5) Shouldn't the point of prophecy fulfillment be that it was recognized by the people that wrote it and maintained it and not by other people who branded the earlier people "Liars"? (This one is especially Ironic).

6) How do you rule out Natural explanations such as selecting and maintaining a prediction that was correct?

If your position is that your argument is based on "the Lord has shown me in His word.", the same "Lord", who by objective measurement has been hiding with the WMassD for 2,000 years, then I know what our difference is. On the other hand, if your position is that your argument is based on evidence persuasive in areas outside of religion, then I want to identify our differences considering:

1) You don't know Who "Daniel" was.

2) You don't know What "Daniel" was.

3) You don't know Where "Daniel" was written.

4) You don't know When "Daniel" was written.

5) You don't know How "Daniel" was written.

You also don't know exactly what "Daniel" originally wrote, what language it was written in, what was edited, and what was changed. All problems with 2,000 plus year old prophecy fulfillment.

I will go out on a branch here and Prophesy that you and I will have the following conversation:

JW:
Who wrote "Daniel".

Lar More:
"Daniel".

JW:
Who was "Daniel"

Lar More:
The person who wrote "Daniel".

If correct this will give me one more prophecy than John the Baptist, whom Jesus described as the greatest prophet of all time, had in his entire career.




Joseph

spin

The tradition is that of the kingly descent. First, Alexander conquered the known world, then his general Seleucus took over the line. I'm not talking about a literary tradition. The book of Daniel is well of the historical events of the near past, as his crypto-history in ch.11 clearly demonstrates.

The fourth beast repesents Macedonia. There's nothing strange in the idea that the first horn should be the first Macedonian to express the power of the beast, ie Alexander.

On Demetrius (who would become Demetrius I):
The text doesn't say "pushed aside", but "plucked up by the roots" (7:8). It's very hard to see that as anything else other than accomodation of the little horn by the deaths of the three horns.

The verb in 7:24 means "to make low".

Antiochus IV was the brother of Seleucus IV. Heliodorus, apparently unrelated, attempted to use a son of Seleucus IV as a means to control power, the took direct control. Demetrius, another son of Seleucus, didn't come into the events at all.

Naaa. Alexander was the initiator of the fourth kingdom, not the sole figure of a separate kingdom. You are confusing the Medes and the Persians, yet it is the Medes alone that Isaiah turns to to overthrow Babylon in 13:17, as does Jeremiah 51:11. The Jewish writers didn't confuse them. The Medes are the second kingdom represented by the bear, as the Medes were from the mountains. The winged panther is Persia: you can see reliefs of the winged panthers in a procession which follows the steps leading up to the terrace at Persepolis. The fourth beast is clearly like an elephant, the creature brought back from Gaugamela by Alexander and employed by both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, though only the Seleucids did so in Palestine from what I can understand. (The Ptolemies had no access to Indian elephants and had to obtain African elephants which they had trained by Indians.)

I don't agree for reasons already stated, but this difference of ours is ultimately quite minor for the purposes of the general accuracy of Daniel.


spin

Phscs

Weeeell, there was Ptolemy, Seleucus, and a couple of others - 4 kings in four different kingdoms. One kingdom split in four - and that split was not planned by Alexander.

It is completely unreasonable to place Alexander as first king in a new kingdom arising more than ten years after his death. Would you place him first i the line of the Ptolemies in Egypt as well?

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

Who do you place as the Leopard?

The text is not precise enough to decide if the author means killed or pushed aside. During the reign of Antiochus IV the facts are that 3 candidate kings were pushed aside, Herodorus - since he actually grabbed the throne, and (at least) two sons of Seleucus.


He lost a kingdom due to Antiochus IV - isnt that more or less what Daniel says about the three last horns out of ten?

No, I'm well aware that the Mede kingdom existed in this timeframe. However, it was overtaken by persia in 550 BC, before Babylon itself fell to Persia. Besides, Daniels hints that the leopard is divided into 4 parts (4 wings, 4 heads), and this makes no sense if applied to persia - which was not divided into 4 parts.

Furthermore, the terrible 4th beast has 10 horns=kings, and this cannot possibly refer to Alexanders own kingdom, which actually only had 1 king before it was divided up.

regards

-phscs

spin

Sorry, Phscs, you're becoming repetitive and you obviously haven't read what I wrote, as your questions are already answered.


spin

Phscs

Not sure if you actually have answered my new questions.

1) Alexanders kingdom was divided into 4 parts, relevant to Daniel are Egypt (ptolemies), and Syria (Seleucids)

You consider Alexander king 1 in the Seleucid kingdom - is he then also the first king among the ptolemies in Egypt? Is is not simply unnatural to take him into the lines of 4 different kingdoms? Was not the kingdom of Syria founded by Seleucus more than ALexander, just as the kingdom of Egypt was founded by Ptolemy? None of these were apppointed "kings" by Alexander.

2) There is a pretty strong emphasiz on the third beast being divided into 4 parts (4 wings and 4 heads) - this never happened to Persia, but it did happen to Alexanders great kingdom.

Why not then consider beast 3 as Makedonia under Alexander the great? Then out of this comes another, terrible kingdom, with ten kings, perfectly one of the four kingdoms after Alexanders.

Do you consider the 4 wings/head on the third animal a pure coincidence, or can you somehow relate that number to Persia?

I am of course interested in correcting these points if I have misunderstood them

regards

-phscs

spin

Our perspective is Daniel, circa 164 BCE. The writer knows of the first Macedonian and those which followed him as seen from the Jerusalem view point. Ch.8's he-goat is (Macedonian) Greece. Its one horn was Alexander, but, when it was broken, "four conspicuous horns sprouted toward the four winds of heaven. From one of them emerged a small horn." The four horns were inheritors of Alexander's legacy.

I guess Ezekiel's vision influenced by the beast with four faces and four wings was about the diadochi as well?? Ezekiel was writing from reports of Babylon, a Babylon which incidentally became the capital of the Persian empire.

I wish you'd make up your mind. Either the third beast for you is Alexander or it's the diadochi. You can't flip-flop from one to the other when it suits you. If it's Alexander then the fourness of it is irrelevant. If it's the diadochi, then Alexander is irrelevant. The simple fact is that you are trying to make something out of the four wings and four faces that is not there.

Alexander was responsible for bringing the elephant (the beast with tusks, which was exceedingly strong and which crushed things with its feet) to the west from India. The fourth beast is the elephant.

The tetramorph has a long heritage. I've already noted the fact that they were found in Babylon and mentioned by Ezekiel. I'm sure you'll agree that this was before the diadochi existed, though there were Jews in Babylon while it was under the control of the Persians, who could easily have associated the Persians with the tetramorphs. You'll find winged creatures at Persepolis as I've already mentioned.


spin