Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless
The following is a good summary of Daniel, which also lists many problems with both the early-authorship view and the attempts by Christians to fit the "prophecy" to Jesus:
Revealing Daniel |
there is nothing novel in this article. these issues are typical of critical misinterpretations and all of these issues have been dealt with in biblical scholarship. i do not know the author's name so i will use the abbreviation, HS for hundredth sheep.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
A legendary figure by the name of Daniel is mentioned in the Old Testament in Ezekiel 14:14,20 and 28:3. However, since the spelling of the name of this Daniel differs from that of the book of Daniel, and considering that this Daniel is mentioned in the company of such august figures as Job and Noah, most scholars suspect that Ezekiel was referring to a mythical Canaanite hero by the name of Danel, known to us through the Ras-Shamra texts found at Ugarit in Northern Syria.
|
it doesn't take the author long to delve into the usual misconceptions. the spelling being different is not a problem in identifying ezekiel's daniel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Outside of of the book of Daniel itself, no other early references to a Daniel, a Jew in the Babylonian court, exist.
|
not that this is a problem
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
An analysis of intertestamental Jewish literature will reveal that no references to the book of Daniel can be reliably dated prior to the Maccabean rebellion, a fact that significantly affects the debate surrounding the date of the Book..
|
the fact that there are no references to daniel that are prior to the maccabean period is not a problem for an earlier date of the book
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Although the book itself claims to be the record of Daniel in Babylon, internal and external evidence reveals that it was written in Jerusalem about the year 164 BCE.
|
completely question begging. the author does nothing to show this is conclusively. i'm not saying the book was not written then, i am saying that is one christian interpretation of when the book was written.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
A question naturally arises as to how many authors the book of Daniel actually had.
|
there is nothing in the book of daniel that should prompt such a question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Since all manuscripts had to be written and copied by hand, it was not unusual for a book to undergo later expansion and editing, a process all but impossible in the age of the printing press.
|
yet we know when these instances of "expansion and editing" do not alter the actual intent or meaning of the original text. while some of these changes did take place, they were usually to expound on the text or to put the text in the contemporaneous vernacular of the copyist, such as the masoretic margin notes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
That point is 164 BCE. After this point, Daniel predicts further altercations between Antiochus and Ptolemey (the Egyptian king) which never took place. Common sense thus tells us that the book was written just before the death of Antiochus, during a severe persecution of the Jewish people.
|
which verses? 8:9? 11:15? additionally, there were altercations between antiochus and ptolemy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
How well Daniel succeeded in this endeavor is a matter of speculation. Although he influenced those of an apocalytpic bent (particulary the Essene community), his work was largely ignored by the mainstream Judaism of his time.
|
this cannot be said with certainty. what can be said is that it appears that way at this time. even so, the author fails to define what he means by "influence". daniel is quoted in the NT. therefore, it stands to reason that people were aware of his work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
It did eventually find a niche in the Jewish canon, but was placed in the section called the Writings. It was not accorded the status of a prophetic book.
|
...by some people. other people do consider the book to be prophectic and have perfectly valid reasons for such a belief.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The book opens by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, and carried the king into Babylon along with some of the temple treasures. In fact, the chronology of the Exile in II Kings 24 places the first siege in the first year of the reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim's son, some eight years later than Daniel's chronology.
|
daniel and the author of kings are talking about two different events.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The book of Jeremiah agrees with this date, but fails to mention any earlier siege during the reign of Jehoiakim.
|
again, failure of mention by jeremiah does not mean it didn't happen. it might mean that jeremiah merely chose not to record it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
In fact, in Jeremiah 36:9, we find Jehoiakim in Jerusalem in his fifth year, two years after the time that Daniel claims he was carried away to Babylon.
|
daniel 1:1 does not claim jehoiakim was carried away to babylon. daniel's story starts when
daniel was carried away.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The Babylonian records indicate that Nebuchadnezzar made Judah a vassal state in about 603 BCE, when Jehioakim was still king, but do not record a capture of Jerusalem at that time.
|
the incident (not capture) in jerusalem had already occurred, most likely in 605bc when babylonian forces were in palestine engaged in a conflict with the egyptians. the official status of vassalage most likely occurred in 604bc or 603bc, after nebuchadnezzar took the throne.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
At the time that Daniel claimed that Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in a siege against Jerusalem, the Babylonian records indicate that he was occupied with a war against Necho, king of Egypt (Jeremiah 46:2), and then returned home to Babylon to succeed his father as king.
|
yes, babylonian forces were in palestine during the alleged events thus lending credence to what daniel says in chapter 1.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
II Chronicles 36 claims that Jehoiakim was indeed carried away to Babylon, although this fact is not mentioned in any other Biblical account (in fact, it seems to contradict Jeremiah),
|
in what way does it "seem" to contradict jeremiah? 46:2 is pretty short and doesn't seem to say anything that overtly contradicts 2 chron 36.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
nor does it square with the Babylonian account of the wars of Nebuchadnezzar.
|
once again, no specifics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Being a true Bible believer, Daniel obviously decided that both accounts must be true, and combined them to create a third account, one which is incompatible with both Kings and Chronicles.
|
daniel's account neither contradicts the other two nor has the author shown that it does.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Another possibility is that Daniel misread II Kings 24:1, and assumed that the three years of vassalage referred to the third year of Jehoiakim.
|
i'm not sure where the author gets this idea from. if the author is referring to the alleged differences in jehoiakim's years of rule, that can be explained by the differences in hebrew and babylonian accession year reckoning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Daniel records that the Babylonian Empire fell to a certain king by the name of Darius, a Mede. (5:31, 9:1). Neither the Babylonian nor the Persian histories record such a person.
|
this is misleading. extrabiblical records might indeed refer to this person, but by a different name.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Herodotus, who wrote his history about 440 BCE, records that Babylon fell to the Persian army, under the control of King Cyrus. Darius the Mede is never mentioned. In fact, the Median kingdom was conquered and assimilated by Cyrus as early as 550 BCE, when he defeated Astyages, king of Media.
|
there are several theories as to who darius the mede is. silence on the part of extrabiblical sources is not a problem in the identity of darius the mede, as was the case for pontius pilate or belteshazzar.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
There is good evidence that the person that Daniel imagined to be Darius the Mede was in fact Darius I Hystaspes, the king of Persia from 521 to 485 BCE.
|
that's one theory
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Recognizing the problem, several Bible scholars have tried to find solutions. The most popular states that Darius the Mede was Gubaru (or Gobyras), governor of Babylon during the reign of Cyrus. The problem with this approach (quite aside from the fact that there is no historical reason to make such a connection) is that Darius is often addressed as "king" (Daniel 6:6, note the royal appelation "live forever"), and was said to have enacted laws throughout the whole kingdom (Daniel 6:8-9). Neither can be said to be true of a mere governor. Further, Gobyras was a Babylonian, not a Mede.
|
1. i'm not sure it's accurate to say that gubaru is the most common theory for darius
2. the word used for king, "klm", does not always exclusively refer to king. see post #21
3. i have not seen any sources that assign gubaru's nationality as babylonian. i have seen where he is either median or persian. other sources say his nationality is unknown
4. the word used for kingdom, "wklm", does not necessarily imply all of babylonia. it could very well mean the area gubaru was in charge of.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The Persian kingdom was on occasion called the kingdom of the Medes and Persians (see Esther 1:19 and I Maccabees 1:1 for example), but this was no doubt due to the fact that Persia had at one time been a vassal state of Media.
|
i think it has more to do with the fact that they formed an important alliance for the purposes of overthrowing the neo-babylonian empire.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Since Daniel supposedly wrote during the reign of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1), this would then make him the first Persian king of Daniel 11:2. Cyrus defeated Babylon in 536 BCE. Alexander took the kingdom from the last Persian king in 333 BCE. This gives us 203 years for the Persian reign. Split among four kings, we get an average of about 51 years each, which is somewhat excessive. The truth of the matter is that there were nine Persian kings from Cyrus to Alexander.
|
1. the author states no definitive reason why cyrus must be the first king mentioned by daniel.
2. daniel does not state that "only" 4 more kings will arise. he is merely referring to 4 that will be king, apparently ones that have some importance to his narrative.
3. the author of the article has not read the passage carefully. daniel states the 4th king will stir up his people against greece. notice that the 4th king in the list provided by the author is xerxes who did try to conquer greece. furthermore, daniel specifies no time period in between that event and the rise of alexander.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The identity of these three remaining kingdoms is a matter of no small debate. For reasons that will become clear when the visions are examined, the best interpretation is that the silver kingdom is Media, the bronze is Persia, and the iron is Greece.
|
i have not seen any christian sources that interpret daniel's vision in this way. usually, it is babylon, medo-persian alliance, greece and then rome.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
In order to extend the reach of this, and the other visions, futurists insist that the second empire is the combined Medo-Persian empire, the third is Greece, and the fourth is Rome. The fourth empire will never really be conquered, but will be divided until the end of time, when a revived and reunited Roman empire challenges God for control of the Cosmos, and ushers in the final conflict. There are several problems with this interpretation. First, as we shall see, Daniel refers indirectly to this dream during his interpretation of the other three visions. The remaining visions can definitely be shown to culminate in the Greek empire, and Antiochus specifically.
|
while it is true that the visions are not mutually exclusive, they do not necessarily have to outline the same events.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Second, Daniel states that the second empire would be inferior to the first (2:39). At its height, the Persian empire encompassed more than three times as much real estate as the Babylonian empire, and held power for more than two hundred years, almost a century longer than the Neo-Babylonian empire. It is difficult to see how Persia could be said to be "inferior" to Babylonia.
|
the difficulty arises when excluding the possibility that daniel is referring to the spiritual and moral decline, not material decline.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The Turkish Ottoman empire began a period of rapid expansion in the thirteenth century CE, and eventually controlled much of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Asia minor and parts of Northern Africa. The Ottomans held control of Palestine, and its capital Jerusalem for several centuries (prompting the Catholic Church to enter into a series of disastrous wars - the Crusades). At its height, the Ottoman Empire easily rivalled any of the ancient empires in wealth, size and influence. It seems strange that Daniel's prophetic vision would completely miss this extremely important era of history.
|
as with the previous point, daniel may be referring to history in a spiritual way as opposed to a physical way. when the roman empire came along, the new convenant was established. this interpretation coincides with the seventy weeks prophecy and the prophecies in the book of revelation in that there is a new spiritual age or dispensation. the prophets seemed to focus on the hebrews' sins and their consequences. the old covenant had run it's course, as reflected in daniel and other OT prophetic books. with the advent of the new covenant and the roman empire, a new paradigm is set up to last until the events daniel mentioned in 2:44. notice in verses 41-43, daniel is using imagery to refer to spiritual issues.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
In order to strengthen their case, futurists will often point out that the statue had two iron legs, which, they contend, represent a division of the empire. Since Greece was divided four ways (11:4), a two-fold division would better fit the split of the Roman empire into the Eastern and Western factions. While this interpretation is compelling, it is important to note that Daniel himself never attached any significance to the two legs, and it seems rash to place words in the author's mouth.
|
it's not placing words in daniel's mouth to make such an interpretation. since daniel is using imagery, that interpretation is merely trying to make sense of the imagery.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Instead, Daniel refers to the ten toes as representative of a division (note also that he does not attach any significance to the number ten - he may simply have intended it to mean "many").
|
i don't see that the toes are a division. the mix of clay and iron are the division. it is a spiritual metaphor. verse 42 says "partly strong and partly fragile". the emphasis is on the mix, not the toes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
In either case, Daniel's statement that Babylon was ruled by a Mede is incorrect. As already noted, the Medes lost political power to Cyrus in 550 BCE, and while the combined kingdom was still occasionally referred to as the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians (Cyrus himself was partly of Median descent, although his allegiance remained with the Persians), it was the Persians who exercised complete control (starting with Darius I, all the Persian kings were of pure Persian blood).
|
but cyrus had medes in important positions throughout his military and it was a military alliance between persia and media that helped to overthrow the babylonians. therefore, we can't say at this time that babylon was not ruled by a mede or medes. babylon was at least partly ruled by medes or a mede.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The second beast is probably Media (or, possibly, Lydia). The symbolism of the three ribs has been a matter of much speculation, but the meaning remains obscure.
|
close. medo-persia
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The third beast is Persia. The four wings and four heads may represent the four directions of expansion, or, more likely, they are a reference to the four Persian kings that Daniel mistakenly thought ruled Persia from Babylon to Greece (11:2).
|
wrong. greece.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The fourth beast is Greece, or, more specifically, the Seleucid empire that resulted from the breakup of Alexander's kingdom. The ten kings are somewhat obscure. They may represent the seven kings of the Seleucid dynasty (Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II, Seleucus III, Antiochus III and Seleucus IV) that led up to Antiochus IV, plus Alexander and two members of the Greek ruling class whom Antiochus overtook to become king (Demetrius and Heliodorus). The latter two, along with Seleucus IV, were involved in a conspiracy to control the Greek throne. This conspiracy was foiled by Antiochus, who then secured the throne for himself (11:21).
|
the fourth beast is rome. the parallels between chapters 2, 7, and 11 should be pretty obvious by now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Since there was no time in the history of Rome that could be applied to the "ten horns", futurists see in this a prophecy of the end-times, when the Antichrist will arise out of a ten-nation confederation, composed of nations from the former Roman empire. The "little horn" of Daniel's vision is then taken to be a reference to the Antichrist.
|
the ten horns could mean the comprehensive nature of the roman empire. ancient hebrews often used the numbers 10 or 40 to represent "much" or "great", much like we might say "a million". we don't mean one million literally, but figuratively.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
However, as we shall see, Daniel describes the "little horn" with terminology that he elsewhere applies to Antiochus.
|
but that doesn't necessarily imply that he is referring to the same person. more like the two have similarities.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
In other words, the phrase simply refers to a human, as the phrase "son of man" is used to indicate a human in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:1, for example). As the angel explains, this man represents the "saints of the Most High" (7:22, 7:27),
|
"represents" does not necessarily mean "is".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
in other words, the faithful Jews who refused Antiochus' hellenization policies. These saints would rule in the theocratic kingdom, which God himself would institute following the death of the fourth beast, Greece (7:27).
|
not quite. see above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The horns on the Ram, the angel Gabriel explains, are the kings of Media and Persia (8:20). The larger horn, which came up later, obviously represents Persia. In this, Daniel is partly correct. The Persians did indeed rise up and overthrow their Median overlords, but his timing is off. Daniel thought that Media conquered Babylon (5:30-31), and was then overthrown by Persia. In fact, as we have seen, Media had been subjugated by Persia at least fourteen years before Cyrus captured Babylon.
|
the issue of 5:30, 31 has already been discussed. therefore, there is no conflict with chapter 8.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
As in the previous vision, a time is given during which the temple will be defiled (8:13). This time, it is said to be 2,300 "evenings and mornings", a reference to the daily sacrifices. In other words, 1,150 days, or three years and two months. It is not clear why this period differes from the previous three and a half years.
|
if the author is referring to 7:25, that does not necessarily mean three and a half years.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
This dream presents something of a problem for futurists. This time, there can be no denying that the focus of the vision is Greece, and Antiochus in particular. As we have seen, futurists insist that the fourth kingdom is Rome, and that the "little horn" of the previous vision is the Antichrist, who will arise from a revived Roman empire. However, Daniel uses very similar imagery in both visions, even to the point of referring to the focus of each vision as a "little horn" (7:8 and 8:9). A further problem is created by the fact that Daniel specifically states that this vision relates to the end of time (8:17, 8:19 and 8:23), and that Antiochus would be slain by supernatural means (8:25).
|
the author is misreading the passage. daniel does not say "supernatural means". he says "not by human power" or "not by human hands". the fulfillment is in the fact that he died of illness, not by human hands.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The usual response is to treat this vision as a "type" of the Last Days, and Antiochus as a "forerunner" of Antichrist. It hardly needs to be stated that there is no textual reason for arriving at such a conclusion. The only possible reason is to try and preserve the status of Daniel as a prophet, for, should it be admitted that Antiochus is indeed the sole focus of this and the other visions, it follows that Daniel's prophecies were not fulfilled.
|
daniel, like other prophets, employs double meaning. it is a viable interpretation to say that he is using antiochus as a springboard for prophecy of the antichrist or other antichrists.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
In this section, the author attempts to put a date to the Last Days. Not surprisingly, when closely examined, this date turns out to be close to the author's own time, that of the late second century BCE.
|
not so. the critical position states that daniel is recording events in the maccabean period, but not those of the last days. other positions maintain that he is recording future, end times.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The key to the vision is verse 2, Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years servitude to Babylon. The problem was that the Exile did not last seventy years. The mass deportation of Jews from Judea, following Nebuchadnezzar's second siege of Jerusalem (II Kings 25:11) is reliably dated to 587 BCE.
|
but the deportation had started prior to that. jehoiakim's third year, daniel 1:1, would have been 605bc. so the first group leave in 605bc and the jews are released from bondage by cyrus around 535bc. that's 70 years.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
From another point of view, the Exile never ended at all. Although the Jews were allowed to return home when Cyrus took Babylon, they remained under Persian rule for the next two centuries. Following the Persians, Palestine was variously controlled by either the Ptolemaic or the Seleucid Greeks.
|
what was prophecied in jeremiah regarding the exile was fulfilled. when the 70 years were over, the jews were released returned thus completing the fulfillment. the prophecy didn't state anything regarding being under persian rule in their homeland.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
In time-honored fashion, Daniel re-interprets Jeremiah's seventy years to be seventy "weeks" of years (the Hebrew word translated "week" is the same word for "seven"). This then extends the reach of Jeremiah's prophecy to 490 years, during which period Daniel expected the Jews to make full restitution for their sins (9:24), and for God to institute his theocracy.
|
there are multiple ways to interpret the 70 weeks prophecy, but there is no reason to think that daniel is "reinterpreting" jeremiah's prophecy regarding captivity. the two do refer to some of the same events depending on the interpretation, but they have different agendas.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Daniel divides these 490 years into three periods - seven "weeks" (49 years), sixty-two "weeks" (434 years) and one "week" (7 years). Verse 25 seems to indicate that the first two periods would each culminate in an "Anointed One" (the literal meaning of the word translated "Messiah"). When one reads this passage from a Christian perspective, it is easy to make the mistake that there can be only one Messiah, and that it must be Jesus. In fact, for an ancient Jew, the word simply indicated a person anointed to perform a priestly or royal function. Thus, anyone who fulfilled these functions would be called "Messiah".
|
again, the double meaning is employed. it is viable that daniel is talking about a spiritual messiah, i.e. Jesus.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The activities of the "prince that shall come" (9:26) perfectly match the deeds of Antiochus, and we may confidently state that Daniel thus intended his seventy weeks to end in 164 BCE.
|
they do not exactly match; that the problem. i have addressed these issues in other posts, such as #63
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
The second chapter of Nehemiah records an incident in which Nehemiah asked permission from Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem to assist with the rebuilding project. The king assented, and gave Nehemiah letters of safe conduct to Judea, as well as orders for his foresters to donate timber to the project. Despite the fact that this passage does not technically record a decree, and that the restoration of Jerusalem was already underway when Nehemiah arrived, this incident is chosen as the starting point of Daniel's seventy weeks by futurists, because it occurred in 444 BCE. This then takes the end of the sixty-nine weeks to about 38 BCE. While this is closer to the time of Christ, it is still a few years too late. In order to rectify this problem, futurists note that the Jews used a lunar year of twelve months of thirty days. Using a year of 360 days then puts the end of the sixty-nine weeks at about 33 BCE, exactly, so the story goes, at the point that Jesus was crucified. The problem with the latter is that the Jews knew that their lunar year eventually got out of sync with the solar year. In order to rectify this situation, they inserted an extra month of thirty days every two or three years. This means that, on average, the Jewish year was about 365 days long.
|
this is a misleading statement because, while it is true they knew the lunar calendar did not synchronize with the conditions necessary for passover, they did not know when they would need to add a month. therefore, event reckoning would not have included the embolismic month. they followed the lunar month for all reckonings except when the calendar did not line up for passover to occur at the proper time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Another problem with the futurist interpretation soon becomes apparent. If the sixty-nine weeks ended with the crucifixion of Jesus, that means that the seventieth week must have ended about 40 CE. However, no person fitting the description of Daniel's prince appeared on the scene at that point. In order to circumvent this problem, futurists insert a gap of indeterminate duration between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. The seventieth week, so the story goes, will begin when the "times of the gentiles" (Luke 21:4) are completed. So far, this gap has lasted two thousand years, with no end in sight.
|
the gap between the 69th and 70th weeks proposed by the dispensational view illuminates that the timeline does not always move in a serial fashion. it is more concerned with dispensational ages or time periods. the church age, represented by the gap, is an unspecified time period in between two aspects of Jesus' ministry mentioned in verses 9:24 and 26. the epochs will have definite calendar dates, but they don't proceed from the calendar.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Most evangelical commentators accept that 11:21-35 refer to Antiochus, but they then state that verse 36 onwards refer to a different person, the Antichrist who will wage war against God himself in the latter days. It should be fairly obvious that this interpretation is not supported by the text.
|
there is an important word in verse 40 which means the end of time. since chapter 12 is eschatological, it is viable that 11:40 is as well, particularly with that verbiage. some commentaries state that 11:36 is where the end times prophecy begins. it may even be the case that all of chapter 11 is eschatological. just because some of it matches what we know from a particular time does not mean that all of it was intended to do that. if this is end times prophecy, it won't be clear until the end times. what we know right now is that some of it matches events from a particular period. that certainly does not conclusively prove that it was intended to refer to that time period, however coincidental that may be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
It should be fairly obvious that this interpretation is not supported by the text.
|
that conclusion is not obvious and i have provided reasons why it is supported by the text based on the original language, which the author did not bother to include in his analysis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
Not only is there no discernible break between verses 35 and 36,
|
"discernable" is subjective. since the chapters and verses were not part of the original text, our perception on this matter is biased. it can be said that since the end times are mentioned in verse 35, there isn't so much of a "break" as a "leap forward" in time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
but the character of the king of the north, as described in verse 36, is the same as that which Daniel elsewhere applied to Antiochus (7:8,25, 8:25).
|
since daniel may be referring to antichrists in general (or more than one), this would not be surprising.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HS
In addition, Daniel still continues to use the same "king of the north" designation in 11:40, well after the time that he is supposed to have switched his focus to the Antichrist.
|
well, if another antichrist is from the north, what other designation is daniel supposed to use?
04-01-2006, 06:28 AM
response to post #59
