I ran across this and thought I would share it. It's a Daniel 11 commentary explaining historical fulfillments of the events described in all of chapter 11.
http://users.cwnet.com/dalede/dan11.htm
Daniel 11 commentary
Daniel 11 commentary
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Very interesting commentary!
Here's another commentary which claims that the "king" of Daniel 11:36-45 is Abd al Malik of the nascent Moslem Empire.
I don't agree with the prophetic part of this commentary, but I think the fact that more than one historical personage, together with what he did, can be matched to this passage of Scripture (both Herod and Abd al Malik, that is) is quite interesting.
I believe that Daniel 11:36-45 is an overlay with multiple fulfillments, including an end-time fulfillment.
Damon
Here's another commentary which claims that the "king" of Daniel 11:36-45 is Abd al Malik of the nascent Moslem Empire.
I don't agree with the prophetic part of this commentary, but I think the fact that more than one historical personage, together with what he did, can be matched to this passage of Scripture (both Herod and Abd al Malik, that is) is quite interesting.
I believe that Daniel 11:36-45 is an overlay with multiple fulfillments, including an end-time fulfillment.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I have been doing some contemplating on chapter 11 myself and I have come to the conclusion that verses 36-39 which say:
I welcome Steve or any to shoot me down on this because I do not want to go wild with a new thought, but how does this appeal to any of you?
Is once again speaking of Alexander. It looks to me that after verse 4 it goes into the kingdoms around and about and then comes back to the subject of Daniel 11 who seems to be Alexander, the mighty king of verse 3.36 “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. 37 He shall regard neither the God[k] of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. 38 But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things. 39 Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.
I welcome Steve or any to shoot me down on this because I do not want to go wild with a new thought, but how does this appeal to any of you?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
No comments on my above post?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
hi allyn--
i would love to comment but based upon y'all's discussion i am egregiously lacking in my eschatological knowledge. after having my dispensational beliefs shattered by Steve G's teaching on the subject, I have decided to take a "sit back and see what happens" approach to end times. of course I also intend to be be ready and I can't wait for Jesus to show up, dispensationally or otherwise.
TK
i would love to comment but based upon y'all's discussion i am egregiously lacking in my eschatological knowledge. after having my dispensational beliefs shattered by Steve G's teaching on the subject, I have decided to take a "sit back and see what happens" approach to end times. of course I also intend to be be ready and I can't wait for Jesus to show up, dispensationally or otherwise.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Allyn,
The passage is sufficiently vague as to allow many theories of its meaning. Yours is possible, though it does not seem as if 11:40ff fit it very admirably.
My main reasons for identifying this "king" as the Roman powers are:
a) this chronologically fits after Antiochus Epiphanes (vv.20-35), as the next Gentile oppressor of Israel;
b) this also makes it possible to identify the "time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time..."(12:1) with the "great tribulation" of Matthew 24:21ff. The latter was inflicted by the Roman powers (cf. Luke 21:20ff).
c) with the conquest of Israel by the Romans, the "time of the end" (Dan.11:35, 40/ 12:4, 9), or "the ends of the ages" (1 Cor.10:11/ Heb.9:26/ 1 Pet.4:7), or "the last days" (Acts 2:16ff/ Heb.1:2/ James 5:3/ 1 Pet. 1:20) seem to have been inaugurated. The "end" would, of course, mean the end of the Jewish commonwealth (Dan.9:24).
Those are my thoughts.
The passage is sufficiently vague as to allow many theories of its meaning. Yours is possible, though it does not seem as if 11:40ff fit it very admirably.
My main reasons for identifying this "king" as the Roman powers are:
a) this chronologically fits after Antiochus Epiphanes (vv.20-35), as the next Gentile oppressor of Israel;
b) this also makes it possible to identify the "time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time..."(12:1) with the "great tribulation" of Matthew 24:21ff. The latter was inflicted by the Roman powers (cf. Luke 21:20ff).
c) with the conquest of Israel by the Romans, the "time of the end" (Dan.11:35, 40/ 12:4, 9), or "the ends of the ages" (1 Cor.10:11/ Heb.9:26/ 1 Pet.4:7), or "the last days" (Acts 2:16ff/ Heb.1:2/ James 5:3/ 1 Pet. 1:20) seem to have been inaugurated. The "end" would, of course, mean the end of the Jewish commonwealth (Dan.9:24).
Those are my thoughts.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
hi all,
I have recently been having a long look at Daniel 11 and am awed with the detail there.
Here's how I see it...
Verse 3 refers to Alexander
Verse 4 to the Greek Empire after his death - Syria, Egyot, Greece and Asia Minor
V 5 - Ptolemy I
V 6 - Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II given in marriage to Antiochus III king of Syria and subsequently murdered.
V 7-8 Ptolemy III (Berenice's brother) invaded Syria to avenge her murder defeated Syria at battle of Raphia in 217
V 9 Antiochus III formed a coalition with Macedonia and attacked Egypt in around 200 BC and beaten by the Romans at Thermopylae.
V 10 Antiochus III was suceeded by his sons Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV
V 21-35 Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) waged war with Egypt (171-168); captured Pelusium (169); defeated both Ptolemy VI and VII; declared Judaism illegal (168); took Cyprus (168); undertook second campaign against Egypt (168) but forced by Rome to give it up. Placed altar to Zeus in temple in Jerusalem - which brought on war with the Maccabees.
V 32-35 - Exploits of the Maccabees.
...
I agree with Steve that chronologically the Roman Empire would follow in V 36.
May I suggest that Verse 36-37 describes the Pagan Roman Emperors and verses 38-39 the (so-called) Christian Roman Emperors ruling from Constantinople - who honored "Christ" (or their version of Christ which was a mix of Apollo and Horus) with much silver and gold - Constantine gave the Bishop of Rome the Lateran Palace.
In 330 Constantine built a new capital and the Empire was divided and in 390 the division was made formal. (verse 39)
40: Then the next King of the South was the Muslim Arabs - they attacked Constantinople. The Muslim threat was severe enough for the emperors to order the destruction of images in the empire.
40-43 - The King of the North that followed was the Ottoman Empire - who entered the glorious land but did not conquer the Bedouins in the central Arab Peninsula - but went on to conquer North Africa. They attacked the Byzantine Empire and took Constantinople. (Rev 9:18-21; 18:9-19 - I explained this on a post called Babylon in the Revelation page)
44 - Tidings out of the North and East - the Russo Turkish wars in the 17th and 18th centuries - Russia wanted to expand her influence to control the Black Sea and the Dardanelles. In the 1780s Catherine wanted to expel the Turks from Constantinople. Turks declared war on Russia in 1787. Conflicts continued throughout the 19th century. The Turks massacred between 600,000 and 1,000,000 Armenians during World War 1.
V 45: The Turks were defeated in Palestine in 1917. (The Euphrates dried up (Rev 16:12) and from that came the modern nations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan (the kings of the East)) 1917 is 1335 in the Muslim calendar. (Dan 12:12)
This brings us right up to the present.
Chapter 12... The Brits promised the Jews a homeland. Well, they reneiged (spelling??)... broke their promise and gave most of the land ie Jordan to the Arabs. (then the Brits lost their empire - cursing for cursing)
The Arabs wanted Jerusalem - well the chief mufti of Jerusalem went off to Germany during World War 2 to help Hitler with his propaganda - and there was a great time of trouble for Israel - the Holocaust.
Since there isn't much left then to be fulfilled we can say with certainty that the Lord's coming is near.
I hope others might be blessed by this - my prayer is for Israel - that they might be saved.
I have recently been having a long look at Daniel 11 and am awed with the detail there.
Here's how I see it...
Verse 3 refers to Alexander
Verse 4 to the Greek Empire after his death - Syria, Egyot, Greece and Asia Minor
V 5 - Ptolemy I
V 6 - Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II given in marriage to Antiochus III king of Syria and subsequently murdered.
V 7-8 Ptolemy III (Berenice's brother) invaded Syria to avenge her murder defeated Syria at battle of Raphia in 217
V 9 Antiochus III formed a coalition with Macedonia and attacked Egypt in around 200 BC and beaten by the Romans at Thermopylae.
V 10 Antiochus III was suceeded by his sons Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV
V 21-35 Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) waged war with Egypt (171-168); captured Pelusium (169); defeated both Ptolemy VI and VII; declared Judaism illegal (168); took Cyprus (168); undertook second campaign against Egypt (168) but forced by Rome to give it up. Placed altar to Zeus in temple in Jerusalem - which brought on war with the Maccabees.
V 32-35 - Exploits of the Maccabees.
...
I agree with Steve that chronologically the Roman Empire would follow in V 36.
May I suggest that Verse 36-37 describes the Pagan Roman Emperors and verses 38-39 the (so-called) Christian Roman Emperors ruling from Constantinople - who honored "Christ" (or their version of Christ which was a mix of Apollo and Horus) with much silver and gold - Constantine gave the Bishop of Rome the Lateran Palace.
In 330 Constantine built a new capital and the Empire was divided and in 390 the division was made formal. (verse 39)
40: Then the next King of the South was the Muslim Arabs - they attacked Constantinople. The Muslim threat was severe enough for the emperors to order the destruction of images in the empire.
40-43 - The King of the North that followed was the Ottoman Empire - who entered the glorious land but did not conquer the Bedouins in the central Arab Peninsula - but went on to conquer North Africa. They attacked the Byzantine Empire and took Constantinople. (Rev 9:18-21; 18:9-19 - I explained this on a post called Babylon in the Revelation page)
44 - Tidings out of the North and East - the Russo Turkish wars in the 17th and 18th centuries - Russia wanted to expand her influence to control the Black Sea and the Dardanelles. In the 1780s Catherine wanted to expel the Turks from Constantinople. Turks declared war on Russia in 1787. Conflicts continued throughout the 19th century. The Turks massacred between 600,000 and 1,000,000 Armenians during World War 1.
V 45: The Turks were defeated in Palestine in 1917. (The Euphrates dried up (Rev 16:12) and from that came the modern nations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan (the kings of the East)) 1917 is 1335 in the Muslim calendar. (Dan 12:12)
This brings us right up to the present.
Chapter 12... The Brits promised the Jews a homeland. Well, they reneiged (spelling??)... broke their promise and gave most of the land ie Jordan to the Arabs. (then the Brits lost their empire - cursing for cursing)
The Arabs wanted Jerusalem - well the chief mufti of Jerusalem went off to Germany during World War 2 to help Hitler with his propaganda - and there was a great time of trouble for Israel - the Holocaust.
Since there isn't much left then to be fulfilled we can say with certainty that the Lord's coming is near.
I hope others might be blessed by this - my prayer is for Israel - that they might be saved.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Sorry, mis-type. Which historical book did you use. Where did you get the names you have listed. I would like to have it as a reference book also.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
To Paulespino,
I'm not sure if you are directing that question at me, but I used Funk and Wagnells encyclopedia mostly. Way back in about 1980 I heard a talk about it and the only thing I remembered from that was the King of the North in the last verses of chapter 11 was a reference to the Turks and I worked backward - ie who did he attack? > The Eastern Roman Empire.
Halley's Bible Handbook had some detail for the earlier verses - about the wars between Syria and Egypt (who was who) but I checked the facts in Funk and Wagnells which was all I used for this post.
Back in the mid 90s I had an idea that using secular history books was more convincing to the average unbeliever than books written by theologians/Bible 'experts' whatever - since they may have an agenda. Ever since I have simply scoured history books for information.
I'm not sure if you are directing that question at me, but I used Funk and Wagnells encyclopedia mostly. Way back in about 1980 I heard a talk about it and the only thing I remembered from that was the King of the North in the last verses of chapter 11 was a reference to the Turks and I worked backward - ie who did he attack? > The Eastern Roman Empire.
Halley's Bible Handbook had some detail for the earlier verses - about the wars between Syria and Egypt (who was who) but I checked the facts in Funk and Wagnells which was all I used for this post.
Back in the mid 90s I had an idea that using secular history books was more convincing to the average unbeliever than books written by theologians/Bible 'experts' whatever - since they may have an agenda. Ever since I have simply scoured history books for information.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: