James Bejon

Hi Kan. I don’t necessary disagree with what you say, but I’m not sure it addresses my concerns. Ch. 8’s horn arises from the midst of the third beast’s reign (Greece). It is a part of the goat. That’s not true of Rome. (Rome wasn’t a part of Greece, and didn’t arise from it.) Nor is true of Daniel’s fourth beast. Daniel’s fourth beast is a distinct entity from Daniel’s third beast. So when you say, “Daniel 8 has to be read as part of the whole book”, I fully agree. But it’s precisely reading Dan. 8 as a part of the whole book that makes me doubt your suggestion.

Sounds a bit weird to me. Can Rome really be both a fourth beast which terrorises the whole world as well as a 'little horn' which arises from one of Greece's four sub-kingdoms?

Hmm...what do you take the fourth beast of ch. 7 to be then?

Thanks for the reply, Kan. Your "if", however, strikes me as a very big one. Ch. 8' horn, we are told, arises from Greece. Ch. 7's doesn't. It arises from the fourth kingdom. That's stated explicitly in the text, which is our best guide to a correct interpretation. Also, ch. 7's horn is one of eleven horns and overthrows three of its peers, while ch. 8's horn is one of five, and co-exists alongside its peers. Plus, it reigns for 2,300 evenings and mornings rather than 'a time, times, and half a time'. Once you look at the details, the two horns are really quite different.

Hi Kan. I’m not 100% sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying the 21st cent. AD could plausibly be considered to be ‘the end of the rule/kingdom’ of people like Seleucus and Ptolemy? If so, that strikes me as quite a stretch.

Dear All--Doesn't the text itself tell us when the final king mentioned in ch. 8 arises, namely "in the latter period of their rule/kingdom" (cf. 8.23), where the word "their" refers to the four kings who arise from the wreckage of Alexander's fall (cf. 8.21-22). If so, wouldn't that put the fulfilment of ch. 8 in the 2nd cent. BC? That's how the text strikes me at least. James.

Agreed. The Book of Daniel climaxes with the obedience and subservience of Israel to the Jewish Messiah and his people (cf. 7.26-27), an end to sin and an ushering in of an era of righteousness (cf. 9.24), and the resurrection of the dead (cf. 12.1-3). None of those things happened in 70 AD. Even if we take Christ’s death and resurrection to have made an end of sin (though it seems better view as the basis for that than the event itself), why associate it with 70 AD?

Yes, I know what you mean. It's not a view I hold to with certainty. But it does seem to make better sense of the text than the others I've heard so far. I'm currently writing up some studies on the Book of Daniel. You can find a bit more info on the matter here if you're interested: https://www.academia.edu/7599707/Commentary_On_Daniel_Chapter_2_2.1-49_. Just scroll down to the relevant verses (2.41 and thereabouts).

Hi Enoch2010. For whatever it's worth, I think you may well be right. That's certainly one possibility which falls within my overall view of Daniel and the fourth kingdom/beast.

Dear Duggarfan, I personally take Daniel's fourth kingdom to be a depiction of the (spiritual and worldwide) empire of Satan, while I take the "they" who mingle themselves with the seed of men to be Satan's subjects (in particular, a group of demonic entities of some kind), which explains why they're said to mingle with "the seed of men" (they're not men themselves). I have a few other reasons for my view, which I could gladly provide further details on if you're interested. God bless in your further studies on and consideration of this very important section of God's word. James.

Dear Rob, The word for "heaven" is always plural in Hebrew; the same is true in most other Semitic languages (quite possibly all of them; I don't know). In Greek, there's a distinction between singular and plural though. Hope that helps, James.

Dear Kenny, My personal take on some of your questions are as follows. I suspect that the concept of “adding” or “taking away” from God’s word (cf. Rev. 22.18-19) involves a deliberate attempt to seek to twist or change what God has said. Some people knowingly distort the teaching of Scripture. This verse applies, I think, to them. As for your question about “subtractions”, I think we need to be careful about using terms like “subtractions” too freely. To class, say, the absence of John 5.4 as a “subtraction” is to presuppose that the original text of John contained 5.4 and that certain Bible-versions have then “omitted” it. But, of course, we can’t do that without prejudging the issue. We need to consider the available manuscripts insofar as we’re able to do so and then think about which reading is most likely to be the original. I’m not sure if that makes any sense. Hopefully so, James.