Daniel 11 -first 6 verses - Can we identify them?

[Charlie744]

30 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

I have no idea were you are on this journey of dividing Daniel but just a few things that I found to be important, just in case, it's handy.  Please double check   

Daniel 11   1-20     future to Daniel,      past to us 0
 11:21 - 12:3        future to us  
 12:4 - 13      daniels current time

 

DeighAnn, this is truly a great question .... although we are initially attempting to identify the specific actors and the final kingdom in 11:1 to 11:6 (so the focus is  restricted and any and all can concentrate on a limited number of identities), this is a valuable and necessary issue to consider.  But once again, since we are ONLY addressing the first 6 verses we can discuss their timing......

Daniel 11:1 - 11:2 are in Daniel's time since they cover the Mede-Persian Empire. He stayed there even when the Jews were allowed to return.

Daniel 11:3 -11:4 is post Daniel since this covers the Greek Empire - both the time ruled by Alexander and its division into the 4 territories.

Daniel 11:5 onward is obviously also post Daniel since it covers the 4th kingdom to the end of time.

Daniel 11:6 - 11:39 covers the period within the 4th kingdom up to the coming of Jesus.... everything in between covers those actors and events that take place over 2,000 years and are dominated by the actions against God by this little horn. This little horn will and has magnified himself above all other gods V.36, he shall not regard the God of his fathers.... he shall exalt himself above all others V.37, and it continues on into VV.37 & 38.  What Daniel is telling us is this is the real battle that takes place throughout the 4th kingdom - a spiritual battle where the Messiah came and established His Plan of Salvation v. the practices and believes established by this little horn all during the 4th kingdom.

Daniel 11 is an EXPLOSION of the 4th kingdom with the central characters are the Messiah, the little horn and His Plan of Salvation for mankind..... Charlie

 

 

[Charlie744]

Please note that I will be checking in during the night for any replies but for the most part I am saying goodnight.... 

If you folks do not mind, I would respectfully request that anyone might respond tomorrow with their thoughts/opinions/disagreements/alternatives or whatever regarding just who they believe the 4th kingdom is .....

All other verses in Daniel and their interpretations will be based on this answer. 

Thanks, Charlie

[Diaste]

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

First, thank you for taking the time, even before you cup of gold to respond. I have read many of your posts in other topics and it is clear you enjoy His Word and have a strong opinion of things....

I believe it is safe to say that you have expressed an opinion that is shared by so many where they / you have matched the actors and events with a post Alexander / pre=pagan Rome timeline. I have read more than a few comments on 11 where many have stated just how "exact" or certainly seemingly mirroring the actual events of that period - as though God had Daniel write these verses in such detail that they could not be speaking of anyone else but an AE or the Ptolemies, etc.  After I finished the first 10 chapters of Daniel and began 11, these comments put a smile on my face since I had so much difficulty unpacking 10.... so now I could relax some and coast along with 11. Unfortunately, the "matching" of those actors and events failed to keep with the actual events in our history books. I found this confusing when there was a significant disconnect between actual v verses and in more than a few occasions, a complete void in their willingness or ability to even provide a comment on the latter verses. Then, I would see these same scholars regain their voice in verses beyond the ones that could not be addressed or tied to our history books. Some would even jump or leap many verses forward to Daniel 11:30 and beyond - these, apparently were clear to them and they could find history to attach or explain them to..... 

This became a big problem for me....for at least few reasons: if many scholars were correct in identifying / matching the early verses of 11 to our history books, as though we might be able to overlap the two and see one writing, why shouldn't this continue on throughout the chapter? Why were there so many verses that were not or could not be interpreted and consistent with the previous verses that spoke so clearly?

I agree. There seems to be a large gap from v. 5-28 in the histories. I read extensively about the wars of the Diadochi trying to find the parallels in history. What I came up with was sketchy and if I waxed dogmatic it would be more or less forced. So I don't know, yet. Part of the problem is there is a lot going on in v.5-28 and while our Father has found it important to relate, history may deem it less so. 

History is always murky in the details. Unless it's a major event, like the succession of kingdoms, it's unlikely historians will agree in the details as we have the problem of perspective and time. Nonagreement is not a problem, contradiction is. I have noticed in my search of the Diadochi there are contradictions in dates and events. This muddies the waters. The truth is there, I just haven't been able finish the puzzle.

Another issue I see is time. If Dan 11 was in the same decade, even the same century ,we would have a shot at the arranging the historical details sensibly. Dan 11 crosses over many centuries. That's an enormous disconnect difficult and tedious to overcome. I'm sure certain aspects of the wars of the Diadochi are indeed in Dan 11, maybe as late as v 13. It's certain, at least for me, Antiochus IV is v. 29-31. But then there is a huge gap in time.

From the end of the Diadochian wars to Antiochus IV there is about 160 years. That's a lot to overcome in the histories as perspectives, world views, societies and governments go though many changes. A 2o year gap alone may yield very different conclusions. 

From what I learned the Diadochi have a prominent role in Dan 11. I can see some parallels by it's very much a darkened pool. I could speculate but even the merest embellishment can change things dramatically. That's how we end up at some diner at the other end of the universe; nice to visit but not a profound experience.

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

 

 

Another open question for me would focus on the 4 kingdoms identified in Daniel 2,7 & 8.  God had Daniel provide us with a significant amount of information and specific characteristics for each of the 4 kingdoms. If the first 3 kingdoms hit their mark in the center, and they certainly did, why are we "seemingly" departing from His "model"  - In His metal man image we learn of the 4 kingdoms that will come  - one right after the other. By their metals we learn how they conquer and treat their conquered. And there is much more for us to extract from this metal man image to help us with their identification and practices. Then we move on to Daniel 7 where we are now presented with symbols of the 4 kingdoms quite different than the metal man. Daniel now gives us specific animals known to man (except the 4th) that provide another view of these 4 kingdoms. We now can really start to see more sides of this kingdom puzzle  - all to enhance and confirm just who are these 4 kingdoms. Daniel 7 seems to focus primarily on the "kingdom" and their characteristics. For me, 7 tells me to focus on the progression of the powers / kingdoms that follow one another - this should keep us within the lines, if you will, so as we move forward in Daniel's prophecies, we now have two very strong images / symbols of the 4 "kingdoms" - these will keep us within His prophetic message and not deviate outside of these rules. So I believe we now have two chapters reinforcing our view and keeping our focus on just what we should continue to see regarding the succession of the 4 kingdoms. So far, I don't see any contradiction between those kingdoms that will arise from chapter 2 to chapter 7. They will be the same kingdoms. 

Yes. My take on this is the same

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Now, we move on to chapter 8 where Daniel nows gives us another set of animals symbolizing these 4 powers, but here Daniel focuses not on the "kingdoms" but on the "kings" who will rule those 4 kingdoms. For me, this is yet another definite and powerful way of identifying these 4 kingdoms. Theoretically, we should be able to match these kings to the 4 kingdoms and hopefully, put to rest just who these 4 kingdoms are. I don't believe anyone disagrees with the first 3 kingdoms OR the kings that ruled over them. So, we have characteristics and practices of the first 3 kingdoms that are in agreement from chapters 2,7 & 8. We should have the same success with the 4th kingdom. 

I agree. 

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

For me, chapter 2 gives us a very good description of pagan Rome... their practices, methods and shear terror they would spread around  the world. And we know that pagan Rome came after Greece.... so at this time, there really should not be any doubt. If we were to stop here at the end of chapter 2, I would expect everyone to agree that it is pagan Rome. And it that is true, then we can not or should not see any contradiction in either 7 or 8.  Chapter 7 symbolizes the 4th kingdom as a "beast" that can not be compared to any known animal on earth... it is simply ferocious and without heart - it is a true destroyer of things.

One the point I have argued in the past, and will continue to argue, is the difference. Many seem to bypass this on the road to Rome and they should not.

Twice in Dan 7 the 4th beast is said to be 'shena'. This is a change, to change, changed, altered. 

This cannot refer to the succession of kingdoms as 'shena' isn't used in by Daniel in the succession from Babylon to Persia to Greece. Daniel 7 clearly refers to the change in the nature or characteristics from the first three to the fourth as shown in the very nature of the beasts. 

Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome were all pretty much the same societies. I have looked into this and there was no real difference. As long as you didn't rebel against any of them you were free to do as you wished. Education, employment, finance, religion, speech were all free and open to anyone in a general sense. Point is all four allowed wide latitude for people to be what they chose to be, even rising to the highest positions from the lowest.

All four conquered vast tracts of land and I would argue Alexander was probably the most ferocious of the four. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome could all be described as Hellenistic, hedonistic, and the originators and practitioners of modern rights, privilege and freedoms of their people. In a general sense of course.

That leaves us dealing with the difference of the 4th beast; "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it [was] diverse from all the beasts that [were] before it;"

This fits Islam much better than Rome. In fact Rome fled from the Muslim hordes back to their fortified cities, and those cites nearly fell. Islam had a government exerting strict control of it's citizens, especially in religion. Where the other 4 didn't care what gods were worshiped as long as there was no rebellion, Islam either enslaved, taxed or killed those who refused to acknowledge Allah as the one true God. 

Islam during the reign of terror from 700 to 1400 is said to have slaughtered as many as 250-275 million people; breaking and destroying all religious monuments and artifacts as they were an affront to Allah, literally devouring, breaking and stomping the pieces. There are videos if ISIS fulfilling this by jackhammering, sledgehammering and kicking and stomping on destroyed religious icons. 

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

 

But it also reveals it has ten horns that come out from within it - this, for me, is certainly the same symbol as the 10 toes in chapter 2 - so we still have consistency in how this 4th kingdom treats any other nation and has these 10 symbols tied to it..... Chapter 7 also reveals another little horn that will arise out of this "beast". We do not yet know just who this "king or power/ruler" is since it is then still in the future but like the other 3 kingdoms in chapter 7, they all have a ruler mentioned within each kingdom. Chapter 8 now reveals to us the 3 remaining kingdoms (the kingdom and the king of the 1st kingdom has come and gone). Now Daniel focuses on the "king" in the remaining 3 kingdoms. It is clear in 8 the 2nd and 3rd kings can be identified as Darius of the Medes- Persians and of course Alexander of Greece. But Daniel tells us the king or ruler of this 4th kingdom is this "little horn" that must come out of the 4th kingdom which also must be in agreement with chapter 2 and 7.... for me this was identified as pagan Rome. Nowhere in chapters 2, 7 or 8 do we find any prophecies, kingdoms or kings outside of or in between these 4 identified kingdoms..... there is no space,  if you will between each of the metal sections, or between any of the animals mentioned - there is a first, second, third and forth kingdom, not a kingdom in between any one of those.

I agree there is no space. But we are told in Daniel 8 the progression is from Greece to the Diadochi. The four notable ones after the goat are Ptolemy, Antigonus, Cassander and Seleucus; Egypt, Turkey, Greece and the Mideast. No Rome. Daniel 11 then follows the Seleucids at least to Antiochus IV. It's true the Romans eventually warred against the Parthians but they were driven back to the Levant and turned their sights on Europe.

To remain consistent we have to deal with Dan 11 and I see no mention of Rome here.

 

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

The third reason we might consider why we should move on from Greece directly to pagan Rome has to do with the (for me) the primary purpose for the book of Daniel. It is NOT to serve as a history book but it is one of HIS most important and prophetic books in the Bible - and the one which will prophecize  on the coming of the Messiah.... that is critical.... in the first 3 kingdoms, Daniel is revealing to us those powers, kingdoms and rulers that have / will come on earth and demonstrate how we (man) treats fellow man WITHOUT the presence of God. To be candid, God could have Daniel write in just about any and all kingdoms, powers and rulers, regardless of when they would appear on earth (10th century, 18th century, etc.,) and it would be just as accurate a representation of mankind as those found in Daniel. Just as the Jews were sent to the Gentiles to introduce the One True God, Daniel was sent (although he was forced to Babylon) to the then Gentile power / kingdom to introduce the One True God to them.. God is providing us with a high level summary of mankind - without God and with God.. But whether the Jews failed to open Him up to the Gentiles or the Gentiles refused to accept Him (both in the story of Daniel and the story for the past 2,000 years), God would find it necessary to come down from Heaven and reveal Himself and His Plan of Salvation. This is the most important message within Daniel and why the 4th kingdom must be pagan Rome. We are attempting to match those verses / chapters to our history books when the real actors / events that will / has occurred are speaking about our Messiah.... but we have not be able or willing to match those verses or chapters to HIm - to His first coming within this 4th kingdom.....So at what point in Daniel do we or should we see the prophetic messages and revealing of the coming Messiah - where is His Plan of Salvation revealed? If most of 11, perhaps the first 29 verses or so are speaking of some in-between character like AE or a Ptolemy, which has absolutely no place or mention in the identification of the kings or kingdoms or characteristics in 2,7, or 8, why would we think we should give them so much "ink" in HIS extremely valuable prophetic book of Daniel...

I agree for the most part, except Rome. Consider:

Dan 8

8Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

Dan 8 [interpretation]

21And the rough goat [is] the king of Grecia: and the great horn that [is] between his eyes [is] the first king. 22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, 

Dan 11

1Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, [even] I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. 2And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than [they] all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. 3And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; 

Dan 11 begins with the same prophecy as Dan 8 then advances the narrative with two of the kingdoms of the winds;

""5And the king of the south shall be strong, and [one] of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion [shall be] a great dominion. 6And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north"

I have never understood how Rome rises here or in the ensuing narrative. Nothing changes from the KOTN and the KOTS right to v. 40. Literally it's Egypt and Turkey the whole way through to the willful king. I should mention I suspect Syria and/or the ancient Assyrian empire is also part of the KOTN. This can be seen in maps and some histories but again there is disagreement among scholars and skeptics and historians.

In any case the succession is Greece to the Diadochi to the KOTN and the KOTS and what I suspect is the rise of the Seleucid line in the form of the willful king. In what I have read these three variously fought against and with each other. I at least made that connection to Dan 11:5-28 even if all the details are sketchy.

 

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Well, you jumped ahead a little bit but I can understand why you would do so... it is clear you are well versed on the book of Daniel and 11 specifically, so it is most likely quite easy for you to see these verses as being all connected and consistent with each other..... But before we get to the KOS, I hope you might agree that the first 4 verses in 11 will drive most of the verses..... In Daniel 1 -4 we see a quick summary of the 2nd and 3rd kingdom where Alexander is "broken" and his kingdom is dispersed among his 4 generals in 4 separate "territories"..... this is important because it does not or can not use the word "kingdom or kingdoms".

Hmm...I don't know if this distinction has merit.

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Again, to be consistent with 2, 7 & 8,  the summary of the first 3 kingdoms in Daniel 11: 1 -4 are confirmed... and the 4th kingdom and its king must be in keeping with those same chapters --- there is no mention of any kingdom or king or activity, etc. in between the 3rd and 4th kingdom....

I agree we must be consistent but this goes back to the, imo, meritless distinction above. 

How do we know where or when the 'between' is? Is there a 'between'?

I don't see a 'between'. I see a smooth transition from Greece to the Diadochi, to the KOTN and KOTS, then to the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, grandson of Seleucus Nicator, then on to the willful king at the end of the age. 

 

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

 

As you know, MOST folks, including noted scholars contend this speaks quite clearly to the post Alexander / pre-pagan Rome activity. And one general of the southern territory was stronger than the others and was clearly more successful. However, he and the other 3 generals and their conflicts were never a "kingdom" or "a king" that would meet the any of the characteristics of the 4th kingdom..... AE was a power and he did mistreat the Jews and he was destructive, but he was a minor actor ... just a thug. It would have been very easy for God to have Daniel continue on in 11 and write about a truly great king like Alexander. He could have gone on for many chapters revealing his genius and conquering ways. But Daniel didn't even devoit much "ink" to this genius of a king in his discussion of the 3rd kingdom..... certainly AE or Ptolemy or any other generals coming into the power vacuum post Alexander would do the things they in fact did, but none of them would reach to the level of a king and his kingdom..... the timing is right after Alexander's 3rd kingdom but WE elevate these relatively minor actors to the 4th kingdom.

At the time of Seleucus I and the condition of the Roman empire, there would be a created gap if Rome was a direct successor to Greece. In 300 BC Rome was still battling to survive in Italy. By 146 BC Rome had advanced to a narrow strip of southern Europe and held most of Spain and defeated Carthage; but had not advance to the east This was long after the Wars of the Diadochi ended. Antiochus IV had committed the A of D some two decades earlier. 

So the smooth transition is to the Diadochi in general and the Seleucid Empire specifically.

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

So, if we are to follow the "model" found in 2.7 & 8, and not get distracted by those interested in filling in the power vacuum left by Alexander, we might look for a true power - a monster - a beast that will not be like any other on earth. That is who we need to identify and the 4 generals or even the most powerful and successful of the 4 could not be considered to meet that definition. Out of this "beast" came the 10 horns - these are not 10 sub kings or kingdoms from Greece or surrounding Greece but they are 10 powers that were yet to be identified in the metal man image. The 4th kingdom is that kingdom that will last until the second coming of our Lord... it will not have the same name, but it will possess all the same characteristics of pagan Rome.... it is a composite of all the kingdoms of the first 3 kingdoms and also all the kingdoms that will arise in whatever century and part of the world - it is just a"beast" that has all the evils of man regardless of color, religion, ethnicity, etc. But at the beginning of this "beast" we will find a few prophetic happenings: The coming of the Messiah, the spreading of His Word and His Plan of Salvation and then the rising of this "little  horn" - also within this 4th kingdom ... this is the message within the 4th kingdom and found in 11..... if we look for the Messiah, the beast (pagan Rome), the little horn (papacy) will can match these verses to HIM ---not some character like AE... this is the most difficult task.....

The Monster is Islam. Look up Bill Warner and "Tears of Jihad".  Eye opening.

14 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

 

 

Once again we might be getting a little ahead of this..... but your are right to bring the KON along with the KOS for accomplishing consistency and continuity in our interpretations of at least the first 29 verses of 11.... but I hope we can wait some ...if the 4th kingdom is not properly identified, all following interpretations of Daniel (to 29) will/ would have to be in agreement with the identity of this kingdom.

Well, I greatly appreciate your comments and I am quite sure that many will find them interesting and they will want to offer their thoughts as well... thank you, Charlie

 

God bless and good day!

[R. Hartono]

On 1/23/2021 at 7:57 AM, Charlie744 said:

So, it is NOW SABBATH, and this just might be an appropriate topic for discussion! Thanks, Charlie

Christians hv sabbath every day here, they rest their hearts in Jesus, not their body on saturday.

[Charlie744]

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

I agree. There seems to be a large gap from v. 5-28 in the histories. I read extensively about the wars of the Diadochi trying to find the parallels in history. What I came up with was sketchy and if I waxed dogmatic it would be more or less forced. So I don't know, yet. Part of the problem is there is a lot going on in v.5-28 and while our Father has found it important to relate, history may deem it less so. 

History is always murky in the details. Unless it's a major event, like the succession of kingdoms, it's unlikely historians will agree in the details as we have the problem of perspective and time. Nonagreement is not a problem, contradiction is. I have noticed in my search of the Diadochi there are contradictions in dates and events. This muddies the waters. The truth is there, I just haven't been able finish the puzzle.

I certainly can applaud all those folks that have spent so much time and effort attempting to interpret 11 in an almost purely physical / worldly manner. They have been somewhat successful in matching some actors and events with those found in our history books, but that “matching process” cannot be sustained. They will never run out of available history to try and match the verses in 11; they may begin in the post Alexander period and have some success, but they quickly will fall off a cliff. They may be able to pick up some of our history that has occurred sometime later – perhaps even in AD, but this has proved (to me) to serve as a tackles band aid at best. And this would not address the many holes in both time and theory to the successive verses in 11.

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

Another issue I see is time. If Dan 11 was in the same decade, even the same century ,we would have a shot at the arranging the historical details sensibly. Dan 11 crosses over many centuries. That's an enormous disconnect difficult and tedious to overcome. I'm sure certain aspects of the wars of the Diadochi are indeed in Dan 11, maybe as late as v 13. It's certain, at least for me, Antiochus IV is v. 29-31. But then there is a huge gap in time.

From the end of the Diadochian wars to Antiochus IV there is about 160 years. That's a lot to overcome in the histories as perspectives, world views, societies and governments go though many changes. A 2o year gap alone may yield very different conclusions. 

From what I learned the Diadochi have a prominent role in Dan 11. I can see some parallels by it's very much a darkened pool. I could speculate but even the merest embellishment can change things dramatically. That's how we end up at some diner at the other end of the universe; nice to visit but not a profound experience.

This is certainly a great point. This “matching” process to our history books is seriously flawed – to this date; this has been the most accepted way to interpret 11. But to be candid, Daniel starts out and continues in an “almost” purely physical / worldly manner for the first 5 chapters or so. They do in fact mirror the events and actors found in our history books. In fact, it seems each year our scientists, geologists, etc., uncover things that prove Scripture correct and leave our previous and decisive interpretations in the dirt.

Once again, it is in our DNA to try and understand things in this world by using our God given abilities and bouncing things against actual events in our history – It works, and this is the world we live in – a physical / touch and feel, scientific prove it or lose it world.  But Daniel is one of God’s most prophetic writings, and I don’t believe He is interested in giving us another history lesson of our physical world. As previously mentioned, I have no history of reading the Bible or following His Word like those in this forum.  Despite all the warnings and touches on my shoulder throughout the years, I simply shunned them off and went my way. I had to do things my way until I was so successful at it that I drilled myself into the deepest, darkest, most inescapable hole in the ground. Then, I turned to God and He immediately raised me back up and I wanted to learn and start to obey HIM. After a few years and attending more than a few presentations on Revelation, I realized that NO ONE had this right – they all had very different interpretations and they all had many holes that were left uninterrupted, or perhaps worse, attempted to connect them to a verse they thought they interrupted correctly. It was and still is a mess! I wanted Revelation to be the first book for me to open and study…… but EVERYONE instructed me to study Daniel first and it will be very valuable in unpacking Revelation. Here I am and I have found the same results in Daniel that became clear to me in those Revelation presentations. And by the way, these are the same folks that offer me their explanation of some very complicated verses in Daniel by referring me to Revelation!  Go figure! And whenever I make a statement like “Daniel must be interpreted first and it will drive much of Revelation”, they immediately respond with the reverse and declare that Revelation drives Daniel. Bottom line here to your comment is that it is not that our history is misunderstood or misapplied or it’s hiding in plain sight somewhere for us to finally recognize – that will NEVER happen! There is simply tooooooo much talent, intelligence, abilities, education, etc., in the world (and were talking for the past 2,000 years), to MISS the events or appropriate actors in our history books and match them to the verses in 11 – especially when so many claim just how much they mirror actual history. It is NOT something we missed, it is entirely our “approach”, and once I returned to this “approach” where I found success in the previous 10 chapters, I once again abandoned my habit of trying to match 11 to our history books.

Once again I have to agree with you; Daniel 11 does cross over many time lines. In fact, from 11:1 -11:4 it covers the period from Babylon to the dividing of the Greek Empire into 4 separate territories……. And that is the last you will / should hear of the first 3 kingdoms. Daniel 11:5 begins the 4^th kingdom and continues until His second coming. Now, if the 45 verses in chapter 11 are supposed to be so detailed and successful in matching to our history books, someone has some explaining to do….. Do we just have tremendous detail about the events and actors that happen to occur just after the division of Alexander’s Empire? Why so much “ink” speaking about some relatively minor actors BETWEEN the final two of Daniel’s kingdoms – and where they is absolutely no mention or even a hint of them in chapters 2.7 & 8? And still, there are too many significant holes in their interpretations. Where is the information and prophecies about the 4^th kingdom? This is clearly the most important kingdom for us to understand; it is the one when the Messiah will arrive, His crucifixion and resurrection, the Jews rejecting their own well predicted coming of the Messiah, the spreading of the Gospels to the Gentiles, His sending of the Holy Spirit to mankind….. the rising of this little horn who will go against His Word and even claim to be God on earth…. All of these things happened and are still continuing – isn’t this the messages sent to us by God through Daniel? Or is it simply God showing off by predicting the next few conflicts and minor thugs like AE who will harm and murder people?

 

 

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes. My take on this is the same

I agree. 

One the point I have argued in the past, and will continue to argue, is the difference. Many seem to bypass this on the road to Rome and they should not.

Twice in Dan 7 the 4th beast is said to be 'shena'. This is a change, to change, changed, altered. 

This cannot refer to the succession of kingdoms as 'shena' isn't used in by Daniel in the succession from Babylon to Persia to Greece. Daniel 7 clearly refers to the change in the nature or characteristics from the first three to the fourth as shown in the very nature of the beasts. 

Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome were all pretty much the same societies. I have looked into this and there was no real difference. As long as you didn't rebel against any of them you were free to do as you wished. Education, employment, finance, religion, speech were all free and open to anyone in a general sense. Point is all four allowed wide latitude for people to be what they chose to be, even rising to the highest positions from the lowest.

First, thank you for bringing this to my attention! I looked “shena” up in Strong’s and found it certainly means change, alter, something different I guess would also fit. But I believe this is perfect for the movement of the 3^rd to the 4^th kingdom, and where it also would not be used in the movement of the other 3 kingdoms….. The first 3 kingdoms can easily be identified and found in our history books. They came one right after another and Daniel also gives us sufficient characteristics of each and uses appropriate and recognizable animal symbols for us to consider. But this cannot be said for the 4^th kingdom and thus “shena” is quite appropriate.  Daniel is unable to give us an animal that would symbolize this “beast”. This “beast” will not only possess a murderous, destructive and vicious treatment to anyone other than a Roman, but this “beast” would also have to represent the final kingdom that will last some 2,000 years or so. This just could not be symbolized any other way. To me, it is almost considered some horrible looking beast that can “shape shift” if you will, depending on the power and ruler it becomes over the next 2,000 years. It can be thought of as representing the characteristics of the first 3 animals / kingdoms and so much more! The animal characteristics may not change over the years but it will take on a different name, location, ruler, etc., but it is a perfect symbol for man’s murderous and evil ways and our treatment of fellow man since the beginning of time and until His second coming…. God does not have to provide us with a 100 page list of those actors and powers that will continue in the ways of pagan Rome – it is truly a symbolic image of man and his evil ways – we may change (shena) but we will always stay the same.

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

All four conquered vast tracts of land and I would argue Alexander was probably the most ferocious of the four. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome could all be described as Hellenistic, hedonistic, and the originators and practitioners of modern rights, privilege and freedoms of their people. In a general sense of course.

I don’t have a dog in this fight but I would say that Alexander may have been as ferocious as Rome while IN BATTLE, but pagan Rome would take that off the field as well. Pagan Rome left nothing on the field and then would even enjoy going into the stands to continue….I don’t see Alexander that way.

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

That leaves us dealing with the difference of the 4th beast; "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it [was] diverse from all the beasts that [were] before it;"

This fits Islam much better than Rome. In fact Rome fled from the Muslim hordes back to their fortified cities, and those cites nearly fell. Islam had a government exerting strict control of it's citizens, especially in religion. Where the other 4 didn't care what gods were worshiped as long as there was no rebellion, Islam either enslaved, taxed or killed those who refused to acknowledge Allah as the one true God. 

Islam during the reign of terror from 700 to 1400 is said to have slaughtered as many as 250-275 million people; breaking and destroying all religious monuments and artifacts as they were an affront to Allah, literally devouring, breaking and stomping the pieces. There are videos if ISIS fulfilling this by jackhammering, sledgehammering and kicking and stomping on destroyed religious icons. 

Once again I have no doubt that Islam was not a good neighbor, but they don’t have a patent on “dreadful, terrible, murderous, inhumane, vicious, etc. Once again, this “beast” does not reflect “a” specific group…. There are simply too many to choose from and they all would appropriately fit this description.  Today the Muslims are on the front page, but each generation has their own / different character displayed on page 1 – In Africa, in Laos, in China, in Germany, in the US (Indians), in Japan, in Italy, in England and France and certainly the RCC – in the name of God, they tortured and murdered more than perhaps 80 million – many of their own faith – although not Catholic they were Christians!  This “shape shifting beast” is a great symbol for all of those powers at one time or another. Daniel and specifically Daniel 11 is not about a particular group or power or country or religion of the day… this falls right back into trying to now predict what we think these verses will match up to in tomorrow’s history books…. We would be making the same approach and the same error that prevents us for looking and interpreting Daniel 11 in a non – physical / worldly manner.
 

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

I agree there is no space. But we are told in Daniel 8 the progression is from Greece to the Diadochi. The four notable ones after the goat are Ptolemy, Antigonus, Cassander and Seleucus; Egypt, Turkey, Greece and the Mideast. No Rome. Daniel 11 then follows the Seleucids at least to Antiochus IV. It's true the Romans eventually warred against the Parthians but they were driven back to the Levant and turned their sights on Europe.

To remain consistent we have to deal with Dan 11 and I see no mention of Rome here.

 

I agree for the most part, except Rome. Consider:

Well, I certainly agree with your comment but only if we are to continue to look through our history books and try and match the events and actors to the verses in 11. I do not see anything in Daniel 8 that speaks to a 4^th kingdom represented by those that have filled the power vacuum after Alexander. Certainly VV.8 – 12 speak about a power post Alexander but none of the 4 generals satisfy not only the terms in these verses but they have no relationship or characteristics of the 4^th kingdom identified in 2, 7. But because they physical come into the power vacuum after Alexander, everyone automatically anoints them as the next kingdom of Daniel. There are no legs of iron or feet and toes of iron and clay associated with any of the 4 post Alexander rulers. There is no relationship or connection with a little horn or the 10 horns arising out of any post Alexander territorial power. They were not even a kingdom or one which would have to represent a final kingdom (symbolically) for the next 2,000 years. They also had absolutely NO interest or concern in the Jews invisible God- it is certainly true that AE hated the Jews but he gave no consideration one way or the other for their God. Compared to Titus, AE did relatively little damage to the Jews…. He was just a minor actor at the time… no importance or reason to include him in God’s prophecies.  He certainly would never be important enough or do enough during his tenure to take this amount of prophetic “ink” from an Alexander!  And Alexander was hardly mentioned. These folks just happened to come about after Alexander and within the intertestamental period where there was also a long period when the Jews who returned to Judah disobeyed God and largely went back to their old ways. And this point is absolutely critical in determining this 4^th kingdom. I am NOT a history guy but I believe the Jews would return to their God and their ceremonial ways approximately ½ of this period between (some 200 – 250 years or so) after Alexander. I am not sure but they may have “come back” around / due to the uprising of the Jews by the Maccabees around 165 BC. This rededication of the second Temple is a very strong factor in not only for the Jews to reinstate their ceremonial practices but to prepare them for the coming Messiah. The Messiah could not arrive had there been no Maccabean revolt and a restoration of the Jewish ceremonies and practices.  

Now why would this event be so important in Daniel 11? And remember, God NEVER does random or coincidences or place something, even a small jot in His Scriptures without a purpose – we have to try and recognize them and interpret them correctly.

So, after spending over 7 months frustrating and confused and completely unable to understand 11 as those that have generated today’s accepted interpretations, I had to focus on the language of Daniel 11:4 to 11:5.  THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN DANIEL 11 – Who is the 4^th kingdom of Daniel and When do we find it in Daniel 11?

As you know, EVERYONE contends that 11:4 simply rolls on to 11:5 where there is a continuation from the 4 territories of the post Alexander period and right into the strongest and perhaps the most successful power of the 4 rulers. Here we see in Daniel 11:5 …..

⁵ “Also the king of the South shall become strong, as well as one of his princes; and he shall gain power over him and have dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion. 

Well, this certainly does seem to follow our history books; after Alexander we do see one powerful king of the southern territory succeed… so 11:5 must be speaking about him and therefore the remaining, or most of the following verses after 11:5 must also continue to speak about his conflicts and the many actors surrounding him – perhaps even a Cleopatra is identified as the “daughter of the KOS”….. This all seems to fit, and then it doesn’t. Their interpretations cannot or does not hold water as they move through Daniel 11. Those that are not able to fit in with the events of this KOS are simply not addressed…. And even further along in the chapter their interpretations (attempted) are very weak. 

This is why I wanted to start a discussion on 11 at the very beginning since if we are not able to identify the 4^th kingdom AND when it arrives in print in 11, all of our interpretations to follow will be based on the wrong kingdom / power and we will be redirected off to some far away galaxy trying to desperately find those missing historical events that match all the verses in 11.

So what is the specific language in 11:5 supposed to tell us and send us in the right path to interpret chapter 11? It is this: This verse is not a continuation of 11:4 and it does not point us to the most powerful of the 4 generals of the post Alexander period. Rather it is meant to draw us to the events between the last two kingdoms THAT ARE CRITICAL AND NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE MESSIAH TO COME. After the Jews returned to Judah they failed miserably…. Idolatry, disobedience, human sacrifices, no respect for the Temple, on and on. That is until the Maccabees. They began the restoration of the ceremonies, the Temple and everything “correct” in the Jewish religion. For the next 150 years, the Jews would return to God, obey His Word, read the Torah, rebuilt the Temple and all the vessels, etc., and honor the festivals / feasts days. This had to happen BEFORE THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH.

Daniel 11:5 is speaking to this! The KOS shall become strong (once again) as well as one of his princes (Messiah), and He (Messiah) shall gain power over him (KOS) and have dominion (of course the Messiah is above everyone and everything).  His (Messiah) dominion will be great dominion (this certainly cannot speak to ANY KING OR KINGDOM ON EARTH BUT ONLY THE MESSIAH).  The message of Daniel 11 is prophetic and speaks about the coming Messiah and HIS Plan of Salvation for us…. It is NOT another history lesson about some minor thugs!! And of course, this event, the coming of the Messiah and the necessity for the Jews to be “strong” in their faith, their practices, their Temple tells us this only happens post the Maccabees and within the 4^th kingdom of pagan Rome. Pagan Rome and 11:5 are the same.  Consequently, from11:5 ALL verses speak about the Messiah, those events surrounding HIS time, the coming of the little horn, and His Plan of Salvation for us. This is a spiritual approach to 11 as opposed to a physical approach where we try and turn 11 into another history (secular) lesson.
 

Diaste, please note that I have not responded to your remaining comments below as I believe I may have addressed them in my above reply... If not please resend me your questions and I look forward to hearing back from you and many others (hopefully) with their opinions and thoughts.

So, given your thoughts and findings, I found it necessary to not only give me my thoughts on the kingdoms and their timing but also provide the "fill in's" that were identified in the original post- I believe they were the first few ACTORS IN RED.

Thanks, Charlie

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

Dan 8

8Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

Dan 8 [interpretation]

21And the rough goat [is] the king of Grecia: and the great horn that [is] between his eyes [is] the first king. 22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, 

Dan 11

1Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, [even] I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. 2And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than [they] all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. 3And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; 

Dan 11 begins with the same prophecy as Dan 8 then advances the narrative with two of the kingdoms of the winds;

""5And the king of the south shall be strong, and [one] of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion [shall be] a great dominion. 6And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north"

I have never understood how Rome rises here or in the ensuing narrative. Nothing changes from the KOTN and the KOTS right to v. 40. Literally it's Egypt and Turkey the whole way through to the willful king. I should mention I suspect Syria and/or the ancient Assyrian empire is also part of the KOTN. This can be seen in maps and some histories but again there is disagreement among scholars and skeptics and historians.

In any case the succession is Greece to the Diadochi to the KOTN and the KOTS and what I suspect is the rise of the Seleucid line in the form of the willful king. In what I have read these three variously fought against and with each other. I at least made that connection to Dan 11:5-28 even if all the details are sketchy.

 

Hmm...I don't know if this distinction has merit.

I agree we must be consistent but this goes back to the, imo, meritless distinction above. 

How do we know where or when the 'between' is? Is there a 'between'?

I don't see a 'between'. I see a smooth transition from Greece to the Diadochi, to the KOTN and KOTS, then to the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, grandson of Seleucus Nicator, then on to the willful king at the end of the age. 

 

At the time of Seleucus I and the condition of the Roman empire, there would be a created gap if Rome was a direct successor to Greece. In 300 BC Rome was still battling to survive in Italy. By 146 BC Rome had advanced to a narrow strip of southern Europe and held most of Spain and defeated Carthage; but had not advance to the east This was long after the Wars of the Diadochi ended. Antiochus IV had committed the A of D some two decades earlier. 

So the smooth transition is to the Diadochi in general and the Seleucid Empire specifically.

The Monster is Islam. Look up Bill Warner and "Tears of Jihad".  Eye opening.

God bless and good day!

 

[Charlie744]

Ok you guys, all I am hearing is crickets............ not good!  Anyone want to comment? Bueller, Bueller........

Anyone?

Charlie

[Charlie744]

2 minutes ago, Da Puppers said:

I was waiting for you to reply to my last post.   So the crickets started chirping here first.   But I will jump in with two points. 

A.  Daniel 11 is about 3 Persian kings that arise,  followed by a fourth. 

Dan 11:2 KJV And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

Where are these kings in your understanding of things?   Why is this important?   2 reasons. 

1.  When Alexander rose to power as the brass kingdom,  he sent the Persian kingdom to the forgotten world of the abyss.   Until recently,  Persia was a dismantled kingdom... more than 2000 years. 

2. There were 13 men who reigned in the Achaemenid, Persian empire... not "4 more".

B.  Daniel 8 says that the little horn will rise out of one of Alexander's 4 successor kingdoms. 

Dan 8:8-9 KJV ⁸ Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. ⁹ And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

This is the little horn that rises amongst the 10 horn kingdom.   Is Rome one of those 4 kingdoms?   

It is not viewed as such.   I think that is why Daniel 11 focuses on the kings of the South and North, both of which are the residual aspects of Alexander's Greece.   One of these 2 kingdoms is the one that the little horn rises out of.  I believe these two kingdoms,  north and south,  are what is being portrayed in the two legs of iron.   They (North & South) also represent the conglomerate remains of the 4 originating kingdoms of Alexander.   But one of them gives rise to the little horn. 

Do I hear a big bluegill breaking the silence of still waters? 

Be Blessed 

The PuP 

Thank you for your thoughts!!!

 I am sorry but I do not understand your comment on the “bluegill...” Please educate me on this..... Charlie 

 

[Charlie744]

Okay, with the exception of Da Puppers (thank you) there has been no further activity here.....

So, I would like to request anyone to let me know if the information provided has changed your thoughts on either: who is the 4th kingdom or if 11:5 is the beginning discussion / verse speaking on the 4th kingdom...

Or, perhaps you might want to offer ANY comments FOR OR AGAINST the comments above..... No sense in moving forward until and unless we can understand everyone's thoughts on the 4th kingdom and when it arrives in 11.....

Thanks so much for all the previous responses!  Charlie

 

[Diaste]

On 1/24/2021 at 7:42 PM, Charlie744 said:

 

This is why I wanted to start a discussion on 11 at the very beginning since if we are not able to identify the 4^th kingdom AND when it arrives in print in 11, all of our interpretations to follow will be based on the wrong kingdom / power and we will be redirected off to some far away galaxy trying to desperately find those missing historical events that match all the verses in 11.

So what is the specific language in 11:5 supposed to tell us and send us in the right path to interpret chapter 11? It is this: This verse is not a continuation of 11:4 and it does not point us to the most powerful of the 4 generals of the post Alexander period. Rather it is meant to draw us to the events between the last two kingdoms THAT ARE CRITICAL AND NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE MESSIAH TO COME. After the Jews returned to Judah they failed miserably…. Idolatry, disobedience, human sacrifices, no respect for the Temple, on and on. That is until the Maccabees. They began the restoration of the ceremonies, the Temple and everything “correct” in the Jewish religion. For the next 150 years, the Jews would return to God, obey His Word, read the Torah, rebuilt the Temple and all the vessels, etc., and honor the festivals / feasts days. This had to happen BEFORE THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH.

Daniel 11:5 is speaking to this! The KOS shall become strong (once again) as well as one of his princes (Messiah), and He (Messiah) shall gain power over him (KOS) and have dominion (of course the Messiah is above everyone and everything).  His (Messiah) dominion will be great dominion (this certainly cannot speak to ANY KING OR KINGDOM ON EARTH BUT ONLY THE MESSIAH).  The message of Daniel 11 is prophetic and speaks about the coming Messiah and HIS Plan of Salvation for us…. It is NOT another history lesson about some minor thugs!! And of course, this event, the coming of the Messiah and the necessity for the Jews to be “strong” in their faith, their practices, their Temple tells us this only happens post the Maccabees and within the 4^th kingdom of pagan Rome. Pagan Rome and 11:5 are the same.  Consequently, from11:5 ALL verses speak about the Messiah, those events surrounding HIS time, the coming of the little horn, and His Plan of Salvation for us. This is a spiritual approach to 11 as opposed to a physical approach where we try and turn 11 into another history (secular) lesson.
 

Diaste, please note that I have not responded to your remaining comments below as I believe I may have addressed them in my above reply... If not please resend me your questions and I look forward to hearing back from you and many others (hopefully) with their opinions and thoughts.

So, given your thoughts and findings, I found it necessary to not only give me my thoughts on the kingdoms and their timing but also provide the "fill in's" that were identified in the original post- I believe they were the first few ACTORS IN RED.

Thanks, Charlie

There's a lot to unpack here and I may have to wait till the weekend to do a better response. 

So let's say we don't know who the 4th beast is. Even though we can see the first three plain as day there is nothing to identify the 4th except by characteristics. In the first 3 we have the interpretation of the statue and though history we know the succession of the kingdoms. Daniel 8 also gives that clear succession and I'm convinced we can then know the identity of the 3 beasts in Dan 7.

I don't think you disagree with this. So the lion the bear and the leopard are Babylon, Persia, and Greece. The 4th we don't know. But, and I know you don't want to go here but the parallel is too striking, Rev 13 is a very important clue.

Revelation and Daniel work together. Much like Jesus saying to look to Daniel for the truth of the A of D we should also have free rein to cross reference from Dan to Rev. The beast in Rev is described thus, "The beast I saw was like a leopard, with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion."

That is an important and necessary clue, the 4th beast is an amalgamation of the first 3 and it's the only place in all of scripture we see this. In my mind it would diminish our knowledge and understanding to leave this out. 

If we are to look to Daniel for the understanding of the A of D then we could, and should, also look to Daniel for the understanding of Revelation, and then from Revelation to Daniel. I don't think one decodes the other as much as they are both prophetic and relevant to the same time. 

Again, I realize you wanted to stay out of Revelation for the identity of the 4th beast but this particular clue is important. We aren't going to get any further evidence from Daniel for the identity of the 4th beast. Daniel has been written and set in stone. That being the case no definitive answer for the identity of the 4th beast is possible. 

This identity is crucial for understanding Dan 11.

From Daniel we can't say the 4th beast is any king or country unequivocally, only that we would know when we see the characteristics of that beast from Dan 7. You argue for Rome, as many do. I do not mainly because the beast isn't named like the first three, but also because the succession must continue as stated, 

 "...but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven.

9From one of these horns a little horn emerged"

There is no way the little horn can arise from any other than the 4 notable horns. If we say the four notable horns are where the 4 top generals consolidated power then the little horn is coming from Egypt, Greece, Turkey or somewhere in the region from the Levant to the Hindu Kush. 

I don't think history is obscure in the salient points. The details are like dark waters to be sure but the surviving cultures speak to the succession from Babylon to Persia to Greece and then the Diadochi. 

Lots of scholars fume at the gap from Greece to whomever, as if it's the point of emphasis for the conclusion the 4th beast is Rome. I don't see a gap in power and I think it's summed up thus, 

"In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, but will itself stand forever. 45And just as you saw a stone being cut out of the mountain without human hands, and it shattered the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold, so the great God has told the king what will happen in the future.

The dream is true, and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

These kingdoms survive till the end when Jesus returns. All four are still with us. Rome is not. 

Back to Rev 13 and "The beast I saw was like a leopard, with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion." the last beast is a mix of the three previous kingdoms: The Babylonian Lion [depicted in the Ishtar gate], the Persian bear and the Grecian leopard. So the last beast embodies all three. That doesn't seem possible unless one considers it's a regional power. Babylon, Persia and Greece all ruled from Babylon. Babylon was the seat of power of all three. All three ruled over the earth. That isn't going to change for the 4th beast. 

So from Daniel alone we can conclude it's the longevity of the 3 Precious Metal kingdoms, Greece, Persia and Iraq are still here and the succession of the kingdoms in the same seat of power, Babylon, and then the succession to the four notable ones makes sense and removes any power vacuum. 

I have long argued Daniel has prophesied a regional succession and power base. That's evident from the Dan 2 statue. Then why preclude the 4th from that same regional succession? If this holds true then the Iron Kingdom should have risen in that same region as the power over the earth. That would be Islam. So the Legs of Iron is Islam and the 10 toes is also Islam but a form where some are joined to it but not of it.

I liken it to the mingling of the Islamic culture in the countries of the world today.

"so the peoples will mix with one another, but will not hold together any more than iron mixes with clay."

I suppose this is just a mess. In my defense it's early and I'm in a bit of a rush.

If I remember I'll address your words in red, maybe tomorrow.

[Charlie744]

6 hours ago, Diaste said:

There's a lot to unpack here and I may have to wait till the weekend to do a better response. 

So let's say we don't know who the 4th beast is. Even though we can see the first three plain as day there is nothing to identify the 4th except by characteristics. In the first 3 we have the interpretation of the statue and though history we know the succession of the kingdoms. Daniel 8 also gives that clear succession and I'm convinced we can then know the identity of the 3 beasts in Dan 7.

I don't think you disagree with this. So the lion the bear and the leopard are Babylon, Persia, and Greece. The 4th we don't know. But, and I know you don't want to go here but the parallel is too striking, Rev 13 is a very important clue.

Revelation and Daniel work together. Much like Jesus saying to look to Daniel for the truth of the A of D we should also have free rein to cross reference from Dan to Rev. The beast in Rev is described thus, "The beast I saw was like a leopard, with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion."

That is an important and necessary clue, the 4th beast is an amalgamation of the first 3 and it's the only place in all of scripture we see this. In my mind it would diminish our knowledge and understanding to leave this out. 

If we are to look to Daniel for the understanding of the A of D then we could, and should, also look to Daniel for the understanding of Revelation, and then from Revelation to Daniel. I don't think one decodes the other as much as they are both prophetic and relevant to the same time. 

Again, I realize you wanted to stay out of Revelation for the identity of the 4th beast but this particular clue is important. We aren't going to get any further evidence from Daniel for the identity of the 4th beast. Daniel has been written and set in stone. That being the case no definitive answer for the identity of the 4th beast is possible. 

This identity is crucial for understanding Dan 11.

From Daniel we can't say the 4th beast is any king or country unequivocally, only that we would know when we see the characteristics of that beast from Dan 7. You argue for Rome, as many do. I do not mainly because the beast isn't named like the first three, but also because the succession must continue as stated, 

 "...but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven.

9From one of these horns a little horn emerged"

There is no way the little horn can arise from any other than the 4 notable horns. If we say the four notable horns are where the 4 top generals consolidated power then the little horn is coming from Egypt, Greece, Turkey or somewhere in the region from the Levant to the Hindu Kush. 

I don't think history is obscure in the salient points. The details are like dark waters to be sure but the surviving cultures speak to the succession from Babylon to Persia to Greece and then the Diadochi. 

Lots of scholars fume at the gap from Greece to whomever, as if it's the point of emphasis for the conclusion the 4th beast is Rome. I don't see a gap in power and I think it's summed up thus, 

"In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, but will itself stand forever. 45And just as you saw a stone being cut out of the mountain without human hands, and it shattered the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold, so the great God has told the king what will happen in the future.

The dream is true, and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

These kingdoms survive till the end when Jesus returns. All four are still with us. Rome is not. 

Back to Rev 13 and "The beast I saw was like a leopard, with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion." the last beast is a mix of the three previous kingdoms: The Babylonian Lion [depicted in the Ishtar gate], the Persian bear and the Grecian leopard. So the last beast embodies all three. That doesn't seem possible unless one considers it's a regional power. Babylon, Persia and Greece all ruled from Babylon. Babylon was the seat of power of all three. All three ruled over the earth. That isn't going to change for the 4th beast. 

So from Daniel alone we can conclude it's the longevity of the 3 Precious Metal kingdoms, Greece, Persia and Iraq are still here and the succession of the kingdoms in the same seat of power, Babylon, and then the succession to the four notable ones makes sense and removes any power vacuum. 

I have long argued Daniel has prophesied a regional succession and power base. That's evident from the Dan 2 statue. Then why preclude the 4th from that same regional succession? If this holds true then the Iron Kingdom should have risen in that same region as the power over the earth. That would be Islam. So the Legs of Iron is Islam and the 10 toes is also Islam but a form where some are joined to it but not of it.

I liken it to the mingling of the Islamic culture in the countries of the world today.

"so the peoples will mix with one another, but will not hold together any more than iron mixes with clay."

I suppose this is just a mess. In my defense it's early and I'm in a bit of a rush.

If I remember I'll address your words in red, maybe tomorrow.

Diaste, thank you for taking the time to write this...... certainly well written but I feel I may have rushed you to respond with even more of your thoughts. I will also respond to this response a little later on but thanks again, Charlie